Ireland vs Australia match thread, Saturday 22nd Nov. KO 4:30PM

Mahatma Geansai

Brilliant offload from POM. His skill level is just so high.

Worryingly, in the two SH tests, no backs beside Sexton and Murray passed and offloaded more than POM. POM had 7 passes/offloads in the two games, which was more than any back bar Bowe who equaled his tally. Heaslip did even better by making 10 passes/offloads in the two games.

Those stats are actually quite disappointing/depressed. They highlight our flaccid backplay which is the area in which we need to improve going forward. We got two great wins, but our attack can only improve going forward. Hopefully the ESPN passing stats are wrong, as our backrows being our top passers is a definite issue.

The Lost Sheep

Piliger wrote: »

He was loose, imprecise and in my view not up to the standard we normal expect. But I guess they have to be given big matches to learn and I hope he does. In my view also his southern hemisphere interpretation gave Australia an advantage in a number of incidents that Owens for example would never have allowed happen.

He let things flow(which I like and I do same when refereeing). I didn't see him as too bad. He refereed a few things quite different to what we expect but its something you just have to get on and deal with. Every referee has certain things they pull and others they let go

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it just me or was the ref somewhat lenient? I saw a few things from the stands that could have warranted a yellow card. A few tackles in the air, taking out a player off the ball and a deliberate knock on.

He let a lot go. Tackles in air were just about ok, touch judge's could potentially have flagged issues if they were deemed serious enough.

shuffol

shuffol wrote: »

definitely thought that Folau should've been binned for a deliberate knock on.

That was at the end of the first half right? If I was being cynical I could claim that Folau purposefully ended the first half illegally because Australia were in a poor field position. He slapped the ball forward!

wp_rathead

Deleted User wrote: »

That was at the end of the first half right? If I was being cynical I could claim that Folau purposefully ended the first half illegally because Australia were in a poor field position. He slapped the ball forward!

shuffol wrote: »

definitely thought that Folau should've been binned for a deliberate knock on.

Look from 44:03 - Falou tries to catch the ball

Interested Observer

durkadurka wrote: »

Watched it again on a hd TV. I'm convinced it bounced first.

Fair enough, the quality of the video isn't great there, it's what I was basing it on.

stephen_n

wprathead wrote: »

Look from 44:03 - Falou tries to catch the ball

Tried and damn near succeeded, if he'd managed to hold on to the ball, people would have been applauding his genius and athleticism instead of calling for a card, very fine margins!

vienne86

So there was Joe, running with the backs in the warm up.......in a fair bit of pain. Incredible effort, and the players won't forget that. Good to hear just now on RTE that he is progressing well.

mrbrianj

Great end to the year

After the AI's we have found out a few things

Jones is at the required level for RK's back up
Zebo is only as special as any of our wingers (what each of them bring balances what they dont).
We have a plan a and plan b (and probably plan c)
We should plan to hold on to the 6Ns title this season
We have depth - some guys are world class - if not fit the standard does drop, but the replacements are of international standard.
3rd in the world is not flattery. We could enter a test against any team in the top tier with a fair expectation of victory.

Roll on Feb!

shuffol

stephen_n wrote: »

Tried and damn near succeeded, if he'd managed to hold on to the ball, people would have been applauding his genius and athleticism instead of calling for a card, very fine margins!

He was reaching over his head at full stretch trying to catch a ball with one hand, whether he intended to catch it or not it wasn't realistically going to happen. How many times have you seen a ball caught like that?

Synode

shuffol wrote: »

He was reaching over his head at full stretch trying to catch a ball with one hand, whether he intended to catch it or not it wasn't realistically going to happen. How many times have you seen a ball caught like that?

Like this?

http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuffer

dub_skav

Synode wrote: »

Like this?

http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuffer

Practice makes perfect

To be fair it was Israel Folau, I'd say in his head he was catching that all day long, and if you gave him 10 tries he'd catch more than half.

nerd69

Synode wrote: »

Like this?

http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuffer

different sport, different ball and also those gloves obj was wearing make a massive difference fingertip catches are regularly made in the nfl they are not in rugby he batted down the ball his hand was moving forward you will notice any nfl wide receiver will cushion the ball with there hand there was no way folau was trying to catch the ball

MJohnston

Synode wrote: »

Like this?

http://www.gfycat.com/PointedKindheartedAtlanticsharpnosepuffer

Must be nice to be able to wear grippy gloves

phog

Re Falou's knockon.

I cant remember the game but Wayne Barnes gave his reasoning for penalising a player recently for blocking down a pass was that if the player wanted to catch the ball he'd have used both hands.

.ak

It wasn't a pass though, he was trying to field a kick. If he tapped it down he could've caught it with both hands. It was fine.

nerd69

to be honest with the "sure he touched it and he's good at catching the ball" logic thats being applied to the folau catch there should never be an intentional knock on call again

phog

.ak wrote: »

It wasn't a pass though, he was trying to field a kick.

I know it was a cross field kick but not sure the relevance when it comes to a deliberate knock on.

If he tapped it down he could've caught it with both hands. It was fine.

Why didn't he catch it so?

thomond2006

I don't know the exact law but on seeing it live I didn't think it warranted a penalty. It appeared to me to be a genuine attempt to catch and not an attempt to stop Zebo catching.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Why didn't he catch it so?

Just because he failed to catch it doesn't mean he didn't intend to catch it. I haven't seen it back so not sure about it myself, but Reid did something similar yesterday against Treviso. He got a hand up and blocked the pass and collected it again before it hit the ground. It's perfectly legal if you are genuinely attempting to get possession.

First Up

molloyjh wrote: »

Just because he failed to catch it doesn't mean he didn't intend to catch it. I haven't seen it back so not sure about it myself, but Reid did something similar yesterday against Treviso. He got a hand up and blocked the pass and collected it again before it hit the ground. It's perfectly legal if you are genuinely attempting to get possession.

Agreed but I'm puzzled why there is so much attention on this incident when the potential match-turning decision was awarding the Foley try. I can't recall such a blatantly wrong decision since the introduction of the replay system. It isn't as if the officials couldn't see it or if they had limited discretion over what to adjudicate on. If that pass had been back or even flat, Foley would have been tackled a good three yards short and would never have got it close.

errlloyd

First Up wrote: »

Agreed but I'm puzzled why there is so much attention on this incident when the potential match-turning decision was awarding the Foley try. I can't recall such a blatantly wrong decision since the introduction of the replay system. It isn't as if the officials couldn't see it or if they had limited discretion over what to adjudicate on. If that pass had been back or even flat, Foley would have been tackled a good three yards short and would never have got it close.

You're in for a treat my friend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCY6_iyOP5I

errlloyd

molloyjh wrote: »

Just because he failed to catch it doesn't mean he didn't intend to catch it. I haven't seen it back so not sure about it myself, but Reid did something similar yesterday against Treviso. He got a hand up and blocked the pass and collected it again before it hit the ground. It's perfectly legal if you are genuinely attempting to get possession.

If Reid hadn't caught that ball it was a penalty. O Mahony did something similar in the South Africa game and I remember the commentators remarking that if he hadn't caught it, it may have been a penalty.

I think it was a penalty if I am honest, I don't think he had any chance of catching it, and chose to knock it on. Purpose knock on, penalty.

.ak

phog wrote: »

I know it was a cross field kick but not sure the relevance when it comes to a deliberate knock on.

Because the manner of which a player attempts to catch a ball from a pass to a high ball is completely different? So Barnes idea wouldn't always apply to both situations.

phog wrote: »

Why didn't he catch it so?

He was unlucky. But it wasn't deliberate.

Clearlier

First Up wrote: »

Agreed but I'm puzzled why there is so much attention on this incident when the potential match-turning decision was awarding the Foley try. I can't recall such a blatantly wrong decision since the introduction of the replay system. It isn't as if the officials couldn't see it or if they had limited discretion over what to adjudicate on. If that pass had been back or even flat, Foley would have been tackled a good three yards short and would never have got it close.

I missed seeing it live as I had to go out but I heard Tony Ward banging on about it on the radio so I made sure to have a look and I don't think that it was forward. Murray Kinsella isn't convinced either. Phipps gets knocked backwards just after he passes it and Foley takes it almost behind him which makes it look like it might be a forward pass but when you ignore the player and just look at the ball it looks flat to me. It's certainly not a clear cut case.

.ak

I'm still amazed he beat Ruddock in the collision though. He was in a textbook bad body position with his flank exposed, Ruddock should've buried his shoulder into his kidneys and kept pumping his legs till he got the Liffey.

molloyjh

Clearlier wrote: »

I missed seeing it live as I had to go out but I heard Tony Ward banging on about it on the radio so I made sure to have a look and I don't think that it was forward. Murray Kinsella isn't convinced either. Phipps gets knocked backwards just after he passes it and Foley takes it almost behind him which makes it look like it might be a forward pass but when you ignore the player and just look at the ball it looks flat to me. It's certainly not a clear cut case.

Looking at the overhead view on Kinsellas article raises the grounding question again for me. Surely he was short, even after he placed the ball the second time?

Clearlier

.ak wrote: »

I'm still amazed he beat Ruddock in the collision though. He was in a textbook bad body position with his flank exposed, Ruddock should've buried his shoulder into his kidneys and kept pumping his legs till he got the Liffey.

You'd have to say that Foley did really well. He managed to get his hips into the collision area whilst moving away from Ruddock. I think that Ruddock would probably have needed to take a step to his right before making the tackle to hold him out. Even then he only just got there.

molloyjh

Clearlier wrote: »

You'd have to say that Foley did really well. He managed to get his hips into the collision area whilst moving away from Ruddock. I think that Ruddock would probably have needed to take a step to his right before making the tackle to hold him out. Even then he only just got there.

Exactly this.

MJohnston

Clearlier wrote: »

I missed seeing it live as I had to go out but I heard Tony Ward banging on about it on the radio so I made sure to have a look and I don't think that it was forward. Murray Kinsella isn't convinced either. Phipps gets knocked backwards just after he passes it and Foley takes it almost behind him which makes it look like it might be a forward pass but when you ignore the player and just look at the ball it looks flat to me. It's certainly not a clear cut case.

Whatever about either the forward pass or the grounding, because neither ultimately affected the outcome, but what I think should be straightened out is the rather haphazard communication between referee and TMO. That Kinsella article transcribes most of the conversation between the two and whilst it initially seemed like Jackson was asking the TMO about the grounding, he later says "don’t worry about the grounding". He also seems to ignore the advice from one of his assistants who was concerned about the potential forward pass. When the call finally came through, it seemed to me like Jackson couldn't actually hear the TMO and was just going based on his own judgement.

First thing is - I hate when the question is "any reason I can't award a try" because it just undermines the referee's own judgement, or ability to make decisions. IMO they should only be asking specific questions like "can you check the pass" or "can you check the grounding".

Second, if we're going to continue with this nonsense of muting the TMO, then the TMO should just be removed from the equation altogether. Let the referee ask for a video replay on a big screen and maybe consult with one of his assistants or something, but there should be transparency in this process. I understand why they're muting the TMO (because they want the ref to have ultimate control of the game, and the TMO decisions undermine that) but its still bull****. Especially when you have a confused conversation like the one there.

Third, they just need to hurry it up quite a bit. That decision took far too long to make, and they were just replaying the same angle over and over again.

.ak

Clearlier wrote: »

You'd have to say that Foley did really well. He managed to get his hips into the collision area whilst moving away from Ruddock. I think that Ruddock would probably have needed to take a step to his right before making the tackle to hold him out. Even then he only just got there.

Not taking anything away from Foley, he did incredibly well, but Ruddock is a tackling beast and Foley isn't a monster by any means. I think Ruddock wasn't expecting him to twist so much, but he'll definitely be beating himself over that tackle. He could've knocked him into tomorrow.