Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

All Blacks v Ireland part III - July 16 8.05am Ireland time

12931333435

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV




  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    Frankly they should do what they do in league when it’s a clear red they get a yellow with a post decision on a further penalties that way it doesn’t ruin the match



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Union absolutely should not be looking to league for solutions to this problem.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    It doesn’t matter where the solution comes from as long as it’s better….



  • Registered Users Posts: 12,920 ✭✭✭✭stephen_n


    It’s worth pointing out, Barnes didn’t arrive at the decision totally by himself. It was the same TMO in both games and he was very clear in his support of Barnes reading of the situation.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,605 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Refereeing decisions or not, Ireland deserved to win the series. The kiwis are grasping at straws if they believe that the refs are the cause of their losses. They were outplayed! They appear to be in place they rarely frequent, average.

    Foster is probably a cause of their struggles and he may have been a poor appointment but, are the players top quality? Would that N.Z pack contain France? Or England? This is a key question. If they can't get parity in the pack, they are chasing the game.

    Of course they can turn it around! I expect they will. Nobody fears them and it shows. The doubt is in their heads now. N.Z need a big effort v the boks. We're going to see what Foster and Co are all about.



  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,964 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Absolutely agree - Barring their two "purple patches" in the 1st and 3rd tests they were second best across the board - They play well for about 35 minutes out of the 240.

    Justin Marshall made that comment , that NZ had lost on every playing stat across the 3 games - Possession , Territory , Clean Breaks , Turn-overs etc.

    They remain a side capable of banging in 2 or 3 tries in very short order from instinctive play and against most teams that 15-20 points is enough to win them games , but they are lacking any discernible game plan or playing style so when they come up against the very best teams they are more likely to fall short.

    They also didn't adjust to Ireland at all - After the first test , Ireland changed their defense to stop the passes from Smith going to the 2nd and 3rd receiver , you could also see in the 2nd and 3rd test how Ireland always had a shooter coming up to cut them off from going wide early.

    That was a direct response to how NZ won the 1st test , where were the similar adjustments from NZ ?

    That's down to the coach.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    Yep the two games against the big bad. ugly Boks in yappieland will be a greater test than this last series against Ireland…it will be a monumental task to top them at home in front of a maniac crowd… I watched a AB v SA game at Loftus verveld and it was like I was surrounded by Hitlers brown shirts… we won in the final second after trailing through out the game… it was one sweet victory… especially coping all the abuse afterwards… loved it.



  • Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭VayNiice


    I think NZ rugby has taken such a step back, I don't think it's even necessary for the opposition to be at their very best. Aside from 15 minutes in the first test, the ABs were pretty poor throughout. Savea was the only one to impress over the series imo.


    If the ABs were playing the Boks or France tomorrow i think they'd lose.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,484 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It's clear as mud this... The ref, assistants and TMO agree on a yellow, citing the protocol. The citing commissioner disagrees and refers it to the committee. The commission may disagree with the commissioner and say it was a yellow.

    In this case the tackle would be simultaneously a yellow and a red.

    The player is allowed argue. How on earth can the player's opinion be worth anything against the opinions of a team of officials and a commissioner and multiple camera angles with days to review it?

    And people complain about refs getting two or three out of hundreds of decisions wrong in a game?

    It's a complete joke.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,793 ✭✭✭irelandrover




  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    This is the first time that northern hemisphere rugby is stating to dominate world rugby… what took you so long???



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,085 ✭✭✭✭BonnieSituation


    As it happens, I was flicking through the TV last night and for whatever reason I landed on York v Batley.

    Left it on, despite my incredible dislike for League and happened to see Pauli Pauli absolutely cream Luke Hooley. Play was stopped for a good few minutes. And the result was just a penalty. It was mindboggling.

    (Because obviously nobody watches championship RL I can't find a clip or video of it off-hand)

    As you say, looking to League for a solution should give you pause as to consider what your problem is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,605 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    The kiwis have absolutely insanely gifted wings and Beauden. I think the pack is not top level! They are capable of being good but, not top level. It's telling that no one is pushing Whitelock or Retallick after such a long time. As good as they've been, they both are not what they were.

    The front row is not savage even though they are a big unit. Mostly, the kiwis have not developed a 10. Beauden is probably the best player in the world but, he's not the best 10. I can't recall a match where the kiwis resorted to garryowens as an attacking structure?

    Is it a talent deficit? Is is a coaching problem? Are the players good enough? I think it's important to realize that this can flip in a short time. The boks were dire 18 months out from the last world cup! Razzie turned it around. I would expect N.Z to get their house in order and get back up to scratch.

    Whether Foster survives... is probably the key. I expect he'll be sent packing if they lose both matches in S.A.



  • Registered Users Posts: 20 FairPOV


    sorry you’re right…just checked it.. the difference is the red carded player can be substituted… which is a lot better than Union…I dont follow League but some league supporter told me about their red card system a few years back… obviously I was misinformed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,534 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    I was quite surprised that New Zealand didn't adopt some of the defensive tactics that club teams had used to neutralize Leinsters attacking game. Rushing up at the second and third receivers to cut down the passes out the back that our game relies on. Not attacking the ruck to slow our ball.

    On the Porter card, I think it's instructive that in the NFL they've put an onus on the attacking players not to lower their heads into contact. I think it's a part of the conversation around reducing head injuries that rugby hasn't addressed yet. You see it most often close to the goal line where attackers are almost scraping the the grass with their heads.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,402 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Making a red card less of a punishment is a recipe for a free for all. It’s a very bad idea.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭TheRona


    Stander was a shocker for this, constantly running with his head down into contact. It would be very hard to coach it out of a player, I'm sure it's a natural instinct to protect themselves.

    Also, Retallick is about 6'8", and he wasn't better over that much. It would still take a 6' player to be fully upright to get near his head.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,578 ✭✭✭RichieRich_89


    Maybe it's because Ireland's attack is different (and a hell of a lot better) than Leinster's attack?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭TheRona


    Would it have made any difference to the Ta'Avao and Porter incidents? I don't think so.

    Red cards can have too much of a bearing on the outcome of a match. The decision to give them (or not) can hugely swing a match. Look at Ireland against France in RWC 2015. If SOB was rightfully given a red 30 seconds into a match, would they have won? He then went on to have a man-of-the-match performance.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,793 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    No further punishment for Porter so apparently the yellow card was the correct decision.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,534 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    It's a very similar system, the foundation of it being a pivot thru the 2nd and 3rd channel. Teams were nullifying that vs leinster by aggressively shooting up to put pressure there. NZ didn't do anything like that, after multiple exposures to it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,402 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Lessening a punishment for an offence would encourage more of the offence, taking individual incidents is pointless. Red cards can ruin matches but that’s almost always on the player not the ref or the laws. Lessening the punishment encourages the offence and in the case of dangerous tackles that’s a road rugby certainly needs to avoid.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,497 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    Let's not forget the godfather of commentary hell Fred Cogley (RIP) and his love child (allegedly, not really) Ryle Nugent.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,188 ✭✭✭Former Former Former




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,196 ✭✭✭✭Crash


    I'd just note that this was the most recent State of Origin match, with Leagues general attitude towards head collisions:



    obviously State of Origin has it's own baggage and comes with it's own "boys will be boys" and "it's not tiddlywinks" attitude, but I would argue pretty strongly that League couldn't give a shite about player welfare, and it's baked into their way of dealing with infringements.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,787 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    whilst i agree that the outcomes of the judicial system can quite often be a joke, the process itself is pretty logical.

    the big thing to realise is that teh citing commissioner does not make a judgement if an incident is a red card offence or not, but just that its could be. They are independent from the refereeing team who ref the match, and are appointed external to the reffing team. So therefore can they have different interpretations to the referring team (including TMO) ? well yes they absolutely can, often with additional information not available or considered by the reffing team on the day.

    so then the citing commissioner effectively offers an 'opinion' to the disciplinary committee that a red card offense has taken place. Its up to this committee to review the information and make a decision as to whether a red card offense 'actually' took place.

    A recent world rugby variation now allows for a player to accept that the incident took place, but argue that it did not reach the bar of a red card. Prior to this a player had to accept that the incident took place and automatically then had to accept that it was red card worthy. Players now very often will accept the charge that yes the incident took place, but it didn't warrant a red card... as Porter and Ta'avoa both did.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Gabrielle Steep Bubble




  • Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,964 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Absolutely 100% agree which is why the 20 minute Red card was just a non runner.

    Here in the Northern Hemisphere no one gives a monkies how they do things in League , because it's just not a real competitor for TV/Advertising money , that is absolutely not the case in the ANZ region.

    I think the Southern Hemisphere mind set around red cards is absolutely coloured by their comparisons to league and the associated attempts to win revenue battle



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,879 ✭✭✭TheRona


    A 20 minute red card makes the punishment more even, no matter when in the match it happens. A red card offence from anywhere between the 1st and 60th minute has the same end result. As it currently is, a red card offence in the first 5 minutes has a very different effect on the game than one in the 75th minute.

    I don't know if I agree with your comparison with league. Maybe it is true. In NZ, a lot of people would watch both sports, and people don't tune into league because it's more violent, AFAIK.



Advertisement