Ireland vs Australia match thread, Saturday 22nd Nov. KO 4:30PM

shuffol

Ruddock went to ground too quickly, if he kept his feet and tried to dominate the contact he would've kept him out. It was typical of our tackling in the first half. Very passive and far too many soak tackles. Australia dominated the collisions which shouldn't have been the case.

Quint2010

thomond2006 wrote: »

I don't know the exact law but on seeing it live I didn't think it warranted a penalty. It appeared to me to be a genuine attempt to catch and not an attempt to stop Zebo catching.

I thought that was a definite deliberate knock on by Folau. Should have been a pen IMO. Also that fumble by the Australian player close to his own line looked like a knock on. Once it hits the ground after he's touched it its a knock on right? That would have given us a 5M metre attacking scrum. So 3 big decisions including the definite forward pass that went the Australians way..

After watching it again now, maybe I'm biased but it looks bad to me. Sure Folau wanted to catch it, but the biggest priority was making sure Zebo was nowhere near it. I wonder what would have happened if Ireland didn't have a penalty advantage.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Just because he failed to catch it doesn't mean he didn't intend to catch it. I haven't seen it back so not sure about it myself, but Reid did something similar yesterday against Treviso. He got a hand up and blocked the pass and collected it again before it hit the ground. It's perfectly legal if you are genuinely attempting to get possession.

I'm not sure about Falou but if Reid hadn't regathered the ball yesterday, he'd have been done for a deliberate knock down.

If Falou hadn't touched the ball, it would be safe to assume Zebo would have scored, Falou knocked the ball on but the ref goes back for an earlier advantage. There's certainly a probable try written all over it. Very fine margins on Falou's intent. Could it have warranted a TMO call for foul play.

crisco10

Quint2010 wrote: »

I thought that was a definite deliberate knock on by Folau. Should have been a pen IMO. Also that fumble by the Australian player close to his own line looked like a knock on. Once it hits the ground after he's touched it its a knock on right? That would have given us a 5M metre attacking scrum. So 3 big decisions including the definite forward pass that went the Australians way..

I actually think I disagree with 2.5 outta 3 there....:)

1) I think Folau is trying to keep the ball up to catch it on the "juggle". Yes, He knows he has to stop it but he does make an attempt to catch it.

2) Pretty sure the replays show it just stays up off the ground

3) the forward pass; when you see some analysis it says forward, others say not. One thing they all have in common is that they aren't clear cut. So a 50:50 call went against us. I would however object to the communication with the TMO; very unclear.

On a separate note; what did people think of the backrow on Saturday? I thought they played well but we were missing a 7. Australia went touchline to touchline and we never got close enough to slow ball when they did. I just feel a proper 7 would have made it trickier for them to flow as they did. Don't get me wrong, Ruddock played very well; I just think we weren't all that balanced.

.ak

Well Ruddock isn't a groundhog, but he did the role of an openside well enough, in the sense he was at the breakdown early and made his presence felt. In attack he was pretty much used as a blindside however. On set pieces I thought he did very well.

For groundhogs we have Best, POM, POC, Darce, so I wouldn't really worry about a 7 not being a groundhog - it's not an exclusive skill that only 7s are allowed to perform.

ssaye2

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/australia-ireland-defence-analysis-first-half-1796473-Nov2014/

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

I'm not sure about Falou but if Reid hadn't regathered the ball yesterday, he'd have been done for a deliberate knock down.

If Falou hadn't touched the ball, it would be safe to assume Zebo would have scored, Falou knocked the ball on but the ref goes back for an earlier advantage. There's certainly a probable try written all over it. Very fine margins on Falou's intent. Could it have warranted a TMO call for foul play.

A penalty try would be penalising an illegal action preventing an otherwise certain try, like a deliberate knock on or killing the ball. I don't think that comes under what Folau did. He tried to catch the ball and failed. That's a mistake, not cynical play.

phog

thomond2006 wrote: »

A penalty try would be penalising an illegal action preventing an otherwise certain try, like a deliberate knock on or killing the ball. I don't think that comes under what Folau did. He tried to catch the ball and failed. That's a mistake, not cynical play.

He tried with one hand to catch the ball, he killed the ball by not catching it. As soon as the ball hit the ground the ref blew for the advantage. On another day that could easily be a penalty try.

dub_skav

thomond2006 wrote: »

A penalty try would be penalising an illegal action preventing an otherwise certain try, like a deliberate knock on or killing the ball. I don't think that comes under what Folau did. He tried to catch the ball and failed. That's a mistake, not cynical play.

The other thing counting against a penalty try is that Zebo had to catch the crossfield kick. Now, while that is usually a relatively trivial matter I don't think you could award the try, even if the knock down was seen as deliberate

penybont exile

Good win on Saturday for Ireland to round off a fine November.

Watched the first thirty minutes in a Cardiff pub and despite Ireland being in front it wasn't looking promising as I headed out to our date with the AB's.

Six Nations looking interesting ..... can't wait.

molloyjh

ssaye2 wrote: »

http://thescore.thejournal.ie/australia-ireland-defence-analysis-first-half-1796473-Nov2014/

Look at the first gif under the missed tackle heading. POM is clearly prevented from making an effective tackle by one of the Aussies (can't make out who in the gif) who maintains his position and even steps across POMs path. This sort of thing was going on all game long and was driving me nuts. It was very clever stuff from the Wallabies but Jackson and his TJs did nothing about it.

First Up

Clearlier wrote: »

I missed seeing it live as I had to go out but I heard Tony Ward banging on about it on the radio so I made sure to have a look and I don't think that it was forward. Murray Kinsella isn't convinced either. Phipps gets knocked backwards just after he passes it and Foley takes it almost behind him which makes it look like it might be a forward pass but when you ignore the player and just look at the ball it looks flat to me. It's certainly not a clear cut case.

Have a look at the analysis in #870. Not even close.

.ak

molloyjh wrote: »

Look at the first gif under the missed tackle heading. POM is clearly prevented from making an effective tackle by one of the Aussies (can't make out who in the gif) who maintains his position and even steps across POMs path. This sort of thing was going on all game long and was driving me nuts. It was very clever stuff from the Wallabies but Jackson and his TJs did nothing about it.

If you get away with it it's brilliant.

MJohnston

molloyjh wrote: »

Look at the first gif under the missed tackle heading. POM is clearly prevented from making an effective tackle by one of the Aussies (can't make out who in the gif) who maintains his position and even steps across POMs path. This sort of thing was going on all game long and was driving me nuts. It was very clever stuff from the Wallabies but Jackson and his TJs did nothing about it.

If you go back and look at the analysis from the Georgia game, we were doing the same thing on occasion.

crisco10

MJohnston wrote: »

If you go back and look at the analysis from the Georgia game, we were doing the same thing on occasion.

And something that Schmidt's Leinster were incredible at. Part of the game really.

Piliger

molloyjh wrote: »

Look at the first gif under the missed tackle heading. POM is clearly prevented from making an effective tackle by one of the Aussies (can't make out who in the gif) who maintains his position and even steps across POMs path. This sort of thing was going on all game long and was driving me nuts. It was very clever stuff from the Wallabies but Jackson and his TJs did nothing about it.

Owens rarely allows this to happen but Jackson was very loose and though I would not say he was biased in any way, his looseness benefited Australia far more.

Piliger

What comes out of the gif analysis above is that Australia have a huge strength in being able to change tactics on the field via their captain and leaders. Ireland could not make ANY change to their tactics until they were told what to do at half time. We need to find someone on the pitch capable of making these decisions.

Quint2010

First Up wrote: »

Have a look at the analysis in #870. Not even close.

I think Phipps being hit as he passes it causes the pass to sort of fade in mid air ie go backwards and then forwards in an arc. I think if that is the case then its not a forward pass.

dregin

Re: Folau's attempt at a catch - it looks to me in the replay like initially he aimed to catch it, but on realising that he wouldn't made sure that it wouldn't go anywhere near Zebo. You can see his fingers flick at the end of the motion. There was no way it was anything but a deliberate knock on, in my opinion

redmca2

Piliger wrote: »

What comes out of the gif analysis above is that Australia have a huge strength in being able to change tactics on the field via their captain and leaders. Ireland could not make ANY change to their tactics until they were told what to do at half time. We need to find someone on the pitch capable of making these decisions.

Have to disagree. Australia had a Plan A and no Plan B. What tactics did they change during either half?

Ok, it took a half time tutorial to sort out our tactics but surely Australia must have known what was coming in the 2nd half, yet their style of play didn't vary from the 1st half.

.ak

Piliger wrote: »

What comes out of the gif analysis above is that Australia have a huge strength in being able to change tactics on the field via their captain and leaders. Ireland could not make ANY change to their tactics until they were told what to do at half time. We need to find someone on the pitch capable of making these decisions.

I think we've seen them change their tactics from time to time during games, but it definitely seems like a Joe's team thing that AFTER the break we come out and look completely different. Always the way with Leinster too. There could be a slight element of the guys looking up to Joe so much that they don't trust themselves to change the patterns up during a game. Couple of guys need to address that, namely Sexton and Paulie.

phog

dregin wrote: »

Re: Folau's attempt at a catch - it looks to me in the replay like initially he aimed to catch it, but on realising that he wouldn't made sure that it wouldn't go anywhere near Zebo. You can see his fingers flick at the end of the motion. There was no way it was anything but a deliberate knock on, in my opinion

How many balls did Falou catch on Saturday, how many of those did he attempt to catch using only one hand. I've only seen the game once but I'd be sure he only tried it once and failed, on this occasion was it just his intent to spoil the ball to Zebo?

who_me

Piliger wrote: »

What comes out of the gif analysis above is that Australia have a huge strength in being able to change tactics on the field via their captain and leaders. Ireland could not make ANY change to their tactics until they were told what to do at half time. We need to find someone on the pitch capable of making these decisions.

I don't think it's quite that simple. One of the reasons we've been so effective over the last year is because the players know what they have to do, and what those around them are going to do. That makes our phase-play much faster, less hesitant and more effective. When players start going off-plan (making a break instead of a clearing kick, offloading out of contact etc.) mistakes start to happen, players get isolated.

I definitely think we'll need to have a more rounded game - sooner or later we'll come up against a back-3 that we really don't want to kick to - but I don't think the way we're playing is down to inability on the part of the players. We have loads of heads-up-ability at 9,10 and 12.

dregin

phog wrote: »

How many balls did Falou catch on Saturday, how many of those did he attempt to catch using only one hand. I've only seen the game once but I'd be sure he only tried it once and failed, on this occasion was it just his intent to spoil the ball to Zebo?

Not only was it his intent, it's his job!

Otacon

who_me wrote: »

sooner or later we'll come up against a back-3 that we really don't want to kick to

I can't think of a more dangerous back-three than the one we just faced, in that regard at least.

who_me

Otacon wrote: »

I can't think of a more dangerous back-three than the one we just faced, in that regard at least.

Quite probably! (To be fair, Aus did score 3 tries, and should have had a fourth!)

When we're not under pressure, the kicking game is less risky. Murray / Sexton have time to pick the spot and make the kick; the chaser has time to get to it and either win the ball or jump into the catcher and disrupt (bit cynical if you ask me, but effective). It's when the kick is rushed, and hence inaccurate, or the chase isn't in place or too slow.. that's when the opposing back 3 will destroy you. And as we tired on Saturday, that's what started to happen, some kicks weren't chased at all.

molloyjh

.ak wrote: »

If you get away with it it's brilliant.

Absolutely. It was intelligent stuff from them. All sides do it to a degree (including Ireland and Leinster) but not to the extent that Australia were on Saturday. It was pretty constant rather than just on occasion.

Sangre

Piliger wrote: »

What comes out of the gif analysis above is that Australia have a huge strength in being able to change tactics on the field via their captain and leaders. Ireland could not make ANY change to their tactics until they were told what to do at half time. We need to find someone on the pitch capable of making these decisions.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. Australia had a clear game plan, attack the wide channels, in particular Henshaw and Zebo. It worked really well in the first half. It did not work well in the second half and Australia had no Plan B. During the game as a whole, I think Ireland reacted better (even if it needed a half time break).

shuffol

I think racing into such a big early lead threw us completely, we changed our mentality and understandably got a bit looser. Once Australia came back into it we couldn't readjust so easily and were badly in need of half time.

Clearlier

First Up wrote: »

Have a look at the analysis in #870. Not even close.

Thanks for that. Just looked. I think that there's a simple but fatal flaw in that analysis which is that he uses the body (foot?) of the Aussie to determine the location of the ball. If you look at a replay of the pass you'll see that Phipps picks it up in front of him and shovels it out sideways, Foley OTOH has to reach back to catch the ball. That easily accounts for the 54cms measured.

aimee1

Quint2010 wrote: »

I thought that was a definite deliberate knock on by Folau. Should have been a pen IMO. Also that fumble by the Australian player close to his own line looked like a knock on. Once it hits the ground after he's touched it its a knock on right? That would have given us a 5M metre attacking scrum. So 3 big decisions including the definite forward pass that went the Australians way..

Kearney tackled while in the air too, just a pen, should have been a YC

stephen_n

shuffol wrote: »

He was reaching over his head at full stretch trying to catch a ball with one hand, whether he intended to catch it or not it wasn't realistically going to happen. How many times have you seen a ball caught like that?

He had the ball cupped in his hand, there is no doubt it was a big ask but it's not impossible and no way was it an attempt to slap the ball down, if you can't contest the ball in the air because it's a difficult catch, it would make a mockery of most full backs!

First Up

Clearlier wrote: »

Thanks for that. Just looked. I think that there's a simple but fatal flaw in that analysis which is that he uses the body (foot?) of the Aussie to determine the location of the ball. If you look at a replay of the pass you'll see that Phipps picks it up in front of him and shovels it out sideways, Foley OTOH has to reach back to catch the ball. That easily accounts for the 54cms measured.

Foley had to reach back because he had anticipated the pass would come a split second earlier and had over-run Phipps.

Swiwi.

Steve Hansen is likely to sign on for another couple of years...

...which means Schmidt ain't going anywhere (if he ever was)

Schmidt vs Hansen 2017, Lions vs ABs, to decide the master of the world, galaxy, universe

You heard it here first!

Bridge93

Panel on Against the Head giving the reasons why Foley's try was given.

First Up

Bridge93 wrote: »

Panel on Against the Head giving the reasons why Foley's try was given.

Didn't see it and my On Demand service isn't working. What was the gist of the argument?

sydthebeat

First Up wrote: »

Didn't see it and my On Demand service isn't working. What was the gist of the argument?

Ref asked any reason i can't award the try.... which means he was happy with the grounding.
We couldn't get to hear the conservation with the tmo so we can't say anything about the pass. The panel agreed that it was probably flat.

First Up

sydthebeat wrote: »

Ref asked any reason i can't award the try.... which means he was happy with the grounding.
We couldn't get to hear the conservation with the tmo so we can't say anything about the pass. The panel agreed that it was probably flat.

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

rrpc

First Up wrote: »

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

ATH showed it properly, the direction of his hands indicated that the pass was flat. It certainly wasn't clearly forward as needs be for the try not to be awarded.

SaveOurLyric

rrpc wrote: »

ATH showed it properly, the direction of his hands indicated that the pass was flat. It certainly wasn't clearly forward as needs be for the try not to be awarded.

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

Bridge93

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

Well regardless of the argument over the pass, it was an Australia advantage anyway I think so they had a penalty 5m out on the way.

Clearlier

First Up wrote: »

Incomprehensible. Nowhere close to flat. There must be a don't slag the ref instruction gone around. Just glad it didn't affect the result.

I don't understand. You said up above that Foley overran the pass and had to reach back to get it thus the very nifty analysis that you guided me towards earlier was flawed as it used body position rather than ball position.

The TMO decided it was flat, the TV analysts at the game decided it was flat, Murray Kinsella thinks that it was probably flat, the guys on Against the Head think it was probably flat. Most of the posters on this thread seem to think that it was flat (open to correction on this if somebody wants to do a poll). Perhaps it might be worth taking another look and focusing on the ball and it's trajectory?

rrpc

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

How is the angle of the hands relevant? (If a player standing still, with his back to the opposition line passes with behind himself, surely the pass still forward ?)

Is a forward pass not the motion of the ball relative to the player ? The passer was stationary. So there is no relative motion of the passer to allow for. So if the ball goes forward, (whatever the motion of angle of his hands), then it is a forward pass and a scrum.

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass. Whether the player is stationary or moving that won't change. The ball didn't go forward, back a few pages ago someone did a gif analysis and at worst they figured it went a few centimetres forward. But their points of measurement were a bit arbitrary and someone else pointed out that the starting point was off in the gifs.

It was far too marginal for it to be called forward.

First Up

rrpc wrote: »

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass. Whether the player is stationary or moving that won't change. The ball didn't go forward, back a few pages ago someone did a gif analysis and at worst they figured it went a few centimetres forward. But their points of measurement were a bit arbitrary and someone else pointed out that the starting point was off in the gifs.

It was far too marginal for it to be called forward.

My reading is that Foley went a fraction too soon. Phipps was in the act of passing, saw where Foley was and adjusted instinctively. He didn't put it into Foley's breadbasket (even Jackson might have spotted that) but fractionally behind him - but still forward from where it left Phipps' hands. If Phipps had been moving forward it would have probably been OK but he was standing still or maybe even being (legitimately) rucked back.
If it happened on half way it wouldn't have mattered but those illegal inches or feet enabled Foley get close enough to get the grounding verdict. If that isn't gaining an illegal advantage I don't know what is.
The way the forward pass is now being reffed they might as well abolish it.

madzers

Few pictures from game
http://www.jmaddenphotography.com/ireland-vs-australia/

Quint2010

Phipps was not stationary. Zebo's counter ruck caused Phipps body to rotate and cause extra clockwise spin to be put on the ball. Like a golf shot the pass effectively faded ie went back and then forward in an arc. So not a forward pass.

First Up

Quint2010 wrote: »

Phipps was not stationary. Zeros counter ruck caused Phipps body to rotate and cause extra clockwise spin to be put on the ball. Like a golf shot the pass effectively faded ie went back and then forward in an arc. So not a forward pass.

Ah, so referees are now required to be experts in the Magnus effect?

henryporter

madzers wrote: »

Few pictures from game
http://www.jmaddenphotography.com/ireland-vs-australia/

A few Nice job!

Pudsy33

Did anyone see Murray Kinsellas piece on our second half defence yesterday? It's very impressive. Zebo put in two great hits to foil certain overlaps.