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

Clearlier

First Up wrote: »

Have a look at the analysis in #870. Not even close.

Thanks for that. Just looked. I think that there's a simple but fatal flaw in that analysis which is that he uses the body (foot?) of the Aussie to determine the location of the ball. If you look at a replay of the pass you'll see that Phipps picks it up in front of him and shovels it out sideways, Foley OTOH has to reach back to catch the ball. That easily accounts for the 54cms measured.

aimee1

Quint2010 wrote: »

I thought that was a definite deliberate knock on by Folau. Should have been a pen IMO. Also that fumble by the Australian player close to his own line looked like a knock on. Once it hits the ground after he's touched it its a knock on right? That would have given us a 5M metre attacking scrum. So 3 big decisions including the definite forward pass that went the Australians way..

Kearney tackled while in the air too, just a pen, should have been a YC

stephen_n

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?

He had the ball cupped in his hand, there is no doubt it was a big ask but it's not impossible and no way was it an attempt to slap the ball down, if you can't contest the ball in the air because it's a difficult catch, it would make a mockery of most full backs!

First Up

Clearlier wrote: »

Thanks for that. Just looked. I think that there's a simple but fatal flaw in that analysis which is that he uses the body (foot?) of the Aussie to determine the location of the ball. If you look at a replay of the pass you'll see that Phipps picks it up in front of him and shovels it out sideways, Foley OTOH has to reach back to catch the ball. That easily accounts for the 54cms measured.

Foley had to reach back because he had anticipated the pass would come a split second earlier and had over-run Phipps.

Swiwi.

Steve Hansen is likely to sign on for another couple of years...

...which means Schmidt ain't going anywhere (if he ever was)

Schmidt vs Hansen 2017, Lions vs ABs, to decide the master of the world, galaxy, universe

You heard it here first!

Bridge93

Panel on Against the Head giving the reasons why Foley's try was given.

First Up

Bridge93 wrote: »

Panel on Against the Head giving the reasons why Foley's try was given.

Didn't see it and my On Demand service isn't working. What was the gist of the argument?

sydthebeat

First Up wrote: »

Didn't see it and my On Demand service isn't working. What was the gist of the argument?

Ref asked any reason i can't award the try.... which means he was happy with the grounding.
We couldn't get to hear the conservation with the tmo so we can't say anything about the pass. The panel agreed that it was probably flat.

First Up

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ref asked any reason i can't award the try.... which means he was happy with the grounding.
We couldn't get to hear the conservation with the tmo so we can't say anything about the pass. The panel agreed that it was probably flat.

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

rrpc

First Up wrote: »

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

ATH showed it properly, the direction of his hands indicated that the pass was flat. It certainly wasn't clearly forward as needs be for the try not to be awarded.

SaveOurLyric

rrpc wrote: »

ATH showed it properly, the direction of his hands indicated that the pass was flat. It certainly wasn't clearly forward as needs be for the try not to be awarded.

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

Bridge93

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

Well regardless of the argument over the pass, it was an Australia advantage anyway I think so they had a penalty 5m out on the way.

Clearlier

First Up wrote: »

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

I don't understand. You said up above that Foley overran the pass and had to reach back to get it thus the very nifty analysis that you guided me towards earlier was flawed as it used body position rather than ball position.

The TMO decided it was flat, the TV analysts at the game decided it was flat, Murray Kinsella thinks that it was probably flat, the guys on Against the Head think it was probably flat. Most of the posters on this thread seem to think that it was flat (open to correction on this if somebody wants to do a poll). Perhaps it might be worth taking another look and focusing on the ball and it's trajectory?

rrpc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass. Whether the player is stationary or moving that won't change. The ball didn't go forward, back a few pages ago someone did a gif analysis and at worst they figured it went a few centimetres forward. But their points of measurement were a bit arbitrary and someone else pointed out that the starting point was off in the gifs.

It was far too marginal for it to be called forward.

First Up

rrpc wrote: »

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass. Whether the player is stationary or moving that won't change. The ball didn't go forward, back a few pages ago someone did a gif analysis and at worst they figured it went a few centimetres forward. But their points of measurement were a bit arbitrary and someone else pointed out that the starting point was off in the gifs.

It was far too marginal for it to be called forward.

My reading is that Foley went a fraction too soon. Phipps was in the act of passing, saw where Foley was and adjusted instinctively. He didn't put it into Foley's breadbasket (even Jackson might have spotted that) but fractionally behind him - but still forward from where it left Phipps' hands. If Phipps had been moving forward it would have probably been OK but he was standing still or maybe even being (legitimately) rucked back.
If it happened on half way it wouldn't have mattered but those illegal inches or feet enabled Foley get close enough to get the grounding verdict. If that isn't gaining an illegal advantage I don't know what is.
The way the forward pass is now being reffed they might as well abolish it.

madzers

Few pictures from game
http://www.jmaddenphotography.com/ireland-vs-australia/

Quint2010

Phipps was not stationary. Zebo's counter ruck caused Phipps body to rotate and cause extra clockwise spin to be put on the ball. Like a golf shot the pass effectively faded ie went back and then forward in an arc. So not a forward pass.

First Up

Quint2010 wrote: »

Phipps was not stationary. Zeros counter ruck caused Phipps body to rotate and cause extra clockwise spin to be put on the ball. Like a golf shot the pass effectively faded ie went back and then forward in an arc. So not a forward pass.

Ah, so referees are now required to be experts in the Magnus effect?

henryporter

madzers wrote: »

Few pictures from game
http://www.jmaddenphotography.com/ireland-vs-australia/

A few Nice job!

Pudsy33

Did anyone see Murray Kinsellas piece on our second half defence yesterday? It's very impressive. Zebo put in two great hits to foil certain overlaps.

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass.

It's just a media soundbite. The "direction of the hands" thing came from a badly worded IRB document and they later clarified it, nothing changed there. It's all relative motion.

who_me

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's just a media soundbite. The "direction of the hands" thing came from a badly worded IRB document and they later clarified it, nothing changed there. It's all relative motion.

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

In any case, we shouldn't be relying on marginal forward pass calls 5m out from our line to save us.

First Up

who_me wrote: »

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

In any case, we shouldn't be relying on marginal forward pass calls 5m out from our line to save us.

Its only in the 5m from the line zone that it matters. If Foley had been even a few inches back he wouldn't have made it close enough to get the call for the try.

BoardsMember

who_me wrote: »

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

True, concentrating on movement of hands is only really relevant when the player passing the ball is moving forward at speed, which was not the case in this scenario.

stephen_n

Pudsy33 wrote: »

Did anyone see Murray Kinsellas piece on our second half defence yesterday? It's very impressive. Zebo put in two great hits to foil certain overlaps.

I remember one in particular late in the second half and he prevented a pretty certain try by closing down the pass, was very impressed with that one.

jacothelad

Zebo had a good game, pretty much as he always does. Examining everything a player does under the microscope will show many errors that are easy to criticise using 20 20 hindsight. Some players get it endlessly, usually as a weapon to elevate claims for one of their own supported players. Others get a free pass almost no matter what they do.

clsmooth

jacothelad wrote: »

Zebo had a good game, pretty much as he always does. Examining everything a player does under the microscope will show many errors that are easy to criticise using 20 20 hindsight. Some players get it endlessly, usually as a weapon to elevate claims for one of their own supported players. Others get a free pass almost no matter what they do.

Casey :eek:

Piliger

BoardsMember wrote: »

True, concentrating on movement of hands is only really relevant when the player passing the ball is moving forward at speed, which was not the case in this scenario.

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

sydthebeat

Piliger wrote: »

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

Nah, that was never the history of the game. One the pass went backwards it was fine, it didn't have anything to do with the geometry of the pitch. That only became an issue with the advent of tv replays and slo mo.

Mahatma Geansai

Piliger wrote: »

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

We could do so, but there would be a massive increase in the amount of forward passes in a game. Unless you want players to come to a stand-still before they are allowed to pass the ball, looking at the direction of the players hands remains the easiest way to account for the effect a player's momentum has on the flight of the ball.