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

Well it wasn't a clear and obvious infringement IMO.

A player was dragged in a neck roll and the ball came off his foot. Let's ignore the foul play and give a penalty against that player is not good enough at this level.

Schrodinger's Frawley

Off topic here but does anyone know is there a conscious effort being made to show anything but the scrap taking place on the pitch? Seems in the past you'd get to see the handbags but yesterday the cameras kept switching to the crowd. Those are important parts of the game!

It was a clear and obvious infringement. He clearly touched the ball with his foot. But it is good enough at this level to ignore clear and obvious infringement at the ruck and award a try instead? Again, cant understand the logic in that.

Whether he intentionally or accidentally hooked the ball accidentally isn't relevant though.

No, you’re wrong. It wasn’t deemed a penalty for playing it with his feet, it was the fact he was deemed to be on the ground when playing it with his feet that was deemed the penalty.

What a more competent ref might have considered was the arm wrapped squarely around Kelleher’s neck at the time which was dragging him to ground - an obvious Irish penalty. The notion that he’s dexterous enough to be able to see that ball and play it back with his feet there while he’s got an arm wrapped around his neck is farcical.

Try should have have stood - I don’t think he deliberately played it with his feet.

You said earlier “whether he intentionally or accidentally hooked the ball, accidentally isn’t relevant though” - which is completely factually wrong.

If the ball came off his heel as he was being wrought to ground around the neck and he had no knowledge of it whatsoever then he didn’t commit any kind of infringement at all and the try should have stood.

Ben Whitehouse always over interferes as tmo. Sometimes in your favour sometimes not. If you go back for offences like Kellehers then so many tries would be disallowed. They leave them go mostly otherwise the system doesn't work

A key element of assessing what is worth a risk is potential reward.

The reward of playing a 30 year old who couldnt take a provincial jersey from an unfit retiree is near zero.

I don't agree with exposing Prendergast to this tour environment but it is not at all far fetched for someone to believe fast tracking one of our best young talents in a position of shallow depth is worth a risk.

Thanks.

10 is so key that I'm not sure he has enough time in camp and reps in training to have everything needed down to perform. Backs are likely to be pretty disjointed too given the injuries.

As for other national teams, not many top sides give debuts to such young and inexperienced players away on tours against the world champions. This isn't like doing it against the likes of Argentina or Canada.

It doesn't though. If they wanted the rule to just include intentional plays of the ball they have have used the word "intentional". People deciding to interrupt the rule becuase it suits isn't how the laws are to be implemented.

It is irrelevant. The law says nothing about intentionally playing the ball. I agree in the penalty to SA being wrong decision. But the idea that the try should have been allowed just doesn't make any sense.

Is that officiating crew going to be in charge this week?

My intention is not to bash referees but Whitehouse seemed to be constantly talking in Pearce's ear. Is that the norm for him? I've never been so aware of it until this match. That's why I'm wondering if there are any actual rugby refs on here to give their informed and knowledgeable opinions of some of the decisions that people seem aggrieved by.

Maybe try actually reading the laws before you spout off on here again like this.

The very definition of playing the ball, as I said in my prior post, requires an intentional act.