Ire vs Aus - Test Number Three

mangobob

Buer wrote: »

The dropped maul today wasn't nearly as blatant as Healy's last week. It was a penalty and borderline yellow whilst last week was certain penalty try as the ball was clearly about to be grounded and deserved yellow for clear deliberate play.

Basil3 wrote: »

It's a concept that people often seem to struggle with here. Not all offences are the same severity and deserve the same punishment. A high tackle could be a penalty, yellow or red. Just because your team got a yellow for a high tackle doesn't mean the opposition should get a yellow for any high tackle they make.

I guess I am one of those people who are struggling with this.

I agree with the punishment of Healy. I accept that the ref deemed he was deliberately collapsing the maul at the tryline to prevent a try being scored and thus awarded a penalty try (and therefore a yellow card). I also get that not all offences are the same severity, as in the case of high tackles or tip tackles. I get that intent (whether its deliberate or not) and outcome (whether player lands on their head or back etc) can change the sanction.

What I don't get is how in this case we can modulate the sanction of the offence based on how "blatant" it is. Both mauls were deemed by the refs to have been deliberately collapsed which prevented a try being scored. What makes Healy's infringement more blatant than the wallaby one?

As far as I can see both offences are the same - attacking maul is deliberately collapsed on both respective trylines. The outcome is the same - the attacking side were illegally prevented from scoring a try. So why is the sanction different? Why were we not awarded a penalty try and the Australian offender yellow carded a la Healy?

This is a genuine question. What am I missing?

shootermacg

mangobob wrote: »

I guess I am one of those people who are struggling with this.

I agree with the punishment of Healy. I accept that the ref deemed he was deliberately collapsing the maul at the tryline to prevent a try being scored and thus awarded a penalty try (and therefore a yellow card). I also get that not all offences are the same severity, as in the case of high tackles or tip tackles. I get that intent (whether its deliberate or not) and outcome (whether player lands on their head or back etc) can change the sanction.

What I don't get is how in this case we can modulate the sanction of the offence based on how "blatant" it is. Both mauls were deemed by the refs to have been deliberately collapsed which prevented a try being scored. What makes Healy's infringement more blatant than the wallaby one?

As far as I can see both offences are the same - attacking maul is deliberately collapsed on both respective trylines. The outcome is the same - the attacking side were illegally prevented from scoring a try. So why is the sanction different? Why were we not awarded a penalty try and the Australian offender yellow carded a la Healy?

This is a genuine question. What am I missing?

What is clearly variable in both cases is the referee. It's quite possible that this ref wouldn't have awarded the penalty + yellow try against Healy.

This is the first lesson I try to teach my kids, Life isn't fair and everything is open to interpretation. Managing expectations is all you can do to even the scales, but don't expect you'll always get the just outcome.

What you are basically asking is: "How come people have differing opinions?"

I don't mind people complaining, but please, just consider (for right or wrong) each referee absolutely thinks their decision is correct, given the information that they processed in real time.

We are after all animals who generally use reason to justify stuff we've already done mindlessly.

Dave_The_Sheep

Buer wrote: »

Having watched a download from Fox Australia the only thing I am sure of is that Phil Kearns is blind. Brutally biased.

Watched the same download, I suspect, and they are absolutely unreal commentators. Australia can do no wrong, never do anything illegal on the pitch.

shootermacg

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Watched the same download, I suspect, and they are absolutely unreal commentators. Australia can do no wrong, never do anything illegal on the pitch.

I'd say they are about 10% worse than the Irish commentators

Dave_The_Sheep

shootermacg wrote: »

I'd say they are about 10% worse than the Irish commentators

Most commentators are biased to a degree, but they're far worst than most, including our lot. 10% me bollocks!

shootermacg

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Most commentators are biased to a degree, but they're far worst than most, including our lot. 10% me bollocks!

To be honest, I had to laugh after CJ scored.

That's CJ Stander, born in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former Bulls player in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former SOUTH AFRICAN under 20s captain.
Little bit of SOUTH AFRICAN royalty really.
His brother in law is the SOUTH AFRICAN Olympic swimmer.
Made a home for himself in Ireland, in his new country.

Top class sledging :D:D

I think he just said "Fidley Dee Fidley dee Fidley dee Potatoe!" hahahahaha!

Billy86

shootermacg wrote: »

To be honest, I had to laugh after CJ scored.

That's CJ Stander, born in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former Bulls player in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former SOUTH AFRICAN under 20s captain.
Little bit of SOUTH AFRICAN royalty really.
His brother in law is the SOUTH AFRICAN Olympic swimmer.
Made a home for himself in Ireland, in his new country.

Top class sledging :D:D

You mean the same SOUTH AFRICA that shares a border with ZIMBABWE.

I think the Aussies have about a half dozen non-native born forwards actually, on that note. That's one thing I noticed living over there, mention that back and they're incredibly quick to get tetchy and defensive on it... yep even if it was mentioned in direct retort to a comment on Stander. For a country that loves to give it out so much, they're an immensely thin-skinned bunch at taking it back.

Faugheen

letowski wrote: »

Jordan Larmour's high pressure take at the end I thought was a crucial moment in securing the win. At 17-16 with 4 minutes left on the clock, if Folau takes that ball in good field position, I think we are really struggling to keep our lead as they would have had serious momentum.



Fair play to Larmour, the kid has really acquitted himself well to the international stage. A special talent.

Some people here would have you believe he was nowhere near ready for international rugby off the back of one missed tackle against Italy.

How I love to see those begrudgers proven wrong, then they based Larmour's ability on one missed tackle.

Mind you when some people say Sexton was ****e against Wales what else can be expected? A nation that just wants to jump on the players backs, us. We don't deserve the talent we get considering nobody will ever be happy.

Dev Toner another one. Suggestions he's finished after one ok game. Christ

Faugheen

Double post

The_Dave

shootermacg wrote: »

To be honest, I had to laugh after CJ scored.

That's CJ Stander, born in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former Bulls player in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former SOUTH AFRICAN under 20s captain.
Little bit of SOUTH AFRICAN royalty really.
His brother in law is the SOUTH AFRICAN Olympic swimmer.
Made a home for himself in Ireland, in his new country.

Top class sledging :D:D

I think he just said "Fidley Dee Fidley dee Fidley dee Potatoe!" hahahahaha!

You forgot to mention his signifcant other - a multiple SA record holder, with a brother who won an Olympic gold for SA

Dave_The_Sheep

shootermacg wrote: »

That's CJ Stander, born in SOUTH AFRICA.

CJ Stunder!

Deusexmachina

shootermacg wrote: »

To be honest, I had to laugh after CJ scored.

That's CJ Stander, born in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former Bulls player in SOUTH AFRICA.
Former SOUTH AFRICAN under 20s captain.
Little bit of SOUTH AFRICAN royalty really.
His brother in law is the SOUTH AFRICAN Olympic swimmer.
Made a home for himself in Ireland, in his new country.

Top class sledging :D:D

I think he just said "Fidley Dee Fidley dee Fidley dee Potatoe!" hahahahaha!

That’s the problem with the residency rule. They are right, hes not Irish, he’s South African.
The fact that other countries are doing the same thing doesn’t change the facts.
It’s a pity this rule was brought in.
It’s international rugby - one country against an other.

sydthebeat

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That’s the problem with the residency rule. They are right, hes not Irish, he’s South African.
The fact that other countries are doing the same thing doesn’t change the facts.
It’s a pity this rule was brought in.
It’s international rugby - one country against an other.

Don't start this again.

If everyone plays to the same rules then there is no value in complaining.

Name one tier one rugby Country who doesn't have a residency or nationalised player?

Hell, name one sport that doesn't allow nationalised or residency players???

Burkie1203

sydthebeat wrote: »

Don't start this again.

If everyone plays to the same rules then there is no value in complaining.

Name one tier one rugby Country who doesn't have a residency or nationalised player?

Hell, name one sport that doesn't allow nationalised or residency players???

Argentina ??

Just because other sports do it doesnt make it right. Rugby has gone down the right road by extending the residency. It's a pity they didn't go a bit further. These rules benefit only a few countries and damage a lot of tier 2 countries especially

LuckyLloyd

We didn’t weaponise the residency rule. But in order to compete we must leverage it because others did. That’s it really, end of discussion.

sydthebeat

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Argentina ??

Just because other sports do it doesnt make it right. Rugby has gone down the right road by extending the residency. It's a pity they didn't go a bit further. These rules benefit only a few countries and damage a lot of tier 2 countries especially

I'll give you Argentina, though their slide down the world rankings since the last World Cup doesn't exactly stand out as a bastion of pureness that other countries should follow. Gone from 4th in the world to 10th, and have lost 23 of their last 26 games.

The argument that the rule damages tier 2 countries is also not as clear cut and is multi faceted. A lot of these moves are for economic reasons due to poor wealth prospects in the native home, and lead to nationalisation of players, which world rugby can do nothing about. Also, it can be argued that tier 2 teams (let's take Samoa as example) benefit greatly from the movement of players as those players who are eligible to play for oz or NZ, who are coaches in oz and NZ, but aren't quite good enough to represent oz or NZ, have a path to international rugby through the islands. So it's arguable that the islands actually benefit from players moving abroad at a young age.

Samoa had the highest portion of non native players playing during the last RWC

bobbysands81

Deusexmachina wrote: »

That’s the problem with the residency rule. They are right, hes not Irish, he’s South African.
The fact that other countries are doing the same thing doesn’t change the facts.
It’s a pity this rule was brought in.
It’s international rugby - one country against an other.

Out of interest I just checked “Current Squads” on Wikipedia and 12 of Australia’s current squad were born outside Australia.

For Ireland I think it’s 7 (Marmion, Roux, Jordi Murphy, Stander, Rob Herring, Carberry and Aki).

Deusexmachina

sydthebeat wrote: »

Don't start this again.

If everyone plays to the same rules then there is no value in complaining.

Name one tier one rugby Country who doesn't have a residency or nationalised player?

Hell, name one sport that doesn't allow nationalised or residency players???

In your haste to respond, I don’t think you read my full post. I fully acknowledged that other countries use foreign players too.

As I said, it’s the rule that’s the problem.

Deusexmachina

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Out of interest I just checked “Current Squads” on Wikipedia and 12 of Australia’s current squad were born outside Australia.

For Ireland I think it’s 7 (Marmion, Roux, Jordi Murphy, Stander, Rob Herring, Carberry and Aki).

Again, not the point.

thomond2006

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Again, not the point.

It's been changed to 5 years. It won't be as widespread in a few years.

sydthebeat

Deusexmachina wrote: »

In your haste to respond, I don’t think you read my full post. I fully acknowledged that other countries use foreign players too.

As I said, it’s the rule that’s the problem.

I did read your full post.

I just think it's naive in the extreme to think having no residency rule is either practical or good for the game.

umop episdn

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Again, not the point.

You don't have one tbh

Burkie1203

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Out of interest I just checked “Current Squads” on Wikipedia and 12 of Australia’s current squad were born outside Australia.

For Ireland I think it’s 7 (Marmion, Roux, Jordi Murphy, Stander, Rob Herring, Carberry and Aki).

Marmion Jordi and Carbery have Irish parent(s). Jordi grew up on Dublin
Carbery lived in NZ until he was 10 or 11
Marmion has come through a different path but his parents are Irish
Herring has Irish grandparent and is entitled to Irish citizenship and passport as a result

Roux, Stander and Aki are project players.


It's not about where a player is born. You have to consider the full picture re parents etc

Burkie1203

sydthebeat wrote: »

I'll give you Argentina, though their slide down the world rankings since the last World Cup doesn't exactly stand out as a bastion of pureness that other countries should follow. Gone from 4th in the world to 10th, and have lost 23 of their last 26 games.

The argument that the rule damages tier 2 countries is also not as clear cut and is multi faceted. A lot of these moves are for economic reasons due to poor wealth prospects in the native home, and lead to nationalisation of players, which world rugby can do nothing about. Also, it can be argued that tier 2 teams (let's take Samoa as example) benefit greatly from the movement of players as those players who are eligible to play for oz or NZ, who are coaches in oz and NZ, but aren't quite good enough to represent oz or NZ, have a path to international rugby through the islands. So it's arguable that the islands actually benefit from players moving abroad at a young age.

Samoa had the highest portion of non native players playing during the last RWC

The islands only benefit if the best players play for them and not for Oz and NZ or Ireland or France etc.

The rule is a throw back to the amateur days when guys moved to progress their academic careers. I think its wrong that guys who play for super rugby franchises are then able to rock up in the NH and play for a 6n country after 3/5 years.

It's different if a guy moves over as a kid for family reasons.

Happy4all

bobbysands81 wrote: »

Out of interest I just checked “Current Squads” on Wikipedia and 12 of Australia’s current squad were born outside Australia.

For Ireland I think it’s 7 (Marmion, Roux, Jordi Murphy, Stander, Rob Herring, Carberry and Aki).

Out of curiosity, what would the number be in the current NZ squad?

Burkie1203

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1010794656706318336?s=19

umop episdn

Burkie1203 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Murray_Kinsella/status/1010794656706318336?s=19

Ah, Murray is becoming as bad as the rest now...he was saying yesterday it was harsh, Stander at fault etc... think he's believing all the smoke blown up his hole from certain sections

He's better when he's had a chance to review a game... gone thru all the plays and sees things others don't....on mature recollection... but in real time he's bloody awful.

Deusexmachina

umop episdn wrote: »

You don't have one tbh

This is the kind of response that ruins discussions on boards.

I do have a point. My point is that the residency rule (thankfully now extended to five years) is not good for the international game.
Feel free to disagree with me by all means. I know some people find no issue with it.
For me, I prefer the teams to be made up of players from the respective countries playing each other.

Deusexmachina

sydthebeat wrote: »

I did read your full post.

I just think it's naive in the extreme to think having no residency rule is either practical or good for the game.

No, it’s not ‘naive in the extreme’. It’s a perfectly valid point of view, as is yours.

Deusexmachina

And I have to ask you Syd, why is ithe residency rule ‘good for the game’?