South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

mjohnston it sums the game. we can only get our wingers involved with a boxkick, we can only crash ball otherwise. thats it. no more ideas

Watch the game. To say the wingers were only involved in attacks through box kicks is completely false. Watch the game back and tell me otherwise.

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

Watch the game. To say the wingers were only involved in attacks through box kicks is completely false. Watch the game back and tell me otherwise.

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Billysays no wrote: »

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

Because our wingers are average, at best.

thomond2006

Billysays no wrote: »

thomond, at some point in a game a winger is going to touch a ball. can you explain why a winger will never score a try in a game under current administration, and i mean a proper game not italy or scotland

Don't move the goalposts. You said our wingers didn't get involved except for box kicks, you imply we can only crash ball. That is not true. I don't care who scores the tries, it's irrelevant.

Billysays no

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Because our wingers are average, at best.

Tickle that is so wrong. Murray just plays crash ball and everybody seems to love it. Well I don't.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Billysays no wrote: »

Tickle that is so wrong. Murray just plays crash ball and everybody seems to love it. Well I don't.

Murray is the SH. He's not the coach. Unless a winger is standing right next to him how is he supposed to pass it to them? He passes it to someone on either side of him, they pass it to the next person, or don't. Your outrage implies that Murray literally never passes the ball and just takes it into contact himself everytime, which is not what happens.

Our wingers are average and that is a problem we have and that is why Schmidt has developed a game plan that plays to our strengths.

Billysays no

thomond2006 wrote: »

Don't move the goalposts. You said our wingers didn't get involved except for box kicks, you imply we can only crash ball. That is not true. I don't care who scores the tries, it's irrelevant.

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

Stheno

Billysays no wrote: »

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

Did you not get all if that Saturday?

Billysays no

Stheno wrote: »

Did you not get all if that Saturday?

got that with the u-20s. fantastic. got that with wales, with, all blacks with england. that was it

so what would i change. nothing. SA will kill us and it might as well be with JOE'S SELECTION. So it will be two walls and utterly horrible. But it is us? Munster, Leinster, thats it?

Hagz

Just me to clarify you. there were more Ulster player in the starting body than of Munster or Leinster. in truthful fact there were no Leinster player in the line of backs. So no Munster, Leinster. JOE'S SELECTION Ulster is it?

Billysays no

Hagz wrote: »

Just me to clarify you. there were more Ulster player in the starting body than of Munster or Leinster. in truthful fact there were no Leinster player in the line of backs. So no Munster, Leinster. JOE'S SELECTION Ulster is it?

How they play hagz, nothing related to ulster and connacht. Its bang stuff the munster and leinster teams know best.

Yeah_Right

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

I like the guy who thinks they're so bad if he watches a replay of the 95 final they'll lose it too

It would make Invictus watchable for me.

Billysays no

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Murray is the SH. He's not the coach. Unless a winger is standing right next to him how is he supposed to pass it to them? He passes it to someone on either side of him, they pass it to the next person, or don't. Your outrage implies that Murray literally never passes the ball and just takes it into contact himself everytime, which is not what happens.

Our wingers are average and that is a problem we have and that is why Schmidt has developed a game plan that plays to our strengths.

we have very very good wingers. we need to understand their function

nehe milner skudder

MJohnston wrote: »

Clearly no intent really, and he was punished enough on the day.

All intent in my opinion.shoulder to head , duty of care. All the usual tropes.

He was like an Exocet.

phog

thomond2006 wrote: »

Here's your answer.



http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/cj-stander-receives-one-week-ban-for-pat-lambie-tackle-1.2683390

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

MJohnston

Billysays no wrote: »

mjohnston it sums the game. we can only get our wingers involved with a boxkick, we can only crash ball otherwise. thats it. no more ideas. can i say i really, really, really don't like joe or would somebody get upset?

Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Did you even watch the game? Just as one example, Payne made a couple of absolutely delicious off loads to Trimble on the wing and I believe we scored soon after off the back of both of those.

Additionally, the kick and chase is one of our most potent weapons, and it'd be really foolish to suggest we should minimise it. One of the best moments of the game was when PJ hit the post with a penalty kick and when SA caught the rebound they were immediately smothered by Earls and then a bunch more then players soon after. That's a massive asset and we should use it and not write it off because a minority think it's boring (the rest of us don't).

You can have whatever feelings you want about a particular person, but you need to back that up with coherent disagreements about his decisions, which to be truly honest, I don't think you've managed at all since this tour began. You're beating Schmidt with the stick of former failings, and not offering any opportunity to allow for redemption, which is a real shame, because I think if you did, you'd be able to let yourself watch last Saturday's match and see how they've changed.

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

phog wrote: »

So it wasn't clear cut at all, in fact there were instances in the very game where CJ was carded that weren't punished nor cited

You have to judge incidents on their own merits. The article says there was a similar incident but the level of seriousness was different. From reading the article you linked the JO was thorough in his judgement and issued the minimum sanction after finding Stander guilty.

.ak

Billysays no wrote: »

Zzippy I fight a corner in what I believe. I don't apologize for that. I don't shower abuse on other users as abuse has been heavily showered on me.

You've been around here long enough to know not to argue/reply to a mod on thread.

The mod decision is final, if you have an issue with it PM the mod directly.

You've bitched and moaned about the way Ireland play - without being able to back up your posts with any logic or reason - you've ignored zzippy's warning and by doing so you've dragged the threat further down. At this stage I don't know if you're just trolling or not... No more warnings after this. You'll be taking a break from the forum soon if you keep this up.

RoundBox11

Billysays no wrote: »

I care. I really care. I want ability over brawn. I wan't to be excited. I wan't to enjoy a game. I wan't an experience.

So am I right in assuming you only developed your connacht obsession within the last year then, since they started clicking in attack?

former total

Adbrowne wrote: »

You have to judge incidents on their own merits. The article says there was a similar incident but the level of seriousness was different. From reading the article you linked the JO was thorough in his judgement and issued the minimum sanction after finding Stander guilty.

If there was anything in the le Roux incident mentioned in that report, you can be 100% sure it would have been discussed to death on boards.

I can understand how people refused to see anything wrong in Stander's actions, we see it every time an Irish guy lands in trouble, but to argue that getting a suspension is somehow proof that he did nothing wrong, that's a bizarre line of logic.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Nothing that you or anyone else has posted suggests the ban was there to cover up poor officiating. If they are going to ban someone it's only right that they do their due diligence first. They wouldn't be doing their job otherwise. We simply don't know how much of that due diligence was there to determine the seriousness of the offence and how much was to determine overall guilt. To say the deliberation taking time meant there was a possibility that he may be found innocent is disingenuous. It may have meant that. It may also have meant that they needed to determine the level of the offence, which is actually far more likely really.

EDIT: it's also worth pointing out that this isn't this cotton commissioners first drawn out deliberation. He has a bit of a history taking his time which only further indicates a business as usual situation.

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

irishbucsfan

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the right decision to red card CJ then I still can't see how someone would believe that the entire thing is a conspiracy to protect a referee.

Buer

There's some level of mental gymnastics at play here to explain away something that could be perceived as any sort of slight against a fan favourite.

Teferi

I've always been very interested in the Appeal to Authority fallacy.

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

It was 2 weeks reduced to 1 after mitigation. There are entry levels for each kind of offence, so one week was not thought up out of thin air. The red card was upheld. Refs have been hung out to dry before, just ask Craig Joubert. Prominent, knowledgeable rugby people's opinions are as relevant as those on here when it comes to disciplinary sanctions. There has been a clear move to stamp out any unnecessary head impacts and CJ was just unlucky IMO.

I think there's been a lot of overreaction to this. It's a one week suspension, CJ isn't missing a RWC final and he'll be fresh for the third test.

kuang1

thomond2006 wrote: »

It was 2 weeks reduced to 1 after mitigation. There are entry levels for each kind of offence, so one week was not thought up out of thin air. The red card was upheld. Refs have been hung out to dry before, just ask Craig Joubert. Prominent, knowledgeable rugby people's opinions are as relevant as those on here when it comes to disciplinary sanctions. There has been a clear move to stamp out any unnecessary head impacts and CJ was just unlucky IMO.

I think there's been a lot of overreaction to this. It's a one week suspension, CJ isn't missing a RWC final and he'll be fresh for the third test.

Nicely sums the whole thing up for me.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

If you ignore the calls from prominent, knowledgeable rugby people that it was the wrong decision to red card CJ in the first place then yes I can see why someone could think that the hearing was in fact dragged out to ensure they got the ban right but taking everything into account I think it's pretty obvious they didn't want to hang the ref out to dry and came up with a week's suspension to safe face and move on.

You aren't taking everything into account though. Plenty of "prominent, knowledgeable rugby people" have said it was the correct call. You seem to want to pick and choose what you consider to be evidence here. Everything that has happened is entirely consistent with what would have happened had the citing commissioner believed the red card was correct and entirely inconsistent with the citing commissioner believing it was incorrect. Refs have been hung out to dry on a number of occasions this season as well so there isn't even a case to be made for there being much in the way of precedence for covering up for refs.

If the opinion of a small handful of people who are in no way involved in the citing process is enough to make your conclusion on the citing process "obvious" then there can only be some serious mental gymnastics at play here.

jm08

Its a pity there isn't a copy of the judgement. When you read the newspaper report of what was said, they make it sound as if the ref was on trial, not CJ.

After hearing the evidence and submissions made by Gerrie Swart, representative of the player, the Judicial Officer was not satisfied on the balance of probability that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, was wrong when he issued the red card to the player.

Surely the Judicial Officer should have been ruling on whether it was a late charge with intent by CJ to injure Lambie, not whether it should have been a Red Card.

Moflojo

I accept the red card decision, reluctantly, but I think Pat Lambie's contribution to his own demise deserves some attention too. Lambie was attempting a disguised chip and chase where he initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' but was actually going to run onto it himself and attempt to reclaim it. As he shaped to kick the ball he looked like any outhalf who's about to kick a Garryowen, and Stander's attempted block reflects that he read it as such too; he jumped high. Ordinarily when an outhalf kicks a bomb like that he will immediately drop back into a sweeping role and allow his chasers (4 chasers set up around Lambie here) to contest the high ball (Biggar being the obvious exception), but in this case Lambie immediately sprinted after his own kick and, unfortunately, ran head first into Stander's hip.

To support my argument I've even gone to the trouble of creating the image below! In it I've overlaid the frame of the video showing Lambie's starting position when he kicks the ball, with Lambie circled in red. The red quadrant is taken from Lambie's starting position, and I've lined up the 22m line with the frame taken from where Stander lands. Stander is circled in yellow just as he lands after the collision. So Stander actually lands at least a metre in front of Lambie's starting position, with the collision between the two players happening two to three metres in front of Lambie's starting position. Given that there were four chasers lined up flat with Lambie, and that Lambie initially shaped to kick a 'bomb' rather than a chip & chase, I'd argue that Stander read it as a bomb and did not anticipate Lambie chasing his own kick.