South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

molloyjh

jm08 wrote: »

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.






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.

If Ireland were challenging the on-field ruling then they would need to adjudicate on that. And they'd need to adjudicate on that before doing anything else.

former total

Moflojo wrote: »

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.

Fair play, that's a serious amount of work!

But what's the conclusion? I'm not sure how it's relevant if Stander creamed a player who was going for a garryowen or a player going for a chip & chase, both are equally against the rules.

I suppose you could argue it backs up Stander's lack of intent, but I think the light suspension implies that the judicial officer has already agreed with that.

Edit: sorry, I've just seen the title of the post. No, Lambie did not run into Stander. He is not in any way responsible for his own injury.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

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.

Sorry, but that's seriously reaching again. Lambie ran onto the ball and increased his speed when he received it. Based on the above unless he somehow came to a complete standstill the moment the boot touched his foot (a physical impossibility) Stander was always going to jump into his head.

At the end of the day that's the one and only relevant factor in the card. Stander jumped into Lambies head. Everything else is irrelevant noise. You cannot jump full force into a guys head like that for any reason. The end. It's incredibly dangerous and reckless.

In terms of the citing the minimum entry level for something like that is 2 weeks. Given that it wasn't intentional (and I'm sure CJ was remorseful etc) then it would receive the minimum entry level. With CJs record as good as it is plus the remorse and lovely tie he wore to the hearing it would be normal to reduce that to 1 week. So that is exactly what happened.

Moflojo

former total wrote: »

Fair play, that's a serious amount of work!

But what's the conclusion? I'm not sure how it's relevant if Stander creamed a player who was going for a garryowen or a player going for a chip & chase, both are equally against the rules.

I suppose you could argue it backs up Stander's lack of intent, but I think the light suspension implies that the judicial officer has already agreed with that.

I was just trying to quantify Lambie's contribution to his own injury. Stander has jumped into uncontested space in an attempt to block a kick. Lambie has run into that same space immediately after kicking the ball. There's a strong argument that Lambie has run into Stander just as much as Stander has jumped into Lambie.

If Stander had jumped straight through Lambie's starting position and landed beyond it you could certainly argue there was an attempt to take him out but, given that the two players started about 6 metres apart and met in the middle, it could be argued that there was no foul play at all and it was just an unfortunate collision.

Given that Lambie had four obvious chasers around him (all of them are flat to him, none looking for a pass) it was an unusual decision by Lambie to chase the kick himself.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

^Maybe they argued that very point at the hearing to prove there was no intent.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

There's a strong argument that Lambie has run into Stander just as much as Stander has jumped into Lambie.

No there isn't. Lambie was already moving forward and could not have stopped regardless of what Stander did or did not do. There is absolutely no case at all to be made that Lambie ran into Stander. You seem to be assuming that Lambie could somehow have remained in the exact position he was in when the ball touched his foot despite his momentum, never mind the fact that he never stopped moving forward.

Moflojo

molloyjh wrote: »

No there isn't. Lambie was already moving forward and could not have stopped regardless of what Stander did or did not do. There is absolutely no case at all to be made that Lambie ran into Stander. You seem to be assuming that Lambie could somehow have remained in the exact position he was in when the ball touched his foot despite his momentum, never mind the fact that he never stopped moving forward.

I've compounded my argument by saying it was unusual for Lambie to run forward onto his own kick, given the number of chasers around him and how the kicker's usual role would be to drop back into the pocket to act as sweeper. In that common scenario the kickers tend to put up the bomb and more or less stop where they've kicked the ball and begin to retreat as they assess the opposition's countering options.

molloyjh

Moflojo wrote: »

I've compounded my argument by saying it was unusual for Lambie to run forward onto his own kick, given the number of chasers around him and how the kicker's usual role would be to drop back into the pocket to act as sweeper. In that common scenario the kickers tend to put up the bomb and more or less stop where they've kicked the ball and begin to retreat as they assess the opposition's countering options.

As I've said a couple of times already he was always moving forward. In a situation like you are describing the kicker would tend to receive the ball standing still. He didn't. He ran on to it and accelerated before kicking. Even if he didn't intend to chase it his own momentum would have brought him forward anyway.

bilston

jm08 wrote: »

bilston wrote: »

It's always going to be very tight between those two. It's rare that they are both fit at the same time.

As for the WC I'm pretty sure Fitzgerald was there. Did he not score against Argentina?

He was there, just that Earls was the starter and Luke was on the bench. Earls has started every game he has been fit for since he came back from his long term injury. I think he along with Heaslip were the only players to start every game at the world cup. Fitz started one game (v Canada) and covered the bench otherwise.

Ah I see I misunderstood your post, I readnit as saying that he wasn't at the WC, as in not physically present. My bad.

dub_skav

The definitive point for me - and it is highlighted in the pic above - is that Murphy also attempted to block the kick.

Have a look at where he and Stander end up in the above picture and I don't think there can be any argument that Stander was blameless here.
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on.

MJohnston

dub_skav wrote: »

1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on.

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

irishbucsfan

MJohnston wrote: »

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

Dave Kearney would have dodged him

BrokenMan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Dave Kearney would have dodged him

Yeah well Zebo would have blocked the kick

dub_skav

MJohnston wrote: »

Hello, I'd like to introduce you to the boards.ie rugby forum :pac:

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

sydthebeat

dub_skav wrote: »

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

joe puts them on at 60, but theyre so slow they dont reach the field until the 78th minute

MJohnston

I think we'll have to see far earlier bench usage this week, altitude, leftover tiredness, etc.

former total

dub_skav wrote: »

I should have finished that thought:
1 week puts a line under it and thankfully we can all move on....to the burning question of which winger sits on the bench for 78 minutes.

Has to be Gilroy?!

You can't just drop a guy who sat on the bench for one of Ireland's most famous wins, and bring in a guy who's never sat on an Ireland bench before.

I know people want to see more variety in our approach to bench-sitting, and there are still people out there who think Joe's approach to riding the pine is too conservative, but Gilroy has earned another shot at that tracksuit.

Healy is just too unproven at this level of benching. Big risk. We just don't know how good he is at looking happy for his team-mates while he watches from the sidelines.

thomond2006

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

irishbucsfan

thomond2006 wrote: »

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

I think there might be one or two, but not a huge amount.

phog

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.

If I remember correctly the Joubert incident had nothing to do with a citing so I've no idea why you're trying to use that as a precedent.

You might weight the opinions of posters here on par with Joe or Kaplan but I certainly wouldn't.

I hope your last point isn't aimed at me, posting a few replies should hardly be seen as overreaction.

molloyjh wrote: »

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.

No, the red card took over from the citing commissioner, a red card is an automatic citing.

While it suits your argument to try and devalue the opinion of people like Kaplan & Schmidt in this I think you're being disingenuous to their knowledge of the disciplinary hearing.

If the argument is correct that the disciplinary hearing used the entry level for this type of offence what would a player that received a YC have got - two weeks with one week suspended? So in effect by CJ getting a red card he misses out on close to two games. As I said it smacks of face saving for the ref

former total

phog wrote: »

If the argument is correct that the disciplinary hearing used the entry level for this type of offence what would a player that received a YC have got - two weeks with one week suspended? So in effect by CJ getting a red card he misses out on close to two games. As I said it smacks of face saving for the ref

A player who got a yellow would have got no ban, unless the citing commissioner cited him and the judicial officer subsequently considered it a red card offence.

phog

More nonsense from the hearing

Rúaidhrí O'Connor ‏@RuaidhriOC

Ireland haven't yet received the written decision on CJ Stander's ban. Murphy says it's probably too late to appeal.

CMOTDibbler

phog wrote: »

More nonsense from the hearing

Ah now, to be fair it was a five hour hearing followed by another three or so hours. That's a lot of writing and editing to produce a final report.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

More nonsense from the hearing

Another thing that commissioner has previous in. Wasn't there something about the written judgement being delayed on the SOB incident as well?

Mr Tickle

thomond2006 wrote: »

If Ireland won the second test and the series I think it's reasonable to expect changes.

before last week i would have thought the thing to do would have been to target the first and last tests and see some rotation for this one to let people recover. with the altitude and the amount of knocks i resumed they'd have this one almost seemed like a lost cause.
Now i'm not so sure. SA looked shaken. there'll be a backlash this week but if we can get through the first half hour or so and dominate like we did (with 15 men) last week they might panic.

thomond2006

I'm pretty sure the ERC written judgments take a day or so. Keep the pitchforks in the shed for now.

Edit: Sorry, not being fair. If it causes a hindrance to appeal then I agree.

former total

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Ah now, to be fair it was a five hour hearing followed by another three or so hours. That's a lot of writing and editing to produce a final report.

And as soon as it's produced, the IRFU are going to comb every word of it looking for a technicality to object to. The guy has to get it right.

People are just looking for things to get outraged about now, so that somehow, it won't be CJ's fault.

CMOTDibbler

Mr Tickle wrote: »

before last week i would have thought the thing to do would have been to target the first and last tests and see some rotation for this one to let people recover. with the altitude and the amount of knocks i resumed they'd have this one almost seemed like a lost cause.
Now i'm not so sure. SA looked shaken. there'll be a backlash this week but if we can get through the first half hour or so and dominate like we did (with 15 men) last week they might panic.

South Africa have to win this one to have any chance of winning the series. If we give up the second test before it starts, we're playing into their hands.

Mr Tickle

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

South Africa have to win this one to have any chance of winning the series. If we give up the second test before it starts, we're playing into their hands.

and I presume that's why they put this one at altitude. had we lost the first then this would be a huge task. as it stands they have a chance to get back into the series.
Honestly i thought we'd be 1-0 down by now and any win in SA would be considered a success. Much harder to know what to do now.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

former total wrote: »

Has to be Gilroy?!

You can't just drop a guy who sat on the bench for one of Ireland's most famous wins, and bring in a guy who's never sat on an Ireland bench before.

I know people want to see more variety in our approach to bench-sitting, and there are still people out there who think Joe's approach to riding the pine is too conservative, but Gilroy has earned another shot at that tracksuit.

Healy is just too unproven at this level of benching. Big risk. We just don't know how good he is at looking happy for his team-mates while he watches from the sidelines.

Gilroy was excellent on Saturday. He really dove on the ball and was clinging on for dear life even though play had actually been stopped a few seconds before. That's the kind of intensity I like to see. Can he keep it up for 3 or even 4 minutes though?