Ireland v Waltzing Matilda, test 1 build up thread.

Christy42

So why is there footage available to the tmo not available to the ref?

Surely the ref needs all possible information to make his final decision. Sure sometimes a linemen will see something but we don't have their eyes recording. The TMOs eyes are recording.

There is no good technical reason for it.

TheCitizen

mangobob wrote: »

In fairness lads, if the TMO says he has an angle which clearly shows a knock on then we have to give him the benefit of the doubt. Why would he lie? Still weird that it cant be shown on the tv feed.

I'd like to see this footage. Until we see it we can't comment

lawred2

joseywhales wrote: »

Definitely missed Ringrose, Furlong in fairness broke two guys shoulders followed by a very nice offload. Our backrow is like England's, bunch of big lads. They need to bring back the rule where a scrum half can rake a guys hands over the ball, I'm not talking heads here.

Would be no need to rake anything if the ref did his job.

irishbucsfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

I'd like to see this footage. Until we see it we can't comment

His was the footage was on our screens. The tackled player dropped the ball before he played it back to Marmion.

I'm sure it'll be up on twitter soon enough anyway.

Or MAYBE this is just all a huge conspiracy by World Rugby to deny Ireland a slightly closer scoreline!

corny

Don't see what Carberry did to merit the tentative vote of confidence he's getting.

He had major trouble dealing with the Aussie tacklers and the majority of his possessions went to the man immediately outside him. Apart from the set piece play for Earls' break i didn't see him put anyone in space or try to pick the defence in any way.

Not singling him out. None of our backs played well. Just.....he didn't play well.

errlloyd

We learned a lot about aus in that game. They learned virtually nothing about us. I'd say we'll see 6 changes in the starting pack (minimum) and possibly 3 backs.

And thats not me calling for them, I'd give this team another shot in a heartbeat, but I imagine it was always the plan.

The question is does Joe go for his first choice next week, or similar to this week does he have a look at a few more lads. Conan, Conway, Cooney and maybe some lads who don't have names beginning with Co.

TheCitizen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

His was the footage was on our screens. The tackled player dropped the ball before he played it back to Marmion.

I'm sure it'll be up on twitter soon enough anyway.

Or MAYBE this is just all a huge conspiracy by World Rugby to deny Ireland a slightly closer scoreline!

Nobody said anything about a conspiracy bar you.

If his was the footage on our screens as you say then it was a mistake to overturn the decision. The footage shown was not clear enough to overturn the decision. No conspiracy; a mistake by the video ref.

Weepsie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

His was the footage was on our screens. The tackled player dropped the ball before he played it back to Marmion.

I'm sure it'll be up on twitter soon enough anyway.

Or MAYBE this is just all a huge conspiracy by World Rugby to deny Ireland a slightly closer scoreline!

Maybe it was my small screen, but it looked like he still had possession of it the entire time, maybe not control, but that it was still in his possession and was going forward with him.

irishbucsfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

Nobody said anything about a conspiracy bar you.

If his was the footage on our screens as you say then it was a mistake to overturn the decision. The footage shown was not clear enough to overturn the decision. No conspiracy; a mistake by the video ref.

The footage showed a knock-on within two phases of the try being scored, which completely justifies the decision.

TheCitizen

Weepsie wrote: »

Maybe it was my small screen, but it looked like he still had possession of it, maybe not control, but that it was still in his possession

It was certainly not clear cut. The try was originally awarded. The decision shouldn't have been overturned on that evidence.

TheCitizen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The footage showed a knock-on within two phases of the try being scored, which completely justifies the decision.

No it didn't. It wasn't clear. The decision to overturn the original call was unjustified.

Bridge93

Healy Herring Furlong
Henderson/Toner Ryan
POM/Stander Stander/Murphy Leavy

Murray Sexton
Stockdale Henshaw Ringrose Earls
Kearney

Cronin, McGrath, Porter, Beirne, Murphy/Conan, Cooney, Carbery/Byrne, Larmour/Aki


Go and win next week then consider rotating. Strong as possible first.

People can go on about ref decisions but australia have as much, if not more, reasons to be unhappy with him. The bench didn't have close to the impact we anticipated sadly. Starting pack were good I thought. As were Carbery and Stockdale.
The aerial and kicking game are some of our major assets and were rendered useless due to Folau and DHP. Breakdown was a mess from our point of view. And yet we could've won despite all that and the rotation.
The reverse of what we thought would happen happened given we were winning going into the last quarter.

Looking forward to next week, Australia deserved winners. I said it last week but the talk bordered on arrogance and a lot of ignorance going into this tour. We're playing a very good side

UnknownSpecies

All talk of poor refereeing decisions is just a distraction from our own problems and areas that need work. Refs decisions balanced out for both teams, Australia just played better and with more intensity.

Minderbinder

Christy42 wrote: »

So why is there footage available to the tmo not available to the ref?

Surely the ref needs all possible information to make his final decision. Sure sometimes a linemen will see something but we don't have their eyes recording. The TMOs eyes are recording.

There is no good technical reason for it.

What struck me is that the TMO alerted the ref immediately that there was something wrong with the try. He then started showing the last phase or maybe the last two phases of play before the try in which there was nothing obvious, unless he was using a microscope. There's no way the TMO was talking about the last two phases before the try because he couldn't have been so quick to spot something so small.

I'm guessing that if there was a knock on it was before what he was showing on the screen. If he just messed up by not showing the incident, then that's fair enough. But then I'm not sure how many phases of play they're allowed to go back to disallow a try?

TheCitizen

UnknownSpecies wrote: »

All talk of poor refereeing decisions is just a distraction from our own problems and areas that need work. Refs decisions balanced out for both teams, Australia just played better and with more intensity.

Fair comment Ireland can play better and will need to to win next week.

irishbucsfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

No it didn't. It wasn't clear. The decision to overturn the original call was unjustified.

It wasn't clear to you perhaps. It was clear to me and I guess also the TMO.

MJohnston

TheCitizen wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The footage showed a knock-on within two phases of the try being scored, which completely justifies the decision.

No it didn't. It wasn't clear. The decision to overturn the original call was unjustified.

It was fairly clear, it wasn't "conclusive" like the TMO stated, but who cares? We were undone by a lot of shaky handling from the backs, and Australia winning most of the breakdowns (legally or not). I just hope this is learnt from next match, you could arguably pin that shakiness on it being the first game back, first game with that back line in a long time (maybe ever), first game without knowing your opposition too well etc. This is the reason we play world cup warmup games!

Minderbinder

irishbucsfan wrote: »

TheCitizen wrote: »

No it didn't. It wasn't clear. The decision to overturn the original call was unjustified.

It wasn't clear to you perhaps.  It was clear to me and I guess also the TMO.

So clear that he got the number wrong?

TheCitizen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It wasn't clear to you perhaps. It was clear to me and I guess also the TMO.

On the evidence that we saw it wasn't clear to anyone, including you.

If the TMO was looking at and adjudicating with the exact same footage that we saw he made a mistake overturning the decision on that evidence.

irishbucsfan

TheCitizen wrote: »

On the evidence that we saw it wasn't clear to anyone, including you.

If the TMO was looking at and adjudicating with the exact same footage that we saw he made a mistake overturning the decision on that evidence.

A player went to ground, dropped the ball and it rolled forward before he regained it and played it back to the 9. Completely clear.

Maybe you need to wait to see it again. Maybe you just don't want to see it.

Deusexmachina

After any game we lose (thankfully very few these days) there is ALWAYS talk of the few changes that will make all the difference next time.

Its missing the point. We need to be able win when we are fielding a selection that is not entirely our first 15. There will always be attrition in rugby. Having a full selection to choose from is rare - and in an intense competition like the World Cup you need at least two 'first 15' level teams.

There is a huge gulf between our very best players and the next in line in most positions.

Australia destroyed us today - in the scrum, in the breakdown, in the air and in broken play. They showed brilliant line speed in defence. We couldn't play our uninspiring (but effective) multphase patient game. They were too quick for us and we ended up chucking the ball about in panic. We again showed an inability to adapt (no plan .

Are we really number 2 in the world? Not on this performance.

TheCitizen

MJohnston wrote: »

It was fairly clear, it wasn't "conclusive" like the TMO stated, but who cares? We were undone by a lot of shaky handling from the backs, and Australia winning most of the breakdowns (legally or not). I just hope this is learnt from next match, you could arguably pin that shakiness on it being the first game back, first game with that back line in a long time (maybe ever), first game without knowing your opposition too well etc. This is the reason we play world cup warmup games!

We'll see some more clips on twitter. From what I saw from the various replays it wasn't clear at all, nevermind 'fairly' clear.

The two commentators didn't see anything clear cut to verturn the original decision either. If it was 'fairly' clear they would have spotted it.

lalababa

are the highlights on tv - rte later???

joseywhales

Deusexmachina wrote: »

After any game we lose (thankfully very few these days) there is ALWAYS talk of the few changes that will make all the difference next time.

Its missing the point. We need to be able win when we are fielding a selection that is not entirely our first 15. There will always be attrition in rugby. Having a full selection to choose from is rare - and in an intense competition like the World Cup you need at least two 'first 15' level teams.

There is a huge gulf between our very best players and the next in line in most positions.

Australia destroyed us today - in the scrum, in the breakdown, in the air and in broken play. They showed brilliant line speed in defence. We couldn't play our uninspiring (but effective) multphase patient game. They were too quick for us and we ended up chucking the ball about in panic. We again showed an inability to adapt (no plan .

Are we really number 2 in the world? Not on this performance.

If sexton made touch there was a 60% chance of us winning the game, the difference between first and second line is not that great and in some cases the first line players under performed.

Minderbinder

irishbucsfan wrote: »

TheCitizen wrote: »

On the evidence that we saw it wasn't clear to anyone, including you.  

If the TMO was looking at and adjudicating with the exact same footage that we saw he made a mistake overturning the decision on that evidence.

A player went to ground, dropped the ball and it rolled forward before he regained it and played it back to the 9.  Completely clear.

Maybe you need to wait to see it again.  Maybe you just don't want to see it.

Why didn't he say that then? Why was he faffing about with the footage saying the number 7 knocked it on? Why didn't he just clearly say in the last phase it was knocked on in the breakdown?
I'm not saying you're wrong about that particular action being a knock on. Technically it probably was. But I don't think that's what he was referring to based on his use of the video and his lack of explanation.

Deusexmachina

joseywhales wrote: »

If sexton made touch there was a 60% chance of us winning the game, the difference between first and second line is not that great and in some cases the first line players under performed.

Wishful thinking.

joseywhales

Deusexmachina wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

If sexton made touch there was a 60% chance of us winning the game, the difference between first and second line is not that great and in some cases the first line players under performed.

Wishful thinking.

9-8 up in their 22 with 15 mins left and a dominant lineout, yeah I'm pretty confident

Christy42

Sure the tmo even stated that nothing he showed was clear but he had his own angle which for some reason the ref can't look at.

A possible knock on angle was shown but it was no where near clear cut and not even a likely knock on.

The tmo may have his own footage showing it but I don't get why it is hidden from the ref.

Buer

The TMO call was harsh but surely people are being obtuse or willfully ignorant if they say they can't see where there was possibly a knock on? He went to ground and the ball bobbled forward under him. Impossible to say if he still had control at that point. It was extremely harsh given it couldn't be clear or obvious but there was certainly a suspicion.

The annoying thing is that it happens about 50 times a game.

awec

Christy42 wrote: »

Sure the tmo even stated that nothing he showed was clear but he had his own angle which for some reason the ref can't look at.

A possible knock on angle was shown but it was no where near clear cut and not even a likely knock on.

The tmo may have his own footage showing it but I don't get why it is hidden from the ref.

Who actually cares?


Seriously, of all the things to get hung up on why are we so bothered about a completely inconsequential call?

Deusexmachina

joseywhales wrote: »

9-8 up in their 22 with 15 mins left and a dominant lineout, yeah I'm pretty confident

It would have been a pyrric victory. The reality is we were second best. They always looked the more dangerous.

TheCitizen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A player went to ground, dropped the ball and it rolled forward before he regained it and played it back to the 9. Completely clear.

Maybe you need to wait to see it again. Maybe you just don't want to see it.

I want to see it again because I'm fairly sure it will prove I'm right and you are wrong and that there wasn't enough clear cut evidence from the footage shown on TV to overturn the decision. Also Ireland were still going to lose so that decision alone would not have affected the overall result.

However the two guys sitting in the commentary position could not see the clear cut reason for the decision to be overturned either having watched various angles in slow motion. I concur with them. The try should have stood.

errlloyd

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Australia destroyed us today - in the scrum, in the breakdown, in the air and in broken play. They showed brilliant line speed in defence. We couldn't play our uninspiring (but effective) multphase patient game. They were too quick for us and we ended up chucking the ball about in panic. We again showed an inability to adapt (no plan .

Are we really number 2 in the world? Not on this performance.

This is ridiculously reactionary and ott.

They did not destroy us in the scrum, they destroyed us in one scrum. Otherwise there were no scrum penalties at all and hardly any resets. They didn't destroy us at the breakdown, we had 95 percent ruck success and they had 97, they beat us there. But that's fine.

We had more offloads, clean breaks, defenders beaten, we destroyed them in the lineout.

They best us today, sure. But the margins were very fine. Murray puts a kick the wrong side the corner flag barely. Stockcube slices a Chip, Folou freak saves Earls from one. Henshaw puts a grubber into touch that he wanted to stay. Larmour spills a pick up, and an intercept. CJ rolls when he didn't need to. Someone knocks the ball on before marmion.

They won today, but our seconds created probably 6 or 7 try scoring chances in that game. Against England we crested we three chances and scored them all.

That's rugby.

clsmooth

Guys (and girls), the final non try didn’t make a difference to the final result. From what I saw, it looked like we lost control of the ball in the final play before Marmion dotted down. It gets tiresome hearing how the ref is ALWAYS to blame for a loss on here.

Minderbinder

joseywhales wrote: »

Deusexmachina wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

If sexton made touch there was a 60% chance of us winning the game, the difference between first and second line is not that great and in some cases the first line players under performed.

Wishful thinking.

9-8 up in their 22 with 15 mins left and a dominant lineout, yeah I'm pretty confident

It quickly turns around. Being in their 22 guarantees nothing and just after he missed touch we got possession back and were up around their 10m line. I think Ireland looked in control for a period of the first half but other than that Australia were the more dangerous side and we didn't look like keeping them out.

clsmooth

Deusexmachina wrote: »

It would have been a pyrric victory. The reality is we were second best. They always looked the more dangerous.

A bit like NZ’s Pyrrhic victory in the RWC2011 final vs France :P

PetKing

awec wrote:

Seriously, of all the things to get hung up on why are we so bothered about a completely inconsequential call?

No one is disputing the irrelevance of the call.

Buer

They didn't even destroy us in one scrum. That was never a penalty. It went 90 with neither side advancing. It was a straightforward reset. There was as much argument for Australia wheeling as there was for them winning the penalty.

Weepsie

Irrelevance is not irrelevant. If you can get it badly wrong then, then what else was badly wrong throughout? There's no room for glaring errors.

Minderbinder

Buer wrote: »

The TMO call was harsh but surely people are being obtuse or willfully ignorant if they say they can't see where there was possibly a knock on? He went to ground and the ball bobbled forward under him. Impossible to say if he still had control at that point. It was extremely harsh given it couldn't be clear or obvious but there was certainly a suspicion.

The annoying thing is that it happens about 50 times a game.

Again, why didn't the TMO explain (using words) that he was referring to that specific action, at the last breakdown before the try was scored. Would that have been so hard?

Buer

I felt Carbery was solid enough. He started brightly enough but it's clear he hasn't had time in the role. He never put his authority on the game. In the third quarter when we were crying out for a score, he looked a little lost for ideas.

I thought he was very quiet in his running which is one of his strengths. Sexton actually attacked the gain line far more successfully with a couple of half breaks late on.

I hope he gets another 40 minutes at some point as he badly needs them to grow into the role.

joseywhales

Minderbinder wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Deusexmachina wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

If sexton made touch there was a 60% chance of us winning the game, the difference between first and second line is not that great and in some cases the first line players under performed.

Wishful thinking.

9-8 up in their 22 with 15 mins left and a dominant lineout, yeah I'm pretty confident

It quickly turns around. Being in their 22 guarantees nothing and just after he missed touch we got possession back and were up around their 10m line. I think Ireland looked in control for a period of the first half but other than that Australia were the more dangerous side and we didn't look like keeping them out.

well the way to regain control is to play phases where you are dominant, they dominated broken play, we dominated the lineout. If we spend 3-4 minutes in possession, from a lineout, maul followed by crash runners. We build momentum and tire them for ten minutes and/or score a try/penalty. The alternative of missing touch running back ball against a dominant defense and breakdown was catastrophic. We could have ground that one out by sticking to our limited strengths, that's the disappointing thing from the game, not that they played better than us, which they did. We still threw it away.

thomond2006

For all the legitimate criticism Ulster receive on their recruitment, Herring looks like a brilliant signing all those years later. A very strong performance today.

shootermacg

We looked pretty tired in the 2nd half.
Australia played a high energy game, they knew we'd be tired at the end of the season and backed their energy levels. The bench had impact, the problem was, the rest of the players were wrecked at that stage.
Problem with the next game is, we'll have even less energy in the second half.

Joey had a good game considering the missiles that were pointed at him, I think he'll be a fine 10 and I'm delighted to have him at Munster next season. Conversely Sexton with all his experience, should make sure of those bread and butter kicks. That penalty was a real turning point in the game.

The Australian kick/chase was very well executed and we can expect more of the same.

Kearny wouldn't step around a prop tying his laces but then, he's a genius when it comes to fielding, so on the whole worth his spot.

Henshaw was a bit rusty and playing out of position, had some timing issues but he's still a beast. I think our best centre partnership have yet to play together (Henshaw(12) / Farrell(13)).

Leavy to come in at seven and Beirne on the bench would be massive next week. CJ and PoM had good games. I can still see them starting again next week, although CJ is definitely due a rest at this stage.

Man! I miss Sean O'Brien in green!

awec

Weepsie wrote: »

Irrelevance is not irrelevant. If you can get it badly wrong then, then what else was badly wrong throughout? There's no room for glaring errors.

Well he gifted us three points in the first half from a penalty that never was.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote: »

For all the legitimate criticism Ulster receive on their recruitment, Herring looks like a brilliant signing all those years later. A very strong performance today.

Delighted for him. I think Cronin is a better bench option but Herring has a real shout to be our second choice starter.

awec

One thing I notice about us is if we don't score in the first few phases we aren't going to score. There was a prolonged period in the second half when we had possession but looked clueless as to how to unlock Australia. We revert to one out forwards, but Australia just ate it up. You felt a turnover was inevitable.

errlloyd

Buer wrote: »

They didn't even destroy us in one scrum. That was never a penalty. It went 90 with neither side advancing. It was a straightforward reset. There was as much argument for Australia wheeling as there was for them winning the penalty.

I'd agree. In fact if we're gonna moan about the ref then I think that penalty and the stockcube regather are the killers.

But he gifted us two in the first half. One where it seemed Murray didn't role and another when I'm sure Pocock was on his feet.

clsmooth

errlloyd wrote: »

I'd agree. In fact if we're gonna moan about the ref then I think that penalty and the stockcube regather are the killers.

But he gifted us two in the first half. One where it seemed Murray didn't role and another when I'm sure Pocock was on his feet.

Christy42

awec wrote: »

Christy42 wrote: »

Sure the tmo even stated that nothing he showed was clear but he had his own angle which for some reason the ref can't look at.

A possible knock on angle was shown but it was no where near clear cut and not even a likely knock on.

The tmo may have his own footage showing it but I don't get why it is hidden from the ref.

Who actually cares?


Seriously, of all the things to get hung up on why are we so bothered about a completely inconsequential call?

Because it may have a bearing on a future game and absolutely should not happen. The ref needs all information. Whether that one was right or wrong was irrelevant to the game.

If I wanted to give out about the result I would give out about the ref mistakes for their second try or the ridiculous knock on call against Murray 1m out from their line. Whatever Reffing errors happen even they were pretty important.

This is a structural error in how the game is reffed. The entire point of the tmo is to have it on tape and make a decision on that. The call might have been right or wrong but I see no reason to not show it to the ref in either case.

Making bad calls happen. Saying I have video evidence I swear but I won't show it to you is asking for people to question the call.