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

South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

Options
1…4041424446

Comments

  • Options
    #1292
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭phog


    The Lost Sheep wrote: »
    It was dangerous play.
    Actually sorry. Its law 10.4(o) Late-charging the kicker that could also cover it. A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball.
    He dangerously obstructed Lambie.

    Ah, so you agree with me it was never a tackle.


  • Options
    #1293
    clsmooth
    Registered Users Posts: 3,591 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    kingofthekong wrote: »
    How would people feel about a pack of


    8. HEASLIP
    7. RUDDOCK
    6. HENDERSON
    5. TONER
    4. DILLANE
    3. FURLONG
    2. BEST
    1. MCGRATH

    Or do we stick with a winning formula, the boks are going to come out like a bunch of caged bulls in the second test.

    The problem with that is you're leaving the bench very light on impact. The option to bring on Cronin, Dillane and Ruddock for the last 20/25 gives you a lot of power and pace at a time when games tend to be won or lost. Bringing on Jordi Murphy and Donnacha Ryan won't give you the same impact.


  • Options
    #1294
    errlloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 12,604 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Adbrowne wrote: »
    I never said they were. The common ground is contact with the head. The only remotely comparable one i can find was from 2002 and a 23 day ban for a deliberate shoulder charge on Wilkinson after he made a clearing kick so I think the 2 cut to 1 for Stander is a fair enough call because there was no intent.

    Hogg shouldering biggar in the jaw was pretty bad.

    Actually I just watched that back, it was pretty similar. Hogg probably has more control and more opportunity to not hit biggar in the jaw, but effectively the same offense.


  • Options
    #1295
    Adbrowne
    Site Banned Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Adbrowne


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Hogg shouldering biggar in the jaw was pretty bad.

    That was just a cheap shot.


  • Options
    #1296
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    Ah, so you agree with me it was never a tackle.

    What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1297
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?

    Could you explain what you think CJ is doing here.

    What I see is:
    Pic 1 - Murphy & CJ jump at same time (you can see CJ's hand going up to try and block the ball).
    Pic 2 - You can see CJ jumping up, not into Lambie

    http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/murphy11.jpg

    http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/cj_jum11.jpg


  • Options
    #1298
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭phog


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What exactly is it that you're trying to argue now? It's starting to look like you're trying to claim CJ did nothing wrong at all in his act of jumping into Lambies head. Surely you can't believe that?

    I'm not arguing anything, others are arguing :pac:


    My posts on this were around the following:
    I thought he didn't deserve a red card.
    From what I've seen on this incident I think the hearing was dragged out and that the commission was trying to save face

    I think the charge of a dangerous tackle was a made up charge. I haven't seen word of an official report being made available to the IRFU yet. If the report isn't yet available then that as good as rules out the IRFU appealing and the charge and penalty sticks which might have an implication for CJ in the future.

    The whole thing is a mess.


  • Options
    #1299
    MadDog1999
    Registered Users Posts: 192 ✭✭MadDog1999


    From the looks of it this video pretty much makes Stander look guilty.
    https://youtu.be/SVLH-od1pV8

    But there is really no sure way to know if it was just wrong time at a wrong place. The thing is, I understand why they have to have an investigation. If I was the ref the first thing that would go on in my head when I see that collision I would be concerned about the health of Lambie and if he had a neck injury. To the ref, that would have looked like wreck less behaviour without even the king it could have just happened coincidentally, stander jumps and Lambie gets in the way. But, to the investigators Stander broke the laws of rugby. Even though it appeared to be a tackle and thus is considered to be a high tackle, Lambie was not holding the ball so 1) tackling above the chest is prohibited and 2) you must only tackle the ball carrier. So basically 2 regulations were broken at once. I want him to play the 2nd test match but the investigators seem to be going through this case with a fine tooth comb so if they do find something to clear Stander it will probably be too late and he would have missed his chance to play.

    As others have said, if the penalty sticks, I don't think it would bid well for CJs future and reputation. I haven't seen an official report either but to my eyes that does look like a dangerous tackle.

    phog, Stander did do something wrong and in fact it was very dangerous what he did. When you say "I think the charge of a dangerous tackle was a made up charge" are you implying that Stander bashing straight into Lambie nearly breaking his neck in the process is not a dangerous tackle? Luckily,Lambie was only left with a concussion nothing worse. CJ did do something wrong and that is what we are all trying to tell you.

    Face the fact and move on. We all want him to play the 2nd test but realistically that is not going to happen. This is getting a bit heated so I am dropping my point here.


  • Options
    #1300
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 17,039 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    I'm in mixed minds about Stander. On the one hand, he goes up, leading with the knee, senses a collision and swings sidewise to protect from kneeing Lambie in the head and/or protect himself from a forehead to the jewels.

    But you could also argue that he went up to block the ball with a secondary intention to clatter Lambie. That's the bit you can't really judge without reading the guy's thoughts. Knock him out? I'd sincerely hope not, but can anyone say for sure?

    But in contrast, Hogg blindsided Biggar, made no attempt to block the ball, and left the ground well after the ball was gone, specifically to shoulder him in the chin. So in terms of intent and execution there is absolutely no doubt what he was up to.


  • Options
    #1301
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    What law did Stander break? He wasn't trying to tackle Lambie - its clear from those images above he was attempting a blockdown.

    CJ isn't a dirty player - 2 yellow cards in his career to date (7 seasons) (1 for Bluebulls in Vodacom cup and 1 when playing for Munster) isn't bad discipline for a backrower.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1302
    AbusesToilets
    Registered Users Posts: 10,070 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    The red was a poor call, based solely on the outcome of the collision and not the legality of Stander's actions. Would Lambie have been carded if he had upended Stander onto his head?


  • Options
    #1303
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Neil3030 wrote: »
    I'm in mixed minds about Stander. On the one hand, he goes up, leading with the knee, senses a collision and swings sidewise to protect from kneeing Lambie in the head and/or protect himself from a forehead to the jewels.

    But you could also argue that he went up to block the ball with a secondary intention to clatter Lambie. That's the bit you can't really judge without reading the guy's thoughts. Knock him out? I'd sincerely hope not, but can anyone say for sure?

    But in contrast, Hogg blindsided Biggar, made no attempt to block the ball, and left the ground well after the ball was gone, specifically to shoulder him in the chin. So in terms of intent and execution there is absolutely no doubt what he was up to.

    And Hogg's ban started at the mid-range level, Stander's ban started at the lower end. So the committee have recognised that what Hogg did was worse. What Stander did was definitely not intentional but was more dangerous/reckless. In the context of the Hogg decision this is absolutely a fair outcome.


  • Options
    #1304
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    AbusesToilets wrote: »
    The red was a poor call, based solely on the outcome of the collision and not the legality of Stander's actions. Would Lambie have been carded if he had upended Stander onto his head?

    Of course the red was based on the legality of Stander's actions. :pac:


  • Options
    #1305
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    I'm not arguing anything, others are arguing :pac:


    My posts on this were around the following:
    I thought he didn't deserve a red card.
    From what I've seen on this incident I think the hearing was dragged out and that the commission was trying to save face

    I think the charge of a dangerous tackle was a made up charge. I haven't seen word of an official report being made available to the IRFU yet. If the report isn't yet available then that as good as rules out the IRFU appealing and the charge and penalty sticks which might have an implication for CJ in the future.

    The whole thing is a mess.

    What did he deserve?


  • Options
    #1306
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭phog


    molloyjh wrote: »
    What did he deserve?

    As implied elsewhere in one of my posts - he got as good as a match ban by getting a red card. That, imho was enough of a sanction.


  • Options
    #1307
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭phog


    jm08 wrote: »
    Could you explain what you think CJ is doing here.

    What I see is:
    Pic 1 - Murphy & CJ jump at same time (you can see CJ's hand going up to try and block the ball).
    Pic 2 - You can see CJ jumping up, not into Lambie

    http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/murphy11.jpg

    http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/16/53/77/41/cj_jum11.jpg

    Going by some posters here claiming an attempt to block a ball is a tackle then CJ is dangerously tackling the player and Murphy had a missed tackle. :D


  • Options
    #1308
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    jm08 wrote: »
    What law did Stander break? He wasn't trying to tackle Lambie - its clear from those images above he was attempting a blockdown.

    CJ isn't a dirty player - 2 yellow cards in his career to date (7 seasons) (1 for Bluebulls in Vodacom cup and 1 when playing for Munster) isn't bad discipline for a backrower.

    Agree on both:

    1. He was attempting a blockdown and presumably with no malice.
    2. He has an excellent disciplinary record.

    Both of these explain why his sentence was reduced to the minimum possible but he still committed an act of foul play.

    If "I didn't mean it" is suddenly an absolute defence, then the game is f**ked because every late tackle, every stray boot, every taking out of an airborne player, has to go unpunished.


  • Options
    #1309
    TICKLE_ME_ELMO
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 23,931 Mod ✭✭✭✭TICKLE_ME_ELMO


    former total wrote: »
    Agree on both:

    1. He was attempting a blockdown and presumably with no malice.
    2. He has an excellent disciplinary record.

    Both of these explain why his sentence was reduced to the minimum possible but he still committed an act of foul play.

    If "I didn't mean it" is suddenly an absolute defence, then the game is f**ked because every late tackle, every stray boot, every taking out of an airborne player, has to go unpunished.

    While I agree with all this it makes you wonder how Mike Brown got away with standing on Murray's head 3 or 4 times during the 6 Nations. He may not have meant to but he stuck his foot in repeatedly right where Murray's head was and made contact several times.


  • Options
    #1310
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Players have a duty of care to other players. He may not have meant it, but he concussed another player by his action of jumping late and into the player. When you jump with the speed you already have your momentum is clearly going to carry you forward and inevitably, in this case, into Lambie, who was vulnerable having just kicked the ball. If you watch it again, CJ is only getting airborne as Lambie kicks the ball. That's very late to be trying to block a kick. It's reckless IMO. A week given his good record is fair enough.


  • Options
    #1311
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Is the time in the match a red card was given considered when deciding a ban? If someone gets red carded in the final minute, would it be any different to someone who gets one in the first 5?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1312
    Mahatma Geansai
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,668 ✭✭✭Mahatma Geansai


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Players have a duty of care to other players. He may not have meant it, but he concussed another player by his action of jumping late and into the player. When you jump with the speed you already have your momentum is clearly going to carry you forward and inevitably, in this case, into Lambie, who was vulnerable having just kicked the ball. If you watch it again, CJ is only getting airborne as Lambie kicks the ball. That's very late to be trying to block a kick. It's reckless IMO. A week given his good record is fair enough.

    It doesn't make a difference if CJ jumped after the ball was kicked. Are you expected CJ to block a kick that hasn't even happened? If he jumped before the ball was kicked, it could easily have been a feint by Lambie that caught him out.


  • Options
    #1313
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    phog wrote: »
    As implied elsewhere in one of my posts - he got as good as a match ban by getting a red card. That, imho was enough of a sanction.

    You're not answering the question I asked. You said he did not deserve a red card. What then did he deserve if not a red? Did he deserve a yellow? Did he deserve to concede just a penalty? Or should he have not been punished at all?


  • Options
    #1314
    molloyjh
    Registered Users Posts: 24,745 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Zzippy wrote: »
    Players have a duty of care to other players. He may not have meant it, but he concussed another player by his action of jumping late and into the player. When you jump with the speed you already have your momentum is clearly going to carry you forward and inevitably, in this case, into Lambie, who was vulnerable having just kicked the ball. If you watch it again, CJ is only getting airborne as Lambie kicks the ball. That's very late to be trying to block a kick. It's reckless IMO. A week given his good record is fair enough.

    All this timing of the kick lark is irrelevant though. Lambie was running a straight line. Stander jumped directly into the path of this straight line in such a way that he was always going to collide with Lambies head. It doesn't matter what else happened beyond this. Stander jumped into the space where Lambies head was always going to be. Full stop. End of story.

    If that doesn't count as dangerous play then I've no idea what does.


  • Options
    #1315
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Mahatma Geansai wrote: »
    It doesn't make a difference if CJ jumped after the ball was kicked. Are you expected CJ to block a kick that hasn't even happened? If he jumped before the ball was kicked, it could easily have been a feint by Lambie that caught him out.

    And if Lambie had feinted and CJ jumped into him and took him out in the same way do you think there's any chance at all CJ would have stayed on the field?


  • Options
    #1316
    Nift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭Nift


    molloyjh wrote: »
    All this timing of the kick lark is irrelevant though. Lambie was running a straight line. Stander jumped directly into the path of this straight line in such a way that he was always going to collide with Lambies head. It doesn't matter what else happened beyond this. Stander jumped into the space where Lambies head was always going to be. Full stop. End of story.

    If that doesn't count as dangerous play then I've no idea what does.

    It wasn't a red card, Lambie getting knocked out was the only reason he called it, he gets up its a yellow. If this is a red card it sets up a very dangerous precedent for the game of rugby...


  • Options
    #1317
    Nift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,075 ✭✭✭Nift


    errlloyd wrote: »
    Hogg shouldering biggar in the jaw was pretty bad.

    Actually I just watched that back, it was pretty similar. Hogg probably has more control and more opportunity to not hit biggar in the jaw, but effectively the same offense.

    No comparison between the acts at all.


  • Options
    #1318
    sydthebeat
    Subscribers Posts: 41,276 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    :rolleyes: jaysus

    roll on the team announcements so we've something else to bitch about.....


  • Options
    #1319
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 24,067 ✭✭✭✭phog


    molloyjh wrote: »
    You're not answering the question I asked. You said he did not deserve a red card. What then did he deserve if not a red? Did he deserve a yellow? Did he deserve to concede just a penalty? Or should he have not been punished at all?

    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.


  • Options
    #1320
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    molloyjh wrote: »
    All this timing of the kick lark is irrelevant though. Lambie was running a straight line. Stander jumped directly into the path of this straight line in such a way that he was always going to collide with Lambies head. It doesn't matter what else happened beyond this. Stander jumped into the space where Lambies head was always going to be. Full stop. End of story.

    If that doesn't count as dangerous play then I've no idea what does.

    According to Gordon D'Arcy in the Times today, it was:
    CJ Stander’s red card was a bad call influenced by the severity of Pat Lambie’s injury. A mistimed jump – strangely classed as a tackle – without any intent to legally hurt the outhalf, if Lambie hops up straight away it is a yellow card.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1321
    Adbrowne
    Site Banned Posts: 2,055 ✭✭✭Adbrowne


    jm08 wrote: »
    According to Gordon D'Arcy in the Times today, it was:

    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement