South Africa v Ireland, Match Thread

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?

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.

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:

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

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...

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.

sydthebeat

:rolleyes: jaysus

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

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.

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.

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.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

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.

So did you actually answer my question there or not? The only judgement you seem to have made in that post is that there was nothing in it and he should not have been punished at all for it. Subsequently you mentioned what you thought might happen rather than what you thought should happen. So you think there should have been no sanction at all, is that correct? And why is it taking so long to get a simple straight forward answer to a simple, straight forward question?

molloyjh

Adbrowne wrote: »

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.

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

leakyboots

If Lambie hadn't been injured, I think the ref would have

a) Done nothing and let play on
b) Called a penalty where the ball landed and had a word with CJ
c) Penalty and yellow carded him

I think the injury made him give a red, he reffed the injury and not what caused it. I didn't think it's a red either. Most people I've spoken to/read about thought it was harsh, molloyjh is very much in the minority from what I've come across.

I'd have given a yellow, I'd be the same if it happened us with Jackson.

Either way, a red is plenty for me, didn't think it warranted a ban on top.

Given they could potentially have suspended CJ more, happy enough with a week 'cos he'll be back for the final test. Take it on the chin and move on

leakyboots

Just to add, if you start reffing injuries you get situations where players go down the soccer route of playing up things like high-tackles in an effort to get opposition players in trouble

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

i know you cant compare different incidents but ive looked at a few on youtube and googled the ban. Some players have got 4-6 week bans despite the player they offended against getting up and playing on.

If that incident happened in a leinster v munster game, say Jordi on Holland, I think some peoples opinion about the punishment would be very different

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

So did you actually answer my question there or not? The only judgement you seem to have made in that post is that there was nothing in it and he should not have been punished at all for it. Subsequently you mentioned what you thought might happen rather than what you thought should happen. So you think there should have been no sanction at all, is that correct? And why is it taking so long to get a simple straight forward answer to a simple, straight forward question?

What part of the reply did you not understand?

jm08

molloyjh wrote: »

You would also think the outcome of the foul play should play a part in the sanction as well. It does in other situations. For example a player who deliberately and cynically lingers on the wrong side of the ruck obstructing attacking play around midfield will concede a penalty. Do the same thing a metre from your own line and you'll end up getting a yellow if it prevents a try.

A mistimed tackle is not foul play.

What sort of punishment would you give to Manu Tualagi's tackle on David Wallace which finished his career. (Ireland were given a penalty for it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

CMOTDibbler

leakyboots wrote: »

If Lambie hadn't been injured, I think the ref would have

a) Done nothing and let play on
b) Called a penalty where the ball landed and had a word with CJ
c) Penalty and yellow carded him

I think the injury made him give a red, he reffed the injury and not what caused it. I didn't think it's a red either. Most people I've spoken to/read about thought it was harsh, molloyjh is very much in the minority from what I've come across.

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

The Lost Sheep

jm08 wrote: »

A mistimed tackle is not foul play.

What sort of punishment would you give to Manu Tualagi's tackle on David Wallace which finished his career. (Ireland were given a penalty for it).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9V1yMIjxQc

A mistimed tackle is foul play if it can be considered early, late or dangerous.

CMOTDibbler

phog wrote: »

What part of the reply did you not understand?

The part where your simple answer was; nothing, red, yellow. :pac:

jm08

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

A mistimed tackle is foul play if it can be considered early, late or dangerous.

I think to be foul play, you need intent to do harm.

foul play

n.1. Intentionally violent or injurious behavior, especially that suggestive of a criminal act.
2. Inappropriate, unethical, or unlawful conduct, especially to disadvantage an opponent.

CMOTDibbler

jm08 wrote: »

I think to be foul play, you need intent to do harm.

foul play

n.1. Intentionally violent or injurious behavior, especially that suggestive of a criminal act.
2. Inappropriate, unethical, or unlawful conduct, especially to disadvantage an opponent.

It's already been defined for you. From the actual laws of rugby no less. No need for online dictiionaries.

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

What part of the reply did you not understand?

Exactly what your opinion was. I asked what you think should have happened. Your eventual response had 3 distinct points:

1. You thought there was nothing in it
2. You thought he might get a red (not that he deserved a red)
3. You thought he might get a yellow (not that he deserved a yellow)

This is quite an easy thing. I asked you what should have happened. A 1 line answer saying exactly what you think should have happened answers that. You have 4 options. Please pick one for clarity (I know you don't agree with option 4 but it's there as an option anyway):

1. No sanction, play on.
2. Penalty only, no card.
3. Penalty and a yellow card.
4. Penalty and a red card.

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

It's already been defined for you. From the actual laws of rugby no less. No need for online dictiionaries.

There is great need for dictionaries, online or otherwise as you don't understand that for it to be foul play, there must be intent.

Read the rugby laws again -

d) Blocking the ball. A player must not intentionally move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from playing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick
(e)
Ball carrier running into team-mate. A player carrying the ball must not intentionally run into team-mates in front of that player.

Sanction: Penalty kick

Hagz

But even if you accidentally run into one of your own players it's a penalty kick.

leakyboots

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

Intent comes into it then, I don't think CJ intentionally went out to injure Lambie in this instance with his actions.

Edit: as for 'not in the minority here', I don't use here as a yardstick alone. There is a higher proportion of fans from Leinster here that some of whom may be slightly biased against CJ for provincial reasons. You're obviously welcome to point out that I can be biased too as CJ plays for my team, perhaps that is the case. But go have a read on the comments pages of international websites.

FACECUTTR

I cannot wait for the second test so this repetitive vomit stops.

Mr Tickle

Fergus McFadden says it was intentional

pickarooney

Can we close the match thread now?

sydthebeat

jm08 wrote: »

.... for it to be foul play, there must be intent.
]

thats patently incorrect... and can be very easily substantiated

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=63

'intent' only comes in 2 of the 19 laws of "foul play" in rugby

count them, hint its in (k) and (o)

leakyboots

That's a big statement from Ferg. (I won't go into his own disciplinary woes this season ) CJ actually touched the ball in flight, he was committed to the charge down, not to hurting Lambie.

Guardian match report - "There can be no doubt that Stander was at fault – Lambie’s involvement in the match also came to an end, taken off on a stretcher having been knocked cold, and he was subsequently ruled out of the second Test under the concussion protocol. Equally, a yellow card was perhaps a more appropriate punishment. Stander was attempting to charge down Lambie’s kick when he cleaned out the fly-half and you could not help but feel that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, allowed the outcome to cloud his judgment of the infringement".

Search through the comments, throw 'CJ Stander Red Card' into Twitter. Majority opinion is it's a harsh red.

Anyway, it's neither here nor there now anyway.

jm08

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats patently incorrect... and can be very easily substantiated

http://playerwelfare.worldrugby.org/?documentid=63

'intent' only comes in 2 of the 19 laws of "foul play" in rugby

count them, hint its in (k) and (o)

These are the laws of the game - 10 Foul Play from the World Rugby website.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10

I counted the use of the word 'intent' - something like 20+ times the word 'intent' is used in the section 10 Foul Play.

And great and all that World Rugby is, they have not the power to alter the definition of words.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Intent comes into it then, I don't think CJ intentionally went out to injure Lambie in this instance with his actions.

Edit: as for 'not in the minority here', I don't use here as a yardstick alone. There is a higher proportion of fans from Leinster here that some of whom may be slightly biased against CJ for provincial reasons. You're obviously welcome to point out that I can be biased too as CJ plays for my team, perhaps that is the case. But go have a read on the comments pages of international websites.

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

It wasn't an intentional act of foul play. I'm gutted for the guy that it cost him the game plus the ban. But you cannot jump into a players head. You just can't. Provincial allegiance, intent, purpose for the jump, Lambies own actions. All of these things are irrelevant. And constant attempts to muddy the waters are just as irrelevant. A player cannot jump into another players head. It's incredibly dangerous. Not just a little bit dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.

Lambie was lucky in the end but it could have been a lot worse for him. Just look at what a bang to the head did to Russell only a few weeks ago. There has been a lot of talk about CJ but what of talk about Lambie and how badly it could have gone for him because of what CJ did?

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Exactly what your opinion was. I asked what you think should have happened. Your eventual response had 3 distinct points:

1. You thought there was nothing in it
2. You thought he might get a red (not that he deserved a red)
3. You thought he might get a yellow (not that he deserved a yellow)

This is quite an easy thing. I asked you what should have happened. A 1 line answer saying exactly what you think should have happened answers that. You have 4 options. Please pick one for clarity (I know you don't agree with option 4 but it's there as an option anyway):

1. No sanction, play on.
2. Penalty only, no card.
3. Penalty and a yellow card.
4. Penalty and a red card.

I thought he'd get a yellow card. At the time I said the red card was harsh

Now I wonder what the sanction would be from that unless you think no penalty when a player gets a YC

jm08

FACECUTTR wrote: »

I cannot wait for the second test so this repetitive vomit stops.

The speculation will end when we find out how CJ was suspended for a week for tackling Lambie.

Whatever he did, he didn't tackle him.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

That's a big statement from Ferg. (I won't go into his own disciplinary woes this season ) CJ actually touched the ball in flight, he was committed to the charge down, not to hurting Lambie.

I don't think Ferg actually said that. Pretty sure that was a joke.

phog

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

Why didn't you call out the OP on trying to bring provincial allegiances into it?

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Now I wonder what the sanction would be from that unless you think no penalty when a player gets a YC

I won't even bother pointing out how the original post was as vague as it possibly could have been. We have an answer now to the question, which is that you think he should have gotten a yellow.

So what offence did he commit then in your book that deserved the yellow? And this time let's try and keep it to direct answers so we don't waste another handful of posts....

molloyjh

phog wrote: »

Why didn't you call out the OP on trying to bring provincial allegiances into it?

Not sure what post you are referring to. Here's the post that leakyboots replied to, which in no way refers to any provincialism. And this post was in reply to an earlier leakyboots post that was a standalone post with no mention of provincialism either.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Well he's not in the minority here. I agree with him as do many others. Knew it was a likely red the minute I saw it. Hoped for a yellow but not surprised it was red. Once it's red it's a ban. Very seldom you see reds overturned.

btw, the injury to the other player has to come into it. You think Callum Black should have been dealt with like any other ruck infringement?

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Sorry now I'm going to have to call you out on this. My provincial allegiance has absolutely zero to do with my reading of that situation. There's some awful amount of discussion over something that's pretty straight forward. CJ jumped into a space that was always going to be occupied by Lambies head. Therefore CJ jumped into Lambies head. There is nothing more in it that that.

It wasn't an intentional act of foul play. I'm gutted for the guy that it cost him the game plus the ban. But you cannot jump into a players head. You just can't. Provincial allegiance, intent, purpose for the jump, Lambies own actions. All of these things are irrelevant. And constant attempts to muddy the waters are just as irrelevant. A player cannot jump into another players head. It's incredibly dangerous. Not just a little bit dangerous. Incredibly dangerous.

Lambie was lucky in the end but it could have been a lot worse for him. Just look at what a bang to the head did to Russell only a few weeks ago. There has been a lot of talk about CJ but what of talk about Lambie and how badly it could have gone for him because of what CJ did?

I'm not saying your provincialism does, I was pointing out that I don't use here as a yardstick for general opinion for that reason. It's not casting aspersions at you or anyone else specifically, sure I'm as likely to be biased the other way 'cos I'm a Munster fan.

My comment was in relation to general opinion on the clash and the on-field punishment, on places outside of here - the international press, international comment, and I found that most people thought it was harsh on CJ.

I just have to disagree with you on everything else - it was an unfortunate, freak, clash that turned nasty for Lambie. If Lambie is standing a metre closer he could upend CJ and send him spiralling off over his shoulder, or a metre back and he could be kicking CJ in the face.

I still don't think it's a red.

EDIT: ignore my stupid knowledge of geometry and metre forward/back, the point being in another blink of an eye it could be an injury to CJ we're talking about