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’?

umop episdn

Deusexmachina wrote: »

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.

You still have no point...not sure why you think not being born in a country has any bearing on who you play for... it's a little bit xenophobic

ednwireland

I was wondering where the citing commissioner was , only listened to the games on the radio and short highlights on YouTube but seems the refs were more worried about getting back to the hotel than reffing the game.

This is with Irish radio commentary glasses on

Burkie1203

umop episdn wrote: »

You still have no point...not sure why you think not being born in a country has any bearing on who you play for... it's a little bit xenophobic

No it's not xenophobic

Just because someone doesnt like residency rules does not make them xenophobic. And it's not about where a person is born.

Plenty of people are born abroad to irish born parents which automatically makes them irish citizen's.

umop episdn

Burkie1203 wrote: »

No it's not xenophobic

Just because someone doesnt like residency rules does not make them xenophobic. And it's not about where a person is born.

Plenty of people are born abroad to irish born parents which automatically makes them irish citizen's.

Fluidity of movement, freedom to flee poor countries, working, living in and representing your new homeland ...it happens the world over, and not just in rugby...it's not a valid argument he's trying to make

bobbysands81

Burkie1203 wrote: »

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

Fully agree, was only checking where folk were born out of curiosity.

Buer

Burkie1203 wrote: »

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

Possibly slightly harsh to cite but I don't think he can complain. He threw out an arm after the ball was lost. POM was not supported by his lifter which could be a mitigating circumstance in a hearing. I reckon he'll get a week and they'll leave it at that.

Deusexmachina

umop episdn wrote: »

You still have no point...not sure why you think not being born in a country has any bearing on who you play for... it's a little bit xenophobic

So, the actual countries don’t matter? It’s just one collection of players from around the globe, playing another collection?
Isn’t that just club rugby then ?

Your accusation of xenophobia is ignorant and contemptible.

I really have enjoyed fantastic players like Isa and Rocky playing for Leinster but I would not have liked them signing up to play for Ireland just because they live here for a few years.

Deusexmachina

umop episdn wrote: »

Fluidity of movement, freedom to flee poor countries, working, living in and representing your new homeland ...it happens the world over, and not just in rugby...it's not a valid argument he's trying to make

‘Fluidity of movement’ and you are saying my argument is not valid?...

Christy42

umop episdn wrote: »

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.

He is just reporting that near as I can see? I don't see an opinion in that tweet and well he can't stop the citing commissioner from looking at something.

Sangre

Buer wrote: »

Possibly slightly harsh to cite but I don't think he can complain. He threw out an arm after the ball was lost. POM was not supported by his lifter which could be a mitigating circumstance in a hearing. I reckon he'll get a week and they'll leave it at that.

I think he has been cited for a similar but different incident (in 9th minute) to the one that got him the yellow. Read that elsewhere anyway.

umop episdn

Christy42 wrote: »

He is just reporting that near as I can see? I don't see an opinion in that tweet and well he can't stop the citing commissioner from looking at something.

What part of real time don't you understand?
Read his tweets during the game..he's not the greatest by a long shot.

Deusexmachina

umop episdn wrote: »

What part of real time don't you understand?
Read his tweets during the game..he's not the greatest by a long shot.

Have to say, I think Murray is a brilliant journalist. He knows his stuff and his analysis is always fascinating.
Makes such a difference to the likes of Quinlin’s boring and obvious ‘insights’.

sydthebeat

Deusexmachina wrote: »

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

You obviously cannot see the positives that the likes of Stander has brought munster and Irish rugby, similarly the good Aki has brought connacht.... So showing you why I think its good for the game is a waste of both our times.

The other obvious point is that, if the rule didn't exist, what is there in its place? A nations citizenship? That's been shown lots of times to be widely variant across the globe. What else? Restrict it to those only born in the country? That would exclude ROG, heaslip, jordi etc.

Restrict it to grandparents? Why does the likes of iaasc boss or Michael bent become more deserving of a cap than say, adeolukan? Or parents... Similarly swap marmion for boss

The residency rule exists because it has to. It was altered, to many commentators satisfaction from 3 to 5 years, but it still obviously exists because it has to....

umop episdn

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Have to say, I think Murray is a brilliant journalist. He knows his stuff and his analysis is always fascinating.
Makes such a difference to the likes of Quinlin’s boring and obvious ‘insights’.

Journalist ....yes....real time commentator.. nope

Deusexmachina

sydthebeat wrote: »

You obviously cannot see the positives that the likes of Stander has brought munster and Irish rugby, similarly the good Aki has brought connacht.... So showing you why I think its good for the game is a waste of both our times.

The other obvious point is that, if the rule didn't exist, what is there in its place? A nations citizenship? That's been shown lots of times to be widely variant across the globe. What else? Restrict it to those only born in the country? That would exclude ROG, heaslip, jordi etc.

Restrict it to grandparents? Why does the likes of iaasc boss or Michael bent become more deserving of a cap than say, adeolukan?

The residency rule exists because it has to. It was altered, to many commentators satisfaction from 3 to 5 years, but it still obviously exists it has to....

What these players have brought to their clubs is entirely immaterial. We are talking about International teams. I really enjoy these guys playing for the provinces (within the limits set).

There is a huge difference between a situation where someone has taken up citizenship for family, economic or political reasons (and subsequently coming up through the ranks to play for Ireland) and someone being deliberately brought over here with the promise of playing for the National team once he has lived here for a period.

Stander played for SA unders 20s. He was called up for the SA 2012 National Squad. He is South African. I have no problem him playing here - but I would prefer if he played his international rugby for SA (as he would had he made their team in 2012).

Restrict to Irish citizens who have lived here at least 10 years (and who renounce their previous held citizenship).

Skyfloater

Anyhoo, back to the game, now that Australia have at last discovered a powerful scrum weapon they could be a real contender for the WC next year.

Sangre

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Restrict to Irish citizens who have lived here at least 10 years (and who renounce their previous held citizenship).

lol

rodge123

A nice un-biased account of the match!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12076549

NOT!

Sangre

rodge123 wrote: »

A nice un-biased account of the match!
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=12076549

NOT!

The Wallabies were left seething at full time when the TMO refused to award a clear penalty for a deliberate knock on from an Irish star — right at the moment the Wallabies appeared to be on the verge of a famous last-gasp win.

I had to watch the TMO bit at full time on mute while at work. I genuinely couldn't work out what was being looked at. Was it suggested that Stockdale slapped down the ball? Why? You couldn't even tell if he touched the ball at all.

rodge123

Sangre wrote: »

I had to watch the TMO bit at full time on mute while at work. I genuinely couldn't work out what was being looked at. Was it suggested that Stockdale slapped down the ball? Why? You couldn't even tell if he touched the ball at all.

They were just checking that Stockdale didn’t get any touch to the ball, TMO confirmed he could see no clear and obvious touch of ball from Stockdale.

“That's where the game descended into farce as the TMO judged there was not sufficient evidence to overrule the on-field decision, despite replays showing Stockdale clearly played at the ball.”

Unless they saw other camera angles than what I saw on sky sports and I believe is what the referee saw, then it most definately was not clear Stockdale played the ball. Brutal reporting.

Reads like a fake news story tbh