http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00lft0j/5_live_Sport_5_live_Lions_02_07_2009/

This is a BBC Radio programme hosted by Matt Dawson. It features an interview with IRB head referee Paddy O’Brien who gives a frank account of how he saw the refereeing of the yellow card incident.

If you don’t have time to listen to it, in summary, O’Brien makes the following points:

1) Assistant referee Lawrence should be congratulated for spotting what Burger was doing because most gouging incidents are only picked up after a game has finished with a review of the video incident.

2) He maintains that if Lawrence had clearly seen gouging, he would have had no hesitation in recommending a red. He says that none of his referees think that gouging warrants any less than a red.

3) He believes that Lawrence saw fingers around the eye area but did not witness the actual gouging. Although he may have suspected it had taken place, he did not recommend a direct red because he had not seen it.

4) One of the trial ELVs which was rejected was the option to use the TMO to review instances of serious foul play. O’Brien points out that if the TMO option had been available, Burger’s gouging could have been identified and a red card issued. O’Brien has no doubt that the video evidence shows gouging.

5) He accepts that there were language difficulties which didn’t help the situation. Berdos speaks and understands good English but the cauldron of a Test might have been a factor. He points out that no referees from Ireland, Wales, Scotland, England or South Africa were used because of the Tour agreement which limited the top officials who could participate.

6) He believes the eight week penalty imposed by the tribunal is too lenient.

The interview begs as many questions as its answers but I think O’Brien deserves some credit for making these views public.

Incidentally, I thought it was very dumb of Shaw to go down with his knees in today’s game. If he’d tried to win the ball instead then the Lions had a good position. Shaw used a knee against NZ in 2004 and was sent off for it and the same could so easily have happened this time.

As far as the Test XV goes, It looks like we would have done well to go with the Welsh front row and then used Sheridan as an impact sub. Murray looked good in his set pieces so it’s possible he might even have done better than Jones. South Africa say they remembered how he got the better of the Beast when they last met. Those non-Test games gave us few clues about our best front 5.

Actually, they didn’t help us much in the back row either. I reckon Ferris would have made the Test XV ahead of Croft and an All-Irish back row of Ferris, Heaslip & Wallace might have had the advantage of cohesion that served the Welsh front row unit well. Since Ferris didn’t make the Tests, I reckon Croft is a fair choice. On the strength of their performances across all games, I just can’t choose between Williams or Wallace. If we had played the game how we planned, however, Williams would have suited us better.

Shaw and POC seem right for the second row. I’ve always been liked Shaw so I would have played him in the first Test. Disappointing that he blotted his copybook with that knee.

Phillips had a good tour which was lucky for the Lions because neither Blair nor Ellis challenged him. Jones didn’t let the team down either but I wouldn’t have minded seeing what James Hook could have done at no 10 with BOD & Roberts.

Kearney at full back, Bowe on the wing (although, like Heaslip, he was too quiet in the first two Tests) are fair enough. I might agree with Monye because he performed well over the tour and probably copped more than his fair share of criticism over those two missed tries. However Fitzgerald also looked OK and an all-Irish back three could have had some advantages. In the end, though, it could have been a better idea to try Byrne at 15 and use Kearney in tandem with Bowe on the wing but we’ll never know if that would have had the right balance.

Bok B team deniability in the dead rubber aside… your mob were more eager to earn their keep

Of coarse if this was a crunch match …

15. Rob Kearney
14. Tommy Bowe
13. Brian O’Driscoll
12. Jamie Roberts
11. Ugo Monye
10. Stephen Jones
9. Mike Phillips
8. Jamie Heaslip
7. Martyn Williams
6. Tom Croft
5. Paul O’Connell
4. Simon Shaw
3. Gethin Jenkins
2. Mathew Rees
1. Andrew Sheridan

Honourable mentions to Phil Vickery, James Hook, Keith Earls, Luke Fitzgerald, and Joe Worsely (and maybe grudgingly Shane Williams).

Congrats to the Boks for winning the series – they beat Lions fair and square 2-1.

Congrats to the Lions for a overall tour win record of 8.5 – 2.5. O’Connell stood up today as captain and led his team brilliantly from the front. Shane Williams managed to retrieve his reputation with two well-taken tries and Monye left Boks trailing in his wake for his intercept try.

Kearney played out of his socks again along with Jamie Heaslip who was my man of the match – he was everywhere.

Lions outscored Boks 7 tries to 5 and had overall points margin of 11 points across the three tests. They lost the series but all talk of a whitewash or a resounding thumping for the Lions is well put to bed.

Congrats again to Boks and the season is finally over for NH. It’s been one of the best from where I’m sitting.

So there was this one guy who was near the ball, so I grabbed hold of the nearest thing of his – which just happened to be his head as it turned out but I didn’t know that at the time, and I had to use these things at the end of my arms called hands to do that. And my hands have fingers which I then carefully placed around the head – though it might have been his bottom for all I knew at the time, and I puled gently. Before I knew it, there was daylight above us, and I could see what I was doing. And so could the linesman. So I readjusted my fingers on the players face to see if I could feel who it was – Bakkies had told me about Mike Phillips’ blue eyes, and I kinda had been hoping to get a glimpse of them up close, but it turned out to be this Irish bloke Fitzgerald. He was overcome with emotion about the whole test and was crying a bit – his eyes seemed to be quite red.

Lovely guy as it turns out yer honour, his dad used to play as well apparently as I found out when I was having a beer with Fitzy later on and we were having a laugh about it all – and how unintentional it all was.

Hudson found that: ” not to be an intentional act on the part of Burger. I accept Burger’s evidence that he did not intend to make contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.”

He also said that: “his actions were clearly reckless. That is he knew or should have known that there was a risk that his actions could result in an act of foul play – that is contact with the eye area of Lions No 11.”

Regarding the injury to Fitzgerald: ” the contact could not be described as simply trivial. It is clear on the report of the Lions doctor that there was initially redness and swelling about the left eyelid and there was some short lived tearing and blurred vision.”

“I am unable to conclude that there was eye gouging in the sense of a ripping or aggressive intrusion of the eye area, but I do conclude that there was contact in the left eye area which while not serious in the result, cannot be described as insignificant.”

“I find that in this case the appropriate entry level for the determination of sanction is the lower end.”

And finally: “Burger is clearly a fine rugby player with fifty test caps and many national and international accolades.
I have heard a great deal of Burger’s fine character off the field. I accept the evidence of Mr (Arthob) Petersen, manager of the Springboks and Mr (Dick) Muir, assistant Springbok coach in this regard.
Burger’s record is quite good for a player of his experience. Importantly he has never been disciplined for any offence related to the face of any player. Burger expressed remorse for these events at the hearing and conducted himself appropriately throughout the hearing.

The above all constitute mitigating factors which I have concluded will apply to reduce the period of suspension. Burger’s suspension will be reduced from 12 weeks to 8 weeks. He is suspended from playing rugby until midnight 22 August 2009.”

On foot of this, Burger decided to apologise for the incident. To his team-mates and Bok fans that is. For being absent from the match for ten minutes. And he’s happy that he’s been found innocent, too:

“I am therefore grateful that the judicial officer confirmed my stance with his conclusion that there was no deliberate eye-gouging as charged by the citing official. I will always play the game as hard as possible within the rules.
I apologise to my supporters and fellow team-mates for the fact that I have been absent for the first 10 minutes of the second Test. I look forward to returning with zest in due course.”

So, even though he might have not-deliberately eye-gouged a Lions player, he can only manage to apologize to his team-mates.

What a class act.

Also, I would have probably played Monye there over Bowe as well. Monye has a bit more power and I think that would complement Flutey’s subtleness.

Slightly surprised to see Worsley there, but I know why Geech has done it.

I would have had Flitzgerald over Williams, but apart from that the team looks ok, considering the amount of injuries the Lions have.

15 Rob Kearney,
14 Ugo Monye,
13 Tommy Bowe,
12 Riki Flutey,
11 Shane Williams,
10 Stephen Jones,
9 Mike Phillips,
8 Jamie Heaslip,
7 Martyn Williams,
6 Joe Worsley,
5 Paul O’Connell,
4 Simon Shaw,
3 Phil Vickery,
2 Matthew Rees,
1 Andrew Sheridan.

Replacements: 16 Ross Ford, 17 John Hayes, 18 Alun-Wyn Jones, 19 David Wallace, 20 Tom Croft, 21 Harry Ellis, 22 James Hook.

No particular surprises in the selection, once you factor in all the injuries. It’s a pity that Keith Earls didn’t get a chance of a run-out in one of the Tests, but he’s young enough to get another opportunity if he develops further.

Bowe at 13 will be interesting given his penchant for moving in-field from out on the wing. Kidney will probably watch with interest to see if there’s a BOD replacement to be developed for the longer-term.

I think Hook should be in starting at 10, rather than Jones.

If John Hayes is used as a sub, I’ll eat my hat.

The Boks played well in the second half, but the breakdown was an awful mess. Paddy O’Brien has a lot to answer for. So many of the refs on the weekend shouldn’t be reffing tier 1 rugby.

I was also disappointed with Lions defence off first phase ball.

But, all in all, I feel these Lions have done Britain and Ireland very proud and deserve a huge amount of credit, especially after the debacle of the last tour.

Every the lions players involved in that last saffer try should hang their head. One bloke just watched him slide for the line and didnt even really try to get under him.

Was thinking during the game that:
1) Karney may well be on track to being the best 15 in the world right now.
2) Is Jones the most inform 10 on the globe? I never rated him but hes shown plenty recently. Gits and Carter are clearly better but with Carter out and Gits hardly being test thus far, Jones is up there.

what about o’gara – missed tackle which led to a try and conceeding a penatly… he pretty much cost the lions there series

it was a shame it desended into uncontseted scrums as it was shaping up as an epic battle in that facet of the game.

what a difference shaw made and i thought kearney was a revelation at full back, he had a masterful game.

at the end of the day you have to hand it to the boks. they probably shouldnt have got away with a win but did. whats telling is that thier best players were probably all subs – brussow, fourie, steyn.

Feel for the Lions fans, but as I say, they earned respect on this tour, in my opinion.

Well done Springboks! You do need to make some personnel changes in the team that’s for sure, and I hope the selectors find some wisdom. Steyn MUST start the next test, and Brussouw HAS to start. Schalk will be banned, and will deserve every minute of the ban. He was not ready to play test rugby yet and the selectors should be ashamed of themselves for picking people who played well last year, but have not found form this year, nor have they played rugby in ages. Pienaar is a very good rugby player and could well be a great future flyhalf, but he hasn’t played rugby for months and should have started from the bench.

Go Bokke!

Kearney and Shaw were my men of the match for the Lions. Great try by Habana – Beautifully executed.

Is the end of Lions tours? I hope not. Worthwhile watching just for the action and competition.

You should read the excellent article from Jon Harris over on the rugby365 website. He says:

“They had Lee Mears in at hooker with Vickery and Gethin Jenkins. Jenkins and Vickery are both 1,88 metres (6’2″) tall, while Mears is 1,73. (5’8″). This disparity caused an imbalance in the scrum. Now one may say that Vickery scrums with Mears for England, which is fair comment, but balancing that front row out, is the immensely effective Andrew Sheridan, whose size and strength adds a tremendous amount of power and balance to a front row and gives it stability. This was the job Os du Randt did for the Boks until his retirement. Mears was chosen for his loose play and mobility, and when it came to lending bulk and technique to Vickery, he was found wanting.

Props and hookers work in unison, lending strength to a particular area of need. Mears was under pressure from du Plessis and had his work cut out for him, he had nothing to spare to help Vickery, which is a normal expectation. Everyone is calling for the head of Vickery, which to this prop is unfair. The position of hooker should attract some attention. Matthew Rees played more than a small role in steadying the Lions scrum when he was brought on, and should be acknowledged for that”.

Everyone else can see that Lee Mears was “found wanting”, KO. Why can’t you?

Enough said.

Although, I think enough had been said when you confidently asserted that Sylvain Marconnet was a tight head, or maybe it was when you suggested that Phil Vickery was a world class scrummager, or maybe… I just lose track of your gems, Viscount.

“But it’s not just about him [Vickery] but also those guys immediately next to him [i.e. Mears] and behind him”.

Enough said.

He played well, but I wouldn’t call it devastating. Also, are you talking about his scrummaging work (which I assume you are) or his other work around the park? Who was at prop for Brive? And another point it was Worcester, not a renowned scrummaging side. It’s not at international level.

Vickery has never been a great scrummager. In the Autumn and early in the six nations (if not all), he constantly lost his bind.

However, although I believe Mears is a good scrummaging hooker, Sheridan, because of his height has struggled, when packing down with him. It’s the same at Sale, with Bruno, a stronger and I think taller hooker, Sheridan generally dominates, where as with a smaller, quicker hooker like Briggs, he struggles a bit. You saw in the six nations when Hartley came on how the English scrum improved. Then again, you only have to look at the Bath scrum to see what a good unit that is and how it at least provides a solid platform, if not pushes the opposition scrum backwards.

Mears had a poor game in the line-out, but that can also be disputed. The calling could be at fault by O’Connell, as could the lifters. Hayes’ work in this area for Ireland can’t be underestimated. He was also part of the unit that apparently had the best line-out stats in the Guinness Premiership.

‘I have certainly never said that he isn’t consistently poor either.’

I have certainly never said that he is consistently poor.

Btw, I’ve also played hooke, and Mears only makes Vickery vulnerable to du Plessis, and not Mtawarira, as Viscount suggested.

The issue for me is that, just as in 2003, you have to work it out on the pitch or change the personnel because there is no use hoping that a ref will change his interpretation once he believes he’s seen something. The South African commentators think O’Connell got up Lawrence’s nose but even a captain of the calibre of Johnson couldn’t influence Watson in 2003. I think the Lions’ scrum should have been on red alert after the second penalty but they didn’t attempt to change anything, preferring to hope that the referee would even out the penalty count which means they weren’t reading Lawrence correctly.

It took England 80 minutes to work out they were going to have to bring Jason Leonard on to please Watson. I just wish the Lions could have bitten the bullet as early as the 35th minute and substituted Vickery. Adam Jones, just by being a different player, gave the referee an opportunity to put fresh eyes on the scrum and, from that point on, he was fine. I think the Mears argument above is largely irrelevant. Yes, he made Vickery more vulverable – and visible as far as the ref was concerned – but it was never the issue that Lawrence decided it was.

The irony is that Vickery could play in front of next week’s referee and not have a problem but I can’t think the Lions will want to risk it. They’ll also want to keep some momentum going from that second half so you have to think that some of those second half boys will get a start.

Any news on the injuries for BOD & Byrne?

Oh my goodness, you’ve done it again. Nearly every time you come on here you say something utterly ludicrous. I salute you. Marconnet can play loose and tight, but has actually played the majority of his games on the loose head, where in fact he started his career. Great stuff, Viscount. Marconnet and de Villiers anyone? I’m pretty comfortable with my French propping history, thank you very much.

2. Passing comment on Mike Phillip’s slow service does not require somebody to have played scrum half because it is something that occures openly, although as it happens I did play 4 years of scrum half up to the age of 15. Front row play is an experience based business and is something that isn’t obvious to the untrained eye. If it was so easy to judge then referees wouldn’t make so many bad calls.

3 & 4. That’s a bit more measured, well done. Could have been said a little earlier, though. Btw, you didn’t specifically mention AWJ, you merely referred to 2nd row grunt. Also, you did say that Vickery and Thompson were ‘world class’ and ‘very good’ respectively (or something similar) and regularly dominated teams etc.. Surely it’s a bit of a withdrawal to go from that to merely ‘competitive’?

5. How can Mears have any effect on Vickery being popped? Please explain.

6. I’m not loathe to admit that Rees helped, but by that point both starting Springbok props were off so it is hard to accurately judge his impact. The Wales scrum has hardly been any great shakes and that has regularly contained the Jenkins, Rees, A. Jones and A.W. Jones. The startling point is this parallel: Vickery and Mear play – the scrum is horrible, Jones and Mears play – the scrum is strong. Case closed.

7. ‘Hooker, incidentally, is a much more difficult position to analyse than prop for the simple reason that the hookers are hidden from observation.’

How can you single out Mears if this is true and you haven’t experienced the hooking position? In any case, Thompson may well be improved but I find it perplexing that you would laud his tight impact for England and yet admit he had technical issues. You cannot survive at test level simply by being big, you survive with technique. And actually, test level propping is not hugely different from test level hooking if you have that technique. 15 years ago, yes. Not now.

8 & 9. Croft’s reactive jumping DID work for England. Borthwick did not call the defensive lineouts, Croft stood at the front and simply jumped. Why shouldn’t he be charged with running a lineout? Matfield openly admits that his jumping is completely reactive and depends on how he perceives his opposition during the match. Btw, I can’t find any reference to AWJ or O’Connell.

10. Based on what evidence?

1. Sylvain Marconnet is a tight-head. So is Vickery. The two have never packed down against each other. It’s surely advisable not to make such elementary mistakes if you want to be taken seriously.

2. What earthly difference does it make whether a chap has played in the front row or not? If only people with direct experience are permitted to comment, then we might as well all go home now. You’re happy to comment on, for instance, Mike Phillips despite having (one assumes) no experience of playing at scrum-half, itself a specialist position.

3. I said that the English scrum was “consistently competitive”. I did not say that it was great. It was very good (as you say), and now it’s average. I think Mears is partly (though not completely) responsible for that.

4. I did accept that AWJ must bear some part of the responsibility. I stated precisely that. Do try to read and filter before pressing “Reply”.

5. You’re right. Beast turning in is precisely why Vickery was popped. But this happens in every match. Props will try what they can get away with. Normally a tight-head and hooker together are strong enough to resist such pressure. Mears and Vickery weren’t. The latter must take his share of the blame, yes, but so too must Mears.

6. Jones improved the scrum. That is startlingly obvious, and I have happily stated as much. It was equally obvious that Rees improved the scrum. Why are you so loathe to admit that?

7. Regarding Thompson, he has spoken at length of how the demands of the Top 14 have helped him to improve his scrummaging. If you watched his devastating performance for Brive at Worcester, then’d you know what I’m talking about. Hooker, incidentally, is a much more difficult position to analyse than prop for the simple reason that the hookers are hidden from observation. We can see what’s happening to a prop in the scrum; it’s more difficult to see what’s happening to a hooker. Hayes, Tialata and Johnston are all – and I shouldnt really have to point this out – props, and the technical demands on them are greater than the technical demands on a hooker.

8. No, it did not “work for England” in the 6N. This is complete ignorance. Steve Borthwick calls the English lineout. Croft does what Borthwick tells him to. At Leicester, he does what Kay tells him to. The notion that a complete novice should run the Lions lineout on his debut is just complete fantasy.

9. Perhaps you mean not that Croft should have run the lineout but that he should have been used more? Perhaps. But would you have backed Mears to find anybody on today’s form?

9. Again, you are distorting my words. I have singled out several players, Mears, Vickery and AWJ among them. You are happy to single out AWJ and Vickery but, for some bizarre reason that I cannot hope to grasp, have placed a protective field around Mears.

10. Mears is not a terrible scrummager. He’s just not a terribly good one. We need a little more at this level, I’m afraid.