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

No, the citing commissioner refers things to the citing committee, only the committee can decide if a red card should have been issued. The commissioner has no power to issue a decision.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I genuinely don’t understand the first paragraph, are you suggesting that a 20 minute red card is worse than a red card? Of course one early in the game is going to affect the game more that’s no reason to make things easier in the offending player.

Just reading through the above - it’s important to note that much of the New Zealand analysis I’ve seen has not been hiding behind the Porter decision as a reason for their defeat.

Their focus is far more on their tactical approach and lack of cohesiveness in attack.

A red card is the ultimate action a referee can take and primarily is reserved for the most serious of foul play. The timing of an offence is irrelevant and we are talking here about professional sport. if a player commits a red card offence then we dont need to make anything fairer to his team because he committed a red card offence be that intentional or not