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

irishbucsfan

rrpc wrote: »

TMOs now look at the direction of the hands at the time of the pass.

It's just a media soundbite. The "direction of the hands" thing came from a badly worded IRB document and they later clarified it, nothing changed there. It's all relative motion.

who_me

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's just a media soundbite. The "direction of the hands" thing came from a badly worded IRB document and they later clarified it, nothing changed there. It's all relative motion.

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

In any case, we shouldn't be relying on marginal forward pass calls 5m out from our line to save us.

First Up

who_me wrote: »

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

In any case, we shouldn't be relying on marginal forward pass calls 5m out from our line to save us.

Its only in the 5m from the line zone that it matters. If Foley had been even a few inches back he wouldn't have made it close enough to get the call for the try.

BoardsMember

who_me wrote: »

Surely focusing on the hands is only confusing things anyway, if you're throwing with a swinging motion there's always going to be some follow-through which is only going to throw off any analysis of whether it's a forward pass.

True, concentrating on movement of hands is only really relevant when the player passing the ball is moving forward at speed, which was not the case in this scenario.

stephen_n

Pudsy33 wrote: »

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.

I remember one in particular late in the second half and he prevented a pretty certain try by closing down the pass, was very impressed with that one.

jacothelad

Zebo had a good game, pretty much as he always does. Examining everything a player does under the microscope will show many errors that are easy to criticise using 20 20 hindsight. Some players get it endlessly, usually as a weapon to elevate claims for one of their own supported players. Others get a free pass almost no matter what they do.

clsmooth

jacothelad wrote: »

Zebo had a good game, pretty much as he always does. Examining everything a player does under the microscope will show many errors that are easy to criticise using 20 20 hindsight. Some players get it endlessly, usually as a weapon to elevate claims for one of their own supported players. Others get a free pass almost no matter what they do.

Casey :eek:

Piliger

BoardsMember wrote: »

True, concentrating on movement of hands is only really relevant when the player passing the ball is moving forward at speed, which was not the case in this scenario.

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

sydthebeat

Piliger wrote: »

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

Nah, that was never the history of the game. One the pass went backwards it was fine, it didn't have anything to do with the geometry of the pitch. That only became an issue with the advent of tv replays and slo mo.

Mahatma Geansai

Piliger wrote: »

Well personally I am thoroughly sick of this newly adopted nonsense about movement of hands. It is totally against the spirit and history of the game.

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

We could do so, but there would be a massive increase in the amount of forward passes in a game. Unless you want players to come to a stand-still before they are allowed to pass the ball, looking at the direction of the players hands remains the easiest way to account for the effect a player's momentum has on the flight of the ball.

SaveOurLyric

Piliger wrote: »

Either the ball goes forward according to the geometry of the pitch .... or it doesn't. I think we need to get back to that simple principle !

It never was that principal. Because it woudnt work.
It was backwards relative to the motion of the player passing. Hands angle are a sometimes, but only sometimes, guide to relative motion of the ball. But is not the decisive point.

Piliger

Mahatma Geansai wrote: »

We could do so, but there would be a massive increase in the amount of forward passes in a game. Unless you want players to come to a stand-still before they are allowed to pass the ball, looking at the direction of the players hands remains the easiest way to account for the effect a player's momentum has on the flight of the ball.

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

It never was that principal. Because it woudnt work.
It was backwards relative to the motion of the player passing. Hands angle are a sometimes, but only sometimes, guide to relative motion of the ball. But is not the decisive point.

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nah, that was never the history of the game. One the pass went backwards it was fine, it didn't have anything to do with the geometry of the pitch. That only became an issue with the advent of tv replays and slo mo.

No The ball always had to go backward from the point at which it was thrown, and backwards was always interpreted as behind the parallel of the end lines. No need to stop or pause, it was always only about the point of release compared with the point of receipt. That has always been the principle behind the forward pass rule for eons. It is and has always been an easy measure especially with the advent of video.

DDC1990

Piliger wrote: »

No The ball always had to go backward from the point at which it was thrown, and backwards was always interpreted as behind the parallel of the end lines. No need to stop or pause, it was always only about the point of release compared with the point of receipt. That has always been the principle behind the forward pass rule for eons. It is and has always been an easy measure especially with the advent of video.

Here is why your definition of a forward pass in untenable in todays game.

.ak

Piliger wrote: »

No The ball always had to go backward from the point at which it was thrown, and backwards was always interpreted as behind the parallel of the end lines. No need to stop or pause, it was always only about the point of release compared with the point of receipt. That has always been the principle behind the forward pass rule for eons. It is and has always been an easy measure especially with the advent of video.

Then every pass when a player is running is a forward pass.

sydthebeat

Piliger wrote: »

No The ball always had to go backward from the point at which it was thrown, and backwards was always interpreted as behind the parallel of the end lines. No need to stop or pause, it was always only about the point of release compared with the point of receipt. That has always been the principle behind the forward pass rule for eons. It is and has always been an easy measure especially with the advent of video.

No. What your describing was how analysists first checked passed in that era between recording and irb clarification. This was an incorrect interpretation by studo pundits.

Logic stats that if two players are running at the same speed but one is 2 meters ahead of the other. .. any pass from the first to the second must be backward.
However, a s show above, the ball can actually move forward even when it's throw backwards.

Look back on the famous baabaas edwards try versus new Zealand and count the number of 'your' passes which would be forward.

What you are describing is not the history, but just an amateur interpretation of an amateur game.

Swan Curry

Maybe I'm just stubborn, but no amount of mental gymnastics or diagrams will ever convince me that pass shouldn't have been called forward.There's passes that look forward but aren't, I get that. Phipps' pass was just forward, plain and simple.

George Hook

It's actually very basic physics; every single one of us is taught it in school.

I remember a simple diagram in school of a plane flying over a field dropping a parcel and you had to guess where the parcel would land.

phog

I see a headline on the Examiner that the IRFU might bill Australia for damage to the dressing room.

mfceiling

phog wrote: »

I see a headline on the Examiner that the IRFU might bill Australia for damage to the dressing room.

You stay classy Australia...

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/rugby/sexton-zebo-deserves-applause-299397.html

Will just leave that here.

First Up

DDC1990 wrote: »

Here is why your definition of a forward pass in untenable in todays game.

The correct definition should be if the ball is thrown ahead of the person passing it. Then it doesn't matter if they are running or standing. The measure is relative to the thrower, not anything else.

But by any definition, Phipps pass on Saturday was forward.

molloyjh

You've got to love the list of stories in the Examiner. There's an article from Birch with the title of "Players believe they can be greatest ever" followed immediately by another titled "Sexton: We’ll remain grounded". The next article? "Next job: Putting a lid on soaring expectations".

Yeah_Right

phog wrote: »

I see a headline on the Examiner that the IRFU might bill Australia for damage to the dressing room.

Can you give us a link to the article please? Went to the Examiner site and couldn't find it Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.

phog

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can you give us a link to the article please? Went to the Examiner site and couldn't find it Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.

It was a tweet with a photo of their front page.

jacothelad

http://http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/irfu-may-bill-wallabies-over-dressing-room-damage-299588.html

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Can you give us a link to the article please? Went to the Examiner site and couldn't find it Maybe I haven't had enough coffee this morning.

errlloyd

The real story here is that the doors in the aviva cost 8000 EURO. What the hell did we make the doors out of.

I think we got off lightly though. Last time Michael Cheika lost a match in Landsdowne road we had the rebuild the whole stadium a few months later.

Podge_irl

errlloyd wrote: »

The real story here is that the doors in the aviva cost 8000 EURO. What the hell did we make the doors out of.

My first reaction there was "a concert can't possibly by that expensive".

I don't even like The Doors.

who_me

phog

That offload

Putinovsky

God the effort to absolve Zebo of any blame for any mistake is really annoying.

phog

Putinovsky wrote: »

God the effort to absolve Zebo of any blame for any mistake is really annoying.

Especially from someone like Sexton, what would he know?

Awkward Badger

Putinovsky wrote: »

God the effort to absolve Zebo of any blame for any mistake is really annoying.

There's two sides making this such an issue though, trying to absolve Zebo of everything and put it all on others and trying to criticise Zebo for every little thing.

Fact it is was a player trying to create something that didn't work out. Perhaps it was a wrong decision but "blame" shouldn't really come into it. It was neither right nor wrong really, just one of those things that didn't come off and if Mr Zebo wasn't at the centre of it people on both sides probably wouldn't give two shítes about what was said about it.

.ak

He was absolutely right to try it. Sexton was alert to it and knew he was going to try it, so he made himself available for it. The only thing Zebo didn't do right was watch Foley - Foley did well to commit himself to Zebo (maybe he did his homework?) but Zebo should've seen the extended arm and cancelled. But as Sexton says it's better he tried it then not.

molloyjh

Are we really starting this again? Really? Hasn't it been flogged to death a couple of times already. We won. Let's all move on.

its_phil

phog wrote: »

That offload

It's just typical Zebo, wanting to take all the credit from Henshaw because he was going to get praise for taking that Garryowen. What an a**

I really resent the idea that this is only a talking point because Zebo was involved. This mistake directly resulted in a try. That's why its a talking point.

thomond2006

Molester Stallone II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I really resent the idea that this is only a talking point because Zebo was involved. This mistake directly resulted in a try. That's why its a talking point.

Then lets talk about the tag rugby style tackles that went in after that pass

Molester Stallone II

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Then lets talk about the tag rugby style tackles that went in after that pass

They were rubbish. Anyone disagree?

There, settled.

First Up

Molester Stallone II wrote: »

Then lets talk about the tag rugby style tackles that went in after that pass

The brilliant Australian try also featured a behind the back pass. Was that a mistake or rash? It takes a lot to unlock defenses. I don't blame Zebo for giving it a go.

The poor tackling (I include Kearney standing off) was the cause of the try.

Putinovsky

phog wrote: »

Especially from someone like Sexton, what would he know?

Isn't that a prime example?

can we get an expiry date on these threads at this stage people have there minds made up any further argument is pointless and repetitive.

Edit: the dressing room incident is new though i dont understand the "thinking about billing the wallabies" they broke it they should fix it dont see the issue

Zaylee Damaged Violist

Zaylee Damaged Violist wrote: »

can we get an expiry date on these threads at this stage people have there minds made up any further argument is pointless and repetitive.

Edit: the dressing room incident is new though i dont understand the "thinking about billing the wallabies" they broke it they should fix it dont see the issue

What do you expect? They're from an island of convicts

Molester Stallone II

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you expect? They're from an island of convicts

Aboriginies weren't convicts!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

What do you expect? They're from an island of convicts

original :rolleyes:

Pudsy33

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What do you expect? They're from an island of convicts

So what you're saying is....it's our own fault?

DDC1990

FFS, a member of the Aussie support staff accidentally damaged a part of the dressing room.

They let the IRFU know that evening.

They offered to pay for the damages.

The only reason that this should be a story is that a Door (or possibly a hole in a wall in some reports) in the Aviva costs 8k, or that the IRFU are only CONSIDERING taking the payment from the Aussies! :P

These comments like "stay classy" are ridiculous. Its not like they were that bothered over an Autumn International loss at the end of their season, or they had anything to be aggrieved over. Assuming that because damage was done, means that the dressing rooms were deliberately smashed up is real tabloid shít.

EDIT: Ugh just read the sub-headline on the Indo... "Sore losers cause damage to dressing rooms" and they even quote the Star, as a reputable source. They are worst then the tabloids to me because they masquerade as a real newspaper.

Well I meant my comment as a joke

duckysauce

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I meant my comment as a joke

not very funny

errlloyd

Cheika smashed the hell out of a window when he was Tahs coach right?

Tbh I think it's okay that once in a while players lash out when they lose a match. I'd rather they smashed up a door (which probably didn't look that expensive), then spear tackle or gouge someone.