SA vs Ireland First Test 2024 - The World Champions vs The Best Team in the World

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356216#Comment_122356216

This is not relevant to whether Crowley's kicking was an issue.

theVersatile

Doak and Dave Heffernan called up for Casey and Sheahan.

Is Tom Stewart injured or has he fallen down the rankings?

pickarooney

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356190#Comment_122356190

The day Prendergast puts in the defensive shift Crowley did on Saturday (and most times he plays) I'll start seriously considering him a potential international.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356267#Comment_122356267

I mean, he may never do and still be an international. We don't have a Sexton level player, it is all going to be give and take in the position for the foreseeable.

FtD v2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356254#Comment_122356254

Hard to know from those end of season games - you don't tend to get an injury report. He played the last game of their season (came off the bench for 12 mins or so). He didn't have a stellar year IMO and slipped further behind Herring I think (after having a brilliant 22/23 season).

Still a bit surprised to see Heffernan called back in, but given it's really only for scrummaging in training and in the event of a last min injury, it may just have been the case that Heffernan was more readily available to get on a plane. Pure speculation on my part.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356267#Comment_122356267

Do I think Crowley should be changed for this match? no

I did respond earlier when someone mentioned about swapping him for Frawley then why wouldn't you put in Predergast because I don't see Frawley as a 10. Maybe that kicked this all off but it was not saying to swap out Crowley

Was Crowley kicking poor? yes

Was it an issue on the game? yes but then again this first bad miss ended up in the following plays in a try but he still needs to improve

Is it a good excuse to say it didn't matter because the opposition 10 missed? no it's ridiculous. In the last games v SA Ireland won becuase we had the ability to knock over our kicks and SA didn't.

A lot of people rave about Pollard who seems to love kicking in the WC, between that he can have some really dodgy days, on those days the opposition 10 needs to take their kicks and hopefully win the game.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356243#Comment_122356243

No and I thought it was obvious I was referring to posters that claim his kicking cost us. He left 7 points behind but the posters want to ignore that Pollard left 9 points behind him.

If both teams kicked all their points we'd have lost by 9 points not 7

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356165#Comment_122356165

Did anyone say he 'cost us the game'?

What I and the other poster quoted said 'it cost us', no one mentioned the game.

A kicking success rate of 40% would cost most teams on the road against the world champions.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356392#Comment_122356392

His kicking did cost us. It didnt cost us the game but it was one of a litany of things that contributed. Pollard's success rate is completely irrelevant to that.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356425#Comment_122356425

Ah here, that's jumping through hoops trying to be right.

In the overall scheme of the result of the game the missed kicks had zero bearing on the result.

But look, it's now turned into point scoring on this thread so I'm out.

clsmooth

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356476#Comment_122356476

You must be the unluckiest poster on the forum to always be the one caught up in these ‘point scoring arguments’ 😂

I think it’s fair to say Crowley needs to work on his kicking from the tee but I’ve no doubt he’ll develop it in time. Another aspect where he’s been caught out on a couple of occasions is his fringe defence. He’s been caught out against England, for the first SA try where he needed to stay out or take man and ball on Kolisi and he also had a bad miss against Northampton. All part of the learning process.

I think he’s done very well since coming into the team and doesn’t go into his shell even when things don’t go to plan which is why I’m sure he’ll continue to improve.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356267#Comment_122356267

What does Prendergast's defense have to do with Crowley's poor kicking from the tee?

Crowley's kicking was far from international standard at the weekend but this is top tier deflection.

There is currently no meaningful clamour to start Prendergast this weekend. Some people need to get back used to their starting 10 also being the starter for Ireland. Factual statements on days when they kick poorly are part of it and it is in no way a call to circle the wagons.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356519#Comment_122356519

It really is a great trait for a young player.

Was great to see Osbourne do similar, when a few things didn't go right for him early he could have fallen apart, instead he kept at it and grew into the game silencing a lot of people who questioned his selection.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356476#Comment_122356476

In the overall scheme of the result of a game we lost by 7 points, 7 missed points from the tee had zero bearing on the result?

I am not lambasting the guy, but you are being ridiculous in the extreme. It was absolutely one of a number of factors that contributed to the defeat and it is utter blindness to his faults to think otherwise.

AdamD

You can want Crowley to start this weekend and also think he shouldn't be missing kicks in front of the posts

Crowley had one egregious miss. Touchline conversions are what they are. He was fine in general play a lot of our backs getting harsh reviews off of a tough platform for me particularly lowe who bar the one error at the end had a really good game

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356052#Comment_122356052

The ball hits his leg so he knows the ball is next to his leg. He knows that when his leg sweeps towards the ball he will make contact with the ball. Given refs will never be able to read a players minds it's their job to make decisions with the information that is available.

SaoPaulo41

Owen Doyle: Ireland-South Africa match officials unlikely to enjoy performance reviews after poor day

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... -poor-day/



“Ground control to Major Tom, you’re off your course, direction’s wrong.”

For some odd, or maybe obvious, reason David Bowie’s lyrics came to mind as Ben Whitehouse called in, or didn’t, from his TMO command centre to referee Luke Pearce.

Let’s look at the Craig Casey incident when, strangely, there was no call from Whitehouse. Casey was in possession as recent Munster team-mate RG Snyman came past the ruck, probably offside too. He first tried to impede Casey’s pass by targeting his arm. He failed, the ball was gone when he proceeded to tackle the scrumhalf, driving him backwards and into the ground where his head smacked violently on the turf. Casey was knocked out cold, it was a sickening moment of grave concern.

It was a late tackle off the ball, and pretty high too. It demanded a review, but there was only silence from the TMO. As recently as last week, this column emphasised that there are very dangerous tackles where there is no direct collision with the head, and this was one. Given the head contact protocols, the outcome may well have been excused as “a rugby incident,” a term I always find bordering on ludicrous.

But, here we are again, tethered by protocols, and not guided by the laws of the game. There is also something in the equation called a duty of care, which the tackler certainly didn’t seem overly worried about. It was 131kg driving needlessly into 76kg, clearly dangerous, and there is no greater proof of that than the outcome. I am very willing to take any brickbats of disagreement, and there’ll probably be plenty, I’d guess, from South Africa.

But such a tackle, which can result in a very serious brain injury, merits a lot more than “play on”, There have to be consequences. I don’t believe that the TMO should be the final arbiter of such player actions, involving serious injury. It has to be the ref’s call.

Neither can I comprehend how Pearce, watching Casey receive prolonged treatment, didn’t want to see for himself. Caelan Doris certainly wanted him to, but instead he told the player off, albeit politely.

Whitehouse did call up Pearce, to deny James Lowe a try, after a wondrous run down the touchline. Hawk-eyed, the TMO had spotted a potential offence by Ronan Kelleher in a ruck, seconds before. The hooker had gone to ground, the ball striking his foot before emerging on Ireland’s side. Pearce had a direct view of it, and had not whistled it. That’s the crux of the matter – it was a referee decision in a ruck, not for the TMO. However, what he should have picked up was the neck roll on Kelleher which helped put him on the deck in the first place. Ireland would then, at least, have had a penalty, which instead went the other way.

Lowe mixed the good with the bad. His successful attempt to keep the ball in play, with no idea of who was behind him, was unwise. The risk-reward balance was unfavourably skewed, quite the opposite of his sumptuous offload for Jamie Osborne’s score. It led directly to Kolbe’s try, although it took a lengthy study to decide that Lowe was no longer in possession before his foot was on the ground in touch.

There is a another consideration here. The law states that the ball is in touch if it, or the ball carrier, touches the touchline or anything beyond. Having released the ball, the question is, if it then hit Lowe’s thigh, does that qualify as “anything beyond” the touchline. There’ll be mixed views on it, with the only opinion which counted – Whitehouse’s – ruling that there was nothing clear and obvious for Pearce to overturn his on-field “try” decision.

Lowe was also involved in the correctly awarded penalty try for South Africa. Playing the ball deep in Ireland’s in-goal, uncharacteristically he fumbled it; Pearce awarded the inevitable five-metre scrum. The “bomb squad” had arrived en masse, just in time to play a mere 30 minutes of an 80-minute match, which raises again serious safety concerns. They did their business, completely splintering the Ireland pack, with Kelleher singled out for a yellow card.

There was more TMO involvement when the referee was persuaded by Doris to look at his grounding of the ball for a possible try in the second half. One camera angle showed the ball to be short of the line, and that was enough for Whitehouse to rule it out. But there was another angle which seemed to show a clear, if very brief, grounding. Ireland will have a big query on this one, among many others.

Doris and Pearce had an interesting relationship throughout the afternoon, with the Irishman getting under the ref’s skin at times. That’s not really a great idea, but, at times, it was hard to blame him. Assistant Rob Dickson, in charge next Saturday, will have taken good note of the exchanges. The match officials are unlikely to enjoy their performance reviews. They had a poor day, in what was a thunderously ferocious contest.

In addition to World Rugby’s specialist review group on the red card replacement, there are two additional groups working away. One is studying the whole matter of TMO involvement; the other on the question of replacements, aka “bomb squads”.

The groups are due to come up with recommendations for adoption by World Rugby’s council, in November. That meeting cannot come soon enough, both have evolved into something which was never intended. They are in real Major Tom territory – completely off course

FtD v2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356786#Comment_122356786

Still digging away here at the same point.

Your point of view on this isn't credible - you yourself never mentioned you felt it was deliberate and intentional contact with the ball until it was pointed out to you it had to be to be considered a penalty.

Now you've pivoted it all into your convoluted argument that you believe he deliberately hit the ball.

You've ignored and refused to engage with the following points: (i) that the referee is staring right into that ruck from a few yards away, with a completely unimpeded view, and doesn't consider this a penalty at the time, (ii) that the TMO neglected to go back to review incidents of foul play at preceding rucks all throughout the game, despite there being a multitude of examples, (iii) the fact that it's absolutely a reasonable argument that the two players clearing Kelleher out at the time (one blatantly illegally) could have had any impact at all on his foot coming into contact with the ball.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356786#Comment_122356786

from your previous post

'Ite clear and obvious he knew where the ball was and its clear and obvious his foot moves towards the ball.'

now

'The ball hits his leg'

Hmm …

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356786#Comment_122356786

He had no idea in what location the ball was to kick it

The replays are slowed down, the actual event happened in a couple of seconds.

It was a ridiculous decision to call it back, but as mentioned that is Whitehouse who loves to be front and centre in these games. In a ruck like that, unless the player was looking at the ball and moved his leg/foot to kick the ball directly I wouldn't see any other TMO calling it back

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356805#Comment_122356805

I'm not ignoring or or refused to engage with thos points. I'm happy yo point out how flawed those points are.

(i) you have no idea what the ref is looking at when the play original unfolded. You, for some reason, are completely ignoring the fact the ref saw the reply and was happy to change his decision once he was it again. (ii) that has no relevance to the decision made by the ref and to the question of whether it was a foul. Your point seems to be that because lots of other fouls are missed that they should just ignore ones when they see them. That doesn't make any sense and raises the question of why bother having a TMO at all. If you think a TMO should be scrapped fair enough. (iii) Maybe it's just a big massive coincidence that the way he was cleared out forced him to move his foot towards the ball he knew was there and hook back on to his teams side. As I said, I think coming that conclusion is a significant reach.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356836#Comment_122356836

The ball hits his leg and then he hooks his foot towards the ball. The idea that a professional players who's been in that situation a million times is completely obvious to the ball hitting his leg in the situation just isn't believable.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356870#Comment_122356870

No the player won't be in that situation a million times.

From watching rugby for a long time a player on the ground kicking the ball out of a ruck, intentional or not, is a rare thing to happen.

Podge_irl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356790#Comment_122356790

and pretty high too

I mean, it absolutely wasn't a high tackle. I don't know why they have to exaggerate like that.

But such a tackle, which can result in a very serious brain injury, merits a lot more than “play on”, There have to be consequences. I don’t believe that the TMO should be the final arbiter of such player actions, involving serious injury. It has to be the ref’s call.

I don't understand this at all. The ref was fine with it in real time, and TMOs are trained refs.

Also bringing up the "bomb squad" thing it stupid.

It's a very whiny article.

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356874#Comment_122356874

Roughly how many situations do you think a player is in where a ball touches them? It's a huge amount. They know what a bouncing ball feels like when it hits them, to claim otherwise and that they are oblivious when it happens is crazy tbh.

Clo-Clo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356885#Comment_122356885

You keep changing the goal posts. You claimed the situation happens millions of times, it doesn't, now you claim a player touches a ball. Flip flopping around

Leave you to it

The Macho Man

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122355928#Comment_122355928

OK go back and watch the Kolisi/Henshaw incident, Kolisi does go over to check with the ref at least. In the entire time for the Casey not one of the SA players never leave their huddle. I'd like to give RG the benefit of the doubt but no can do in this case.

I think you're missing the point. Like I said late tackles are always going to be part of the game but show at least some sort of compassion or respect and acknowledge your mistake, he knows well what he did.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356966#Comment_122356966

You brought up the minor nudge Snyman gave Casey when they were on the ground.

That happens all the time in games, it has zero to do with 'compassion' or 'respect' because there was no way Snyman could know Casey was injured.

Whatever point you were trying to make is completely lost when you go way beyond the facts to try to make it a bigger deal of the incident than it was.

OldRio

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122356476#Comment_122356476

Ah now. Only one poster going through hoops.