Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

England v S Africa 3rd Nov Match thread

Options
1246789

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Try_harder wrote: »
    He led with his shoulder

    That's not illegal


  • Options
    #93
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Try_harder wrote: »
    He led with his shoulder

    The question was about the wrap, nothing to do with shoulder.


  • Options
    #94
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That's not illegal

    No real attempt to tackle


  • Options
    #95
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Basil3 wrote: »
    Regardless, when it gets to the Knockout stage, either of these teams can beat anyone in the world.

    Yeah, both seem like teams who can win close games. England proved that today I guess although I think the very best sides should feel capable of getting ahead of England.


  • Options
    #96
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    It was the clearest, easiest decision that could have been made. How the **** has he not given it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Try_harder wrote: »
    No real attempt to tackle

    You mean an attempt to wrap, and there was.


  • Options
    #98
    pc7
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 14,003 Mod ✭✭✭✭pc7


    Came on here to ask, how I’m God’s green earth did Farrell get away with that? Any ref in here think it wasn’t a card?


  • Options
    #99
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Cipriani's was shoulder to the head

    It was head to shoulder.

    There’s a difference.


  • Options
    #100
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You mean an attempt to wrap, and there was.

    Put back on your specs, that's a peno all day every day!


  • Options
    #101
    Richard Hillman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,033 ✭✭✭✭Richard Hillman


    The decision at the end will be a big taking point but not going for the drop goal a few minutes before was also ridiculous


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    stephen_n
    Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    Cipriani got a red vs Munster and he was backing away from the tackle.

    Farrell absolutely busts Esterhuizen with the shoulder and no penalty, no yellow and no red.

    Pathetic.

    The inconsistency in reffing would grind your gears

    No inconsistency what so ever. Cipriani got a red because he made contact with shoulder to head. Farrell hit him in the chest, in real time it looked like a definite penalty but on the replay, he hit him chest high and at least attempted to wrap. They are completely different tackles, no comparison and nothing to do with consistency.


  • Options
    #103
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    It was head to shoulder.

    There’s a difference.

    You're right there at least!


  • Options
    #104
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    The decision at the end will be a big taking point but not going for the drop goal a few minutes before was also ridiculous

    That was stupid


  • Options
    #105
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    It was head to shoulder.

    There’s a difference.

    Semantics.

    Regardless, its not comparable to this situation as there was no contact with the head whatsoever.


  • Options
    #106
    super_furry
    Registered Users Posts: 27,321 ✭✭✭✭super_furry


    Unbelievable cowardice from the referee. But South Africa had five minutes before that to kick the winning points.

    Might be slightly arrogant here but I didn't see anything from either side there that would really trouble Ireland.


  • Options
    #107
    Try_harder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,681 ✭✭✭Try_harder


    In real time I didnt think it was a penalty, but the replay changed my mind


  • Options
    #108
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    super_furry wrote: »
    Unbelievable cowardice from the referee. But South Africa had five minutes before that to kick the winning points.

    Might be slightly arrogant here but I didn't see anything from either side there that would really trouble Ireland.

    I think the physicality of SA would worry anyone, but both teams had good defence and cancelled each other out to an extent.


  • Options
    #109
    cameramonkey
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,220 ✭✭✭cameramonkey


    leakyboots wrote: »
    South Africa will if they get a bit more streetwise (don't balls up lineouts in the red zone, take the drop goal if its on etc)... which I think they will knowing Rassie and Nienaber.


    They should really know that already. To lose so many lineouts in the red zone is very bad, to not even look for a drop goal is headless.


    On a positive note England are crap and SA are headless.


  • Options
    #110
    HighLine
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,378 ✭✭✭HighLine


    No attempt to wrap from this view. Bad decision.

    https://twitter.com/danlol360/status/1058765335678083072


  • Options
    #111
    bennyl10
    Registered Users Posts: 5,511 ✭✭✭bennyl10


    If, and its a big if, but IF Cipriani is a red, and WR are saying any shoulder to head area contact is a penalty minimum, then there shouldnt even have been a debate about that.

    England are in for a hiding next week if they play like that again


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,180 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    Does anyone think that, even for a second, that would have been play on if it happened at any other point in the match?

    His attempt to wrap was non-existent. He went in to nail him with his shoulder. Throwing a single arm up in the air is not an attempt to wrap, it is a life raft for the referee. It was reckless and Farrell even hurt himself in doing it. It makes a mockery of the recent attempts to clean up dangerous tackles.


  • Options
    #113
    Kiith
    Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 23,068 Mod ✭✭✭✭Kiith


    Clearly no attempt to wrap. Ref completely botted that.


  • Options
    #114
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    It was head to shoulder.

    There’s a difference.

    Care to point that out in the rules?
    Tackler has duty of care. Cipriani stood up and made no attempt at a proper tackle. Red card all day.


  • Options
    #115
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    That was an awful attempt at a tackle by Farrell.
    He and England should have been punished.
    I hope he’s cited upon review.

    SA left it behind them in the first half.
    Marx let them down badly when it counted.


  • Options
    #116
    Inspector Coptoor
    Registered Users Posts: 6,818 ✭✭✭Inspector Coptoor


    uptherebels wrote: »
    Care to point that out in the rules?
    Tackler has duty of care. Cipriani stood up and made no attempt at a proper tackle. Red card all day.

    There are no rules.
    There are laws.

    And you know well that what I’m getting at can’t be “pointed out”.
    It comes down to context and interpretation.
    Both refs got the decisions wrong in my opinion.
    But that’s all it is, one mans opinion.

    I’m happy to move on now as we won’t agree.


  • Options
    #117
    mangobob
    Registered Users Posts: 1,149 ✭✭✭mangobob


    I have to say I thought it was a stone cold penalty on first viewing. However being totally objective, the replay angle from in front of OF (as opposed to the clip shown above) did suggest a hint of an attempted wrap. I think that was what swayed the ref, although I don't agree that there was enough of an attempt.

    However I think he was extremely lucky. Many other refs would have given that. I can fully understand Bok fans being pretty pissed off.


  • Options
    #118
    shootermacg
    Registered Users Posts: 4,833 ✭✭✭shootermacg


    You can see him rotating his arm, just prior to the hit; Absolutely no intention of a fair tackle!


  • Options
    #119
    Mookie Blaylock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭Mookie Blaylock


    At no point did Farrell even attempt to wrap, it's a stonewall penalty.... he'll be cited for that


  • Options
    #120
    eigrod
    Registered Users Posts: 7,592 ✭✭✭eigrod


    From Cipriani’s being deemed a red to that being deemed not a penalty- is it any wonder players and fans don’t know what is legal and what is not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,586 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    Inspector Coptoor wrote: »
    There are no rules.
    There are laws.

    And you know well that what I’m getting at can’t be “pointed out”.
    It comes down to context and interpretation.
    Both refs got the decisions wrong in my opinion.
    But that’s all it is, one mans opinion.

    I’m happy to limber on now as we won’t agree.

    Rules/laws same difference.
    You are trying to legitimise a dangerous tackle by claiming some flimsy point about cipriani moving backwards.
    The laws are clear on this so that there is no interpretation by the ref. A shoulder to the face is a red.
    There is nothing to agree on here. there are the rules sorry laws and then there is your inability to understand them


Advertisement