South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

As it happened I thought nothing in it - in slow motion I thought maybe a red card coming up, when ref asked to see it in real time I thought he'd get a yellow card. At the time I said the red card was harsh, I still believe that to be the case.

So did you actually answer my question there or not? The only judgement you seem to have made in that post is that there was nothing in it and he should not have been punished at all for it. Subsequently you mentioned what you thought might happen rather than what you thought should happen. So you think there should have been no sanction at all, is that correct? And why is it taking so long to get a simple straight forward answer to a simple, straight forward question?

molloyjh

Adbrowne wrote: »

if Lambie jumped up straight away it would be because he didnt take 17 stone of rugby player square in the head at full tilt. If Stander bundled Lambie over without connecting with his head then it would have been a penalty, maybe a YC.

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

leakyboots

If Lambie hadn't been injured, I think the ref would have

a) Done nothing and let play on
b) Called a penalty where the ball landed and had a word with CJ
c) Penalty and yellow carded him

I think the injury made him give a red, he reffed the injury and not what caused it. I didn't think it's a red either. Most people I've spoken to/read about thought it was harsh, molloyjh is very much in the minority from what I've come across.

I'd have given a yellow, I'd be the same if it happened us with Jackson.

Either way, a red is plenty for me, didn't think it warranted a ban on top.

Given they could potentially have suspended CJ more, happy enough with a week 'cos he'll be back for the final test. Take it on the chin and move on

leakyboots

Just to add, if you start reffing injuries you get situations where players go down the soccer route of playing up things like high-tackles in an effort to get opposition players in trouble

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

i know you cant compare different incidents but ive looked at a few on youtube and googled the ban. Some players have got 4-6 week bans despite the player they offended against getting up and playing on.

If that incident happened in a leinster v munster game, say Jordi on Holland, I think some peoples opinion about the punishment would be very different

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

So did you actually answer my question there or not? The only judgement you seem to have made in that post is that there was nothing in it and he should not have been punished at all for it. Subsequently you mentioned what you thought might happen rather than what you thought should happen. So you think there should have been no sanction at all, is that correct? And why is it taking so long to get a simple straight forward answer to a simple, straight forward question?

What part of the reply did you not understand?

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

A mistimed tackle is not foul play.

What sort of punishment would you give to Manu Tualagi's tackle on David Wallace which finished his career. (Ireland were given a penalty for it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

CMOTDibbler

leakyboots wrote: »

If Lambie hadn't been injured, I think the ref would have

a) Done nothing and let play on
b) Called a penalty where the ball landed and had a word with CJ
c) Penalty and yellow carded him

I think the injury made him give a red, he reffed the injury and not what caused it. I didn't think it's a red either. Most people I've spoken to/read about thought it was harsh, molloyjh is very much in the minority from what I've come across.

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

The Lost Sheep

jm08 wrote: »

A mistimed tackle is not foul play.

What sort of punishment would you give to Manu Tualagi's tackle on David Wallace which finished his career. (Ireland were given a penalty for it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

A mistimed tackle is foul play if it can be considered early, late or dangerous.

CMOTDibbler

phog wrote: »

What part of the reply did you not understand?

The part where your simple answer was; nothing, red, yellow. :pac:

jm08

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

A mistimed tackle is foul play if it can be considered early, late or dangerous.

I think to be foul play, you need intent to do harm.

foul play

n.1. Intentionally violent or injurious behavior, especially that suggestive of a criminal act.
2. Inappropriate, unethical, or unlawful conduct, especially to disadvantage an opponent.

CMOTDibbler

jm08 wrote: »

I think to be foul play, you need intent to do harm.

foul play

n.1. Intentionally violent or injurious behavior, especially that suggestive of a criminal act.
2. Inappropriate, unethical, or unlawful conduct, especially to disadvantage an opponent.

It's already been defined for you. From the actual laws of rugby no less. No need for online dictiionaries.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

What part of the reply did you not understand?

Exactly what your opinion was. I asked what you think should have happened. Your eventual response had 3 distinct points:

1. You thought there was nothing in it
2. You thought he might get a red (not that he deserved a red)
3. You thought he might get a yellow (not that he deserved a yellow)

This is quite an easy thing. I asked you what should have happened. A 1 line answer saying exactly what you think should have happened answers that. You have 4 options. Please pick one for clarity (I know you don't agree with option 4 but it's there as an option anyway):

1. No sanction, play on.
2. Penalty only, no card.
3. Penalty and a yellow card.
4. Penalty and a red card.

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's already been defined for you. From the actual laws of rugby no less. No need for online dictiionaries.

There is great need for dictionaries, online or otherwise as you don't understand that for it to be foul play, there must be intent.

Read the rugby laws again -

d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e)
Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

Sanction: Penalty kick

Hagz

But even if you accidentally run into one of your own players it's a penalty kick.

leakyboots

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

Intent comes into it then, I don't think CJ intentionally went out to injure Lambie in this instance with his actions.

Edit: as for 'not in the minority here', I don't use here as a yardstick alone. There is a higher proportion of fans from Leinster here that some of whom may be slightly biased against CJ for provincial reasons. You're obviously welcome to point out that I can be biased too as CJ plays for my team, perhaps that is the case. But go have a read on the comments pages of international websites.

FACECUTTR

I cannot wait for the second test so this repetitive vomit stops.

Mr Tickle

Fergus McFadden says it was intentional

pickarooney

Can we close the match thread now?

sydthebeat

jm08 wrote: »

.... for it to be foul play, there must be intent.
]

thats patently incorrect... and can be very easily substantiated

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=63

'intent' only comes in 2 of the 19 laws of "foul play" in rugby

count them, hint its in (k) and (o)

leakyboots

That's a big statement from Ferg. (I won't go into his own disciplinary woes this season ) CJ actually touched the ball in flight, he was committed to the charge down, not to hurting Lambie.

Guardian match report - "There can be no doubt that Stander was at fault – Lambie’s involvement in the match also came to an end, taken off on a stretcher having been knocked cold, and he was subsequently ruled out of the second Test under the concussion protocol. Equally, a yellow card was perhaps a more appropriate punishment. Stander was attempting to charge down Lambie’s kick when he cleaned out the fly-half and you could not help but feel that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, allowed the outcome to cloud his judgment of the infringement".

Search through the comments, throw 'CJ Stander Red Card' into Twitter. Majority opinion is it's a harsh red.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there now anyway.

jm08

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats patently incorrect... and can be very easily substantiated

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=63

'intent' only comes in 2 of the 19 laws of "foul play" in rugby

count them, hint its in (k) and (o)

These are the laws of the game - 10 Foul Play from the World Rugby website.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10

I counted the use of the word 'intent' - something like 20+ times the word 'intent' is used in the section 10 Foul Play.

And great and all that World Rugby is, they have not the power to alter the definition of words.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Intent comes into it then, I don't think CJ intentionally went out to injure Lambie in this instance with his actions.

Edit: as for 'not in the minority here', I don't use here as a yardstick alone. There is a higher proportion of fans from Leinster here that some of whom may be slightly biased against CJ for provincial reasons. You're obviously welcome to point out that I can be biased too as CJ plays for my team, perhaps that is the case. But go have a read on the comments pages of international websites.

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

It wasn't an intentional act of foul play. I'm gutted for the guy that it cost him the game plus the ban. But you cannot jump into a players head. You just can't. Provincial allegiance, intent, purpose for the jump, Lambies own actions. All of these things are irrelevant. And constant attempts to muddy the waters are just as irrelevant. A player cannot jump into another players head. It's incredibly dangerous. Not just a little bit dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.

Lambie was lucky in the end but it could have been a lot worse for him. Just look at what a bang to the head did to Russell only a few weeks ago. There has been a lot of talk about CJ but what of talk about Lambie and how badly it could have gone for him because of what CJ did?

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly what your opinion was. I asked what you think should have happened. Your eventual response had 3 distinct points:

1. You thought there was nothing in it
2. You thought he might get a red (not that he deserved a red)
3. You thought he might get a yellow (not that he deserved a yellow)

This is quite an easy thing. I asked you what should have happened. A 1 line answer saying exactly what you think should have happened answers that. You have 4 options. Please pick one for clarity (I know you don't agree with option 4 but it's there as an option anyway):

1. No sanction, play on.
2. Penalty only, no card.
3. Penalty and a yellow card.
4. Penalty and a red card.

I thought he'd get a yellow card. At the time I said the red card was harsh

Now I wonder what the sanction would be from that unless you think no penalty when a player gets a YC

jm08

FACECUTTR wrote: »

I cannot wait for the second test so this repetitive vomit stops.

The speculation will end when we find out how CJ was suspended for a week for tackling Lambie.

Whatever he did, he didn't tackle him.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

That's a big statement from Ferg. (I won't go into his own disciplinary woes this season ) CJ actually touched the ball in flight, he was committed to the charge down, not to hurting Lambie.

I don't think Ferg actually said that. Pretty sure that was a joke.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

Why didn't you call out the OP on trying to bring provincial allegiances into it?

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Now I wonder what the sanction would be from that unless you think no penalty when a player gets a YC

I won't even bother pointing out how the original post was as vague as it possibly could have been. We have an answer now to the question, which is that you think he should have gotten a yellow.

So what offence did he commit then in your book that deserved the yellow? And this time let's try and keep it to direct answers so we don't waste another handful of posts....

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Why didn't you call out the OP on trying to bring provincial allegiances into it?

Not sure what post you are referring to. Here's the post that leakyboots replied to, which in no way refers to any provincialism. And this post was in reply to an earlier leakyboots post that was a standalone post with no mention of provincialism either.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

It wasn't an intentional act of foul play. I'm gutted for the guy that it cost him the game plus the ban. But you cannot jump into a players head. You just can't. Provincial allegiance, intent, purpose for the jump, Lambies own actions. All of these things are irrelevant. And constant attempts to muddy the waters are just as irrelevant. A player cannot jump into another players head. It's incredibly dangerous. Not just a little bit dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.

Lambie was lucky in the end but it could have been a lot worse for him. Just look at what a bang to the head did to Russell only a few weeks ago. There has been a lot of talk about CJ but what of talk about Lambie and how badly it could have gone for him because of what CJ did?

I'm not saying your provincialism does, I was pointing out that I don't use here as a yardstick for general opinion for that reason. It's not casting aspersions at you or anyone else specifically, sure I'm as likely to be biased the other way 'cos I'm a Munster fan.

My comment was in relation to general opinion on the clash and the on-field punishment, on places outside of here - the international press, international comment, and I found that most people thought it was harsh on CJ.

I just have to disagree with you on everything else - it was an unfortunate, freak, clash that turned nasty for Lambie. If Lambie is standing a metre closer he could upend CJ and send him spiralling off over his shoulder, or a metre back and he could be kicking CJ in the face.

I still don't think it's a red.

EDIT: ignore my stupid knowledge of geometry and metre forward/back, the point being in another blink of an eye it could be an injury to CJ we're talking about