Does the Lions series need a decider?

A good number of people are calling for some way to decide a future Lions series. Not sure about the idea myself. On this occasion, the final match turned out to be a decider, but a draw in the second match could have left the Lions needing a win to square the series, which is another form of drama. That's what we were heading towards in 2009 before ROG was penalized at the death.

The only way to ensure that the series has a winner, is to make sure that all matches have a winner, which would mean playing extra time from match one. Draws have been part of rugby, and team sport in general, for ever, so I'd be concerned about losing something so basic to the game's DNA.

Can't help feeling the sponsors will want a winner, though. Especially since they commissioned a trophy to be held aloft by a victorious captain.

The sporting thing to do is to allow draws, just like every other game. Those weak minded marketeers who cannot understand the concept of a draw need a money shot, so 'sport' is just another word for business as far as they're concerned.

I am anti - golden point or even extra time, a draw is a valid outcome, it often is the fairest result.

A think a drawn series is a pretty fair reflection. It might be a little anti-climatic, but I wouldn't want to have to manufacture a result.

I would like to see Itoje against Retallick in a kicking contest though.

Rugby Fan wrote:The only way to ensure that the series has a winner, is to make sure that all matches have a winner, which would mean playing extra time from match one.  

Nonsense! It would be possible to just play extra time in the last match if the series is drawn.

So different rules for different games? That sounds fair!

It could be a valid option (3rd Test to go to extra time if winner not decided after 80 mins) as long as it was agreed before the tour.

I don't think it's necessary, but it's no different from a 2nd leg tie going to extra time in other sports.

In a knockout competition there have to be deciding factors. Supposedly the Lions used to be above such mere marketing fripperies.

The Great Aukster wrote:In a knockout competition there have to be deciding factors. Supposedly the Lions used to be above such mere marketing fripperies.

Yeah, but they used to play 30-odd games and about 7 Tests so they would miss the last boat home if they played extra time.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:The only way to ensure that the series has a winner, is to make sure that all matches have a winner, which would mean playing extra time from match one.  

Nonsense! It would be possible to just play extra time in the last match if the series is drawn.

Think of the example I gave. First match to the home side, second match drawn, then a win for the away side. How can you turn that into a result other than a draw?

Away tries should always count double in the event of Tests being even

Maybe it should be the least number of crooked lineouts?

A draw is still a result. No need to change.

They should award the series to the moral victors. The draw was a moral victory for the Lions and adds another 0.1 to the win tally.

NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Yes, i think it does. I was fully expecting another 10 minutes to added on. I really do  think a game of this importance, a game that only comes around every 12 years. Needs a decider.  

A FINAL SCORE SO ONE TEAM OR THE OTHER WINS OUT RIGHT.

ebop wrote:They should award the series to the moral victors. The draw was a moral victory for the Lions and adds another 0.1 to the win tally.

Cheeky

It's a compliment to you guys that a draw is being seen as a good result. It still feels a bit weird though. Nobody is really that over the moon.

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:They should award the series to the moral victors. The draw was a moral victory for the Lions and adds another 0.1 to the win tally.

Cheeky

It's a compliment to you guys that a draw is being seen as a good result. It still feels a bit weird though. Nobody is really that over the moon.

Disappointing not to win of course. But thought the Lions did exceptionally well to come down to our neck of the woods and win one and draw one. There's usually a degree of drama associated with Lions series and this one certainly didn't disappoint. It'll be one to remember and rehash and argue over.

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Yes, a pity it's only every twelve years. The ABs on the other hand make your unions rich every year. The poor effort tours by the individual countries are merely preludes to the Rugby championship.

ebop wrote:

Cyril wrote:

ebop wrote:They should award the series to the moral victors. The draw was a moral victory for the Lions and adds another 0.1 to the win tally.

Cheeky

It's a compliment to you guys that a draw is being seen as a good result. It still feels a bit weird though. Nobody is really that over the moon.

Disappointing not to win of course. But thought the Lions did exceptionally well to come down to our neck of the woods and win one and draw one. There's usually a degree of drama associated with Lions series and this one certainly didn't disappoint. It'll be one to remember and rehash and argue over.

Yeah, I've only really been following the tours since 97, but there's always some intrigue, controversy or talking points. I honestly thought the Lions would get smashed. I was feeling a bit jaded about the whole set-up but got more into the tour as it went on.

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Just noticed Hansen's comment:

“Rugby’s always had a draw, it’s not a World Cup final; it is a three-match series. My own belief is to probably leave it the way it is,” Hansen said.

“If you’re good enough to get a drawn Test series, then both teams deserve the credit that comes with that.”

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

That is true. As long as it makes him happy 

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby Fan wrote:Just noticed Hansen's comment:

“Rugby’s always had a draw, it’s not a World Cup final; it is a three-match series. My own belief is to probably leave it the way it is,” Hansen said.

“If you’re good enough to get a drawn Test series, then both teams deserve the credit that comes with that.”

 I'm with shag.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:Just noticed Hansen's comment:

“Rugby’s always had a draw, it’s not a World Cup final; it is a three-match series. My own belief is to probably leave it the way it is,” Hansen said.

“If you’re good enough to get a drawn Test series, then both teams deserve the credit that comes with that.”

 I'm with shag.

Yep, me too Laurie. Series reflected two even sides, neither willing, or good enough to take it outright where and when it counted. No clear winner, no clear loser.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

It's true I don't like the damage the Lions does to NH rugby and while there are some 'fans' who can't see that, I'll continue to point it out. Judging by the responses the time is far from wasted.

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

So you benefit and that equates to 'rubgy' benefitting - please elaborate?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

It's true I don't like the damage the Lions does to NH rugby and while there are some 'fans' who can't see that, I'll continue to point it out. Judging by the responses the time is far from wasted.

Some? Twenty five thousand like them enough to pay for flights and accommodation half way around the world to 'like' them. I don't know of any single other team that has that sort of following.

Think you're very much in the minority pal. How many others 'wanted' to come if time or money wasn't a factor?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

So you benefit and that equates to 'rubgy' benefitting - please elaborate?

I want to watch rugby (it's the only reason we're on this forum, yes?). I like the variety: club, international and Lions. I watch all three and would like to keep it like that. I appreciate that each overlaps the others and, obviously, there are compromises and attrition.

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

It's true I don't like the damage the Lions does to NH rugby and while there are some 'fans' who can't see that, I'll continue to point it out. Judging by the responses the time is far from wasted.

Some? Twenty five thousand like them enough to pay for flights and accommodation half way around the world to 'like' them. I don't know of any single other team that has that sort of following.

Think you're very much in the minority pal. How many others 'wanted' to come if time or money wasn't a factor?

50,000 used to go to the collosseum, but that didn't mean it was great for slaves or animals or gladiators or...

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

So you benefit and that equates to 'rubgy' benefitting - please elaborate?

I want to watch rugby (it's the only reason we're on this forum, yes?). I like the variety: club, international and Lions. I watch all three and would like to keep it like that. I appreciate that each overlaps the others and, obviously, there are compromises and attrition.

I understand the Lions has benefited you personally, but you said the concept benefited "rugby" so please elaborate?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

He's saying what he's always said, he doesn't like the Lions, but he does waste an awful lot of time pointing it out it seems.

It's true I don't like the damage the Lions does to NH rugby and while there are some 'fans' who can't see that, I'll continue to point it out. Judging by the responses the time is far from wasted.

Some? Twenty five thousand like them enough to pay for flights and accommodation half way around the world to 'like' them. I don't know of any single other team that has that sort of following.

Think you're very much in the minority pal. How many others 'wanted' to come if time or money wasn't a factor?

50,000 used to go to the collosseum, but that didn't mean it was great for slaves or animals or gladiators or...

But you're not one of them, and they didn't fly half way around the world to do so. More likely they rolled up in their late model chariots, grape bucket in hand.

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

So you benefit and that equates to 'rubgy' benefitting - please elaborate?

I want to watch rugby (it's the only reason we're on this forum, yes?). I like the variety: club, international and Lions. I watch all three and would like to keep it like that. I appreciate that each overlaps the others and, obviously, there are compromises and attrition.

I understand the Lions has benefited you personally, but you said the concept benefited "rugby" so please elaborate?

It's a brilliant date on the rugby calendar. If you're not a fan, fair enough. It tugs at the heart strings of plenty of rugby fans of both hemispheres though. While it's got its faults, I think this tour has done plenty to suggest it's not going away anytime soon. I'll admit I was a sceptic, but I've been known to be wrong.

Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

The Great Aukster wrote:Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

Write to your MP.

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

Cyril wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:NZ were the massive victors - they made ten to a hundred times the money the Lions did.

Aukster (what does that mean, by the way?), you're obsessed with money!

It's the reason the Lions exist these days and actually always was. In fact the only sensible way of measuring the success of a tour is how many pounds/euros/dollars it generates - the results on the pitch are incidental.

Isn't that true of all levels of professional rugby though and why the leagues are always chasing broadcasting rights and sponsorship money. Yes, it's a major cash cow (especially for the hosts) but it still generates a lot of interest and support.

What does Aukster mean?

In most professional rugby the proceeds are shared equally and on merit - the Lions is heavily weighted in favour of the SH.

Yes, but how is that different from how the hosts of world cups benefit?

Only SANZAR benefit by being hosts, there is no bidding process so totally different to the RWC.

Rugby benefits though. Against my better nature I've got the Lions spirit back again

So you benefit and that equates to 'rubgy' benefitting - please elaborate?

I want to watch rugby (it's the only reason we're on this forum, yes?). I like the variety: club, international and Lions. I watch all three and would like to keep it like that. I appreciate that each overlaps the others and, obviously, there are compromises and attrition.

I understand the Lions has benefited you personally, but you said the concept benefited "rugby" so please elaborate?

It's a brilliant date on the rugby calendar. If you're not a fan, fair enough. It tugs at the heart strings of plenty of rugby fans of both hemispheres though. While it's got its faults, I think this tour has done plenty to suggest it's not going away anytime soon. I'll admit I was a sceptic, but I've been known to be wrong.

I agree there is far too much money involved for the concept to disappear. Yet you said that rugby genetically benefited so I was simply asking how - other than the pots of money going into the SH game that is self-evident?

The Great Aukster wrote:Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

The individual players and coaches from the Lions probably gained a lot from playing a series in NZ and drawing it. Playing our SR teams would give them an insight into what makes our rugby tick. NH fans get to feel proud of their players for holding their own under immense pressure. It's not money but these intangibles may set British and Irish teams up for a good RWC.

The Great Aukster wrote:Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

What's best is what most people want, so yeas actually, it does.

Having been on a Lions tour in the past, the results are very important but not the be all to end all. For me it was about the trip and having loads of fun meeting players and fans from all walks of life.

One of my lasting memories of 05 (I still feel it today) was damn near breaking my knee in Rotorua during a traditional HAKA lesson followed by eating myself sick from eating too much food cooked in a Hungi?. The Lions lost that series but I still have very fond memories of it.

On the original question, no. I do not think we need a decider or extra time to see a victor. The result was a true reflection of the tour. Neither side able to take the series win.

Tew said this matter was considered in pre-tour negotiations.

"A long time ago, when we drew up the tour agreement, we would have considered how we would break a deadlock," he said. "We could have gone points for and against, we could have gone the number of tries, we could have gone to a penalty shootout, we could have played an extra 10 minutes ...

"But what we, in the end, determined was that if you played 24-odd minutes against each other and you're still locked up, then surely that's a reflection that the two sides are pretty equal.

"Imagine if it was last week's situation, where one team was down to 14 guys for 55 minutes and then had to play an extra 10 minutes of extra time ... would that have been a fair outcome, given they'd battled through the whole game with less players?

"Or if, at the end of extra time, you had a penalty shootout ... is that really how you want to determine who wins the series?"

"Extra time may have been interesting, but one team may have been able to manager their bench better than the other, simply because of circumstances," said Tew. "Anything could have happened that would have made that an uneven process.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11888064

Rugby Fan wrote:Tew said this matter was considered in pre-tour negotiations.

"A long time ago, when we drew up the tour agreement, we would have considered how we would break a deadlock," he said. "We could have gone points for and against, we could have gone the number of tries, we could have gone to a penalty shootout, we could have played an extra 10 minutes ...

"But what we, in the end, determined was that if you played 24-odd minutes against each other and you're still locked up, then surely that's a reflection that the two sides are pretty equal.

"Imagine if it was last week's situation, where one team was down to 14 guys for 55 minutes and then had to play an extra 10 minutes of extra time ... would that have been a fair outcome, given they'd battled through the whole game with less players?

"Or if, at the end of extra time, you had a penalty shootout ... is that really how you want to determine who wins the series?"

"Extra time may have been interesting, but one team may have been able to manager their bench better than the other, simply because of circumstances," said Tew. "Anything could have happened that would have made that an uneven process.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11888064

Fair enough, some good points. Personally I feel the result was a fair reflection of the two sides. The only time Infelt we were on top of the Lions was the first test. Second and third played out to the wire and ended up on it.

ebop wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Populist views by definition are held by the masses - doesn't automatically make them what's best for rugby, or more specifically NH rugby.

The individual players and coaches from the Lions probably gained a lot from playing a series in NZ and drawing it. Playing our SR teams would give them an insight into what makes our rugby tick. NH fans get to feel proud of their players for holding their own under immense pressure. It's not money but these intangibles may set British and Irish teams up for a good RWC.

There is no objective evidence that individual players (or coaches) will gain anything from this series other than an improved bank balance. The NH has enough SH players and coaches already that communicate what makes their rugby tick. The psychology that amalgamating sides is the ONLY way the home nations are competitive is very destructive to those individual nation's psyche. If they can't win as a collective then how on earth can they be competitive on their own?

Not only that but the selection of the players is capricious in the extreme. There is obviously no good way to objectively determine that one player is better than another and at the end of the day rugby is supposed to be a TEAM game. Some players may rely on their teammates (who were not selected) to allow them to play the way they need to for their normal team. Having to sleep with a different partner for six weeks every four years puts a severe strain on the marriage at home. Those left behind try to muddle through with sides shorn of their backbone stars - in other words sides that will never see a RWC. So two years out from a RWC four tier one nations lose a complete season of team development, while their likely opponents are in full development mode. That is supposed to benefit NH rugby - pull the other one.