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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

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

189111314

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭OldRio


    You don't tell me what I can or cannot post about.



  • Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Cateym


    Are there any actual rugby referees on here that can objectively comment on Pearce and Whitehouse's performances yesterday?



  • Registered Users Posts: 16 Joebrosaysno




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,789 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    Those comments were directed at Doris who was the captain at that stage.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,017 ✭✭✭mun1


    The match officials team of 4 got all the major decisions right .

    That is all you can ask for.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,770 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    They did not come close to that. Leaving aside the disallowed try for lowe and Kolbe being ahead of the kicker, Pearce penalized McCarthy for not rolling away when Faf flopped all over him and the ball was out of the ruck. He penalised Kelleher for tackling while off his feet, despite Kelleher being very much on his feet. That's 6 pts in 1 score loss.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme




  • Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Well if you are going back to that ruck, the neck roll on Kelleher should have seen Ireland with a penalty. Foul play.

    The last SA kick off, Kolbe was metres ahead of the kicker iirc



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Well whatever decision they made, it was wrong. Try should have stood IMO. The selective reviewing of incidents is killing the game



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme


    So the try should've stood because the officials should ignore when people commit infringements. Doesn't sound like great logic tbh.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,104 ✭✭✭blackwhite


    The Lowe try should have been a penalty to ireland for the neck roll that brought Kelleher to ground.

    Whether Kelleher intentionally hooked the ball back, or accidentally whilst falling can be debated. Either way - he was brought to ground illegally



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,838 ✭✭✭Utah_Saint




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,733 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    It's becoming a theme with us, ref bashing. Are we the only team that suffers from poor refs? I'm not a fan of any of the officials from yesterday but, they reffed both sides. Are we becoming the blame the officials crowd? Seriously lads, it's a common theme. Sometimes we're just not good enough.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 262 ✭✭VayNiice


    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!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    As opposed to your constant bashing of our own players?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,292 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    Inevitably devolves into ref bashing here. What about the decisions that went out way? Bet ye don't remember any of them.

    Of the big moments.....

    Kelleher played the ball on the ground, sometimes get away with that but it was spotted, a bit unlucky but can't complain.

    Lowe kept that ball in play and it backfired, showed good skill to do it but didn't have support. Can't blame him for trying. Ball left his hand just before door hit the ground.

    Lowe made a mess of the ball in goal and conceded a scrum which we got smashed in. SA would have scored there in all probability.

    If the Irish team complain about the ref and dont concentrate on getting better then we are screwed. But they will move on and work on their own game.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    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.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme


    It ridiculous to suggest a more competent referees should ignore an infringement. Again, whether he did deliberately or not is irrelevant. Being fouled doesn't give a player the right to commit an infringement themselves either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme


    It's not factually wrong. A player must not play the ball when they are on the ground. That's the law. He played the ball on the ground when he was off his feet. That's an infringement.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Play Prendergast?

    Aren’t you the poster who, a few weeks ago, said it’d be too much of a risk to play Haley?

    Ya….



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    Yeah, but the very term “play” the ball while on the ground indicates an awareness and a conscious decision being taken. If you look at that ruck, he’s facing the touchline and has Willie le Roux actively neck rolling him to the ground as the ball incidentally comes off his heel, in a ruck where Ireland had comprehensively won and arguably already should have had a penalty for Aki being on the ball.
    It was marginal whether he was even on the ground when the ball came off his heel, but there is no way to me it was intentional.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,539 ✭✭✭Pepp1989


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    It’s the fact he reviewed that ruck and emerged with a SA penalty, when there were at least one and arguably two Irish penalties prior to that that makes it especially egregious.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    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.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


     Again, whether he did deliberately or not is irrelevant

    It's not irrelevant. It was bizarre to come out of that with the decision of a penalty to SA. Also the Snyman tackle was a stone cold penalty. But Whitehouse is just a dreadful TMO so it's hardly surprising.

    Anyway, sure look, the biggest screw up by anyone in the stadium was Lowe's mishandling of the kickoff after our second try. I think we had a real chance to push on and win the game without that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,733 ✭✭✭Dubinusa




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,292 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    Id play Prendergast if he is deemed good enough, at least give him a bench spot.

    Plenty of players have debuted at his age and younger. We are slow to bring through young players in Ireland. He will be the Leinster first choice 10 in a few months time.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    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.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    The “unfit retiree’s” end of season form really seems to have annoyed someone. 😂



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,511 ✭✭✭Augme


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Yeah, I presume it annoyed Haley for sure.

    For all the continued moaning from some posters about Haley's exclusion, the end of season reaffirmed why Haley hasn't been in AF's plans.

    With the solid to good performance of Osbourne I can't seeing Haley making his way back in as a 30 year old.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,733 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


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



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    "playing the ball" is an intentional act. It is in the definitions of the Laws



  • Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Cateym


    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.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,965 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    If you’re going to refer to Zebo as “unfit retiree” rather than acknowledge his excellent form then I don’t think you’re arguing in good faith.

    In which case I’ve no interest in arguing. Enjoy!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    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.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    Yes it's normal. You don't normally hear it on the audio feed unless there is a TMO check.

    Whitehouse errs on the side of being more interventionist than most I would say for minor technical things. He's not great at foul play.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Kamila Echoing Ringleader


    All of the fbs in the squad have been simularly "excluded"



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,292 ✭✭✭Buddy Bubs


    I think this needs someone to find the law in question and post it before saying whether or not accidental playing the ball is still playing the ball.

    Can't say things like 'the very definition' when we are not the ones tasked with writing or upholding the laws without posting proof.

    For what it's worth, I don't know the answer



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,533 ✭✭✭Former Former Former


    Here's the Snyman/Casey incident.

    For me, he initially gets a hand on Casey but then there's a totally separate tackle and follow-through after the ball is gone, and he drives through far more than is reasonable before slamming him into the turf. It's 100% intentional and Whitehouse calling it a 'collision' was absolutely mental.

    And even though it's obvious Casey is f**ked and play has stopped, RGS doesn't even check on him. Why not? Because he knows exactly what he's done, and he even gets a high-five from his team-mate. Why would you high-five someone for an innocent, accidental collision?

    Maybe it's just a coincidence but the play immediately prior to this was Casey sticking a brilliant 50-22 into SA territory, followed by a few whoops and fist-bumps. I'd imagine the SA lads didn't like that. But I'm sure that's just coincidence.

    Said it on the Leinster thread, I would rather we never see Snyman on these shores again. If he does his cruciate again, that's absolutely fine by me.

    And once again I'm not seeing any evidence that he's nearly as good a player as he's been painted. The incessant claim that he's a world-class game changer is Emperor's New Clothes levels of delusion.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    Point 14 here states simply playing the ball with the feet is permitted in the ruck. While that’s what the poster claimed the penalty was originally for (and he seems to have been confused on this point), that wasn’t the case, they pinged him for playing it with his feet while he was off his feet.

    https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/15

    Podge posted the definition of “playing the ball” on the prior page.

    As I said previously, the idea that he’s intentionally playing the ball while he’s been neck rolled and facing the wrong direction to me looks nonsensical.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 27,772 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    It is similar, though worse, then what he did to Healy against Edinburgh. There was at least a plausible argument he was committed there (though I don't for a second believe he is).

    He resets here to tackle him after the ball is gone. It was a stone cold penalty at the least. The outcome was somewhat unfortunate, but he knew exactly what he was doing.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 759 ✭✭✭FtD v2


    He also looks offside when he hits Casey - don’t think he was ever onside there, and in the same sequence, Koch clears out Doris way past the ball too. It was a perfect synopsis of the sort of stuff going on at virtually every ruck that the ref and TMO chose to actively ignore.



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Highlighting facts does 'really seem to have annoyed someone. 😂' (to quote your high quality post)

    Zebo has retired and when you look at the level of fat he was carrying for a back three player, his notoriety for being a lazy trainer, and his body clearly breaking down (through missing time with injuries and dealing with cramps even when he played) I don't know how you can put up a debate to my other comment.

    Good form or not, Haley couldn't beat that player out - which you would be expecting to play for Ireland, or even get into an Irish squad. That is 100% on Haley and justifies AF's previous judgement on him and why barring a miracle he wont get near playing for Ireland again in a meaningful match.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,030 ✭✭✭leakyboots


    If he does his cruciate again, that's absolutely fine by me.

    Are you okay?



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,171 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    Feel that is a bit hyperbolic.

    It probably is a penalty but you tend see something similar to this in most games, probably a dozen plus times when you're playing SA or their club sides when they're fully up for it - like the Bulls v Leinster in the semi.

    It is one of the risks of playing such an undersized player when it comes to those types of collisions (pretty sure I've seen Faf come off badly also). The outcome of those incidents is multiplied on smaller players. The Koch clearout a few seconds later on Doris could have easily ended the same way but Doris has more ballast and luck of where his head landed.

    As for the lack of remorse and concern for an opponent, that reaction is far from what I want to see from a player on my team. However, it and the high fives likely come from the full siege mentality Rassie has instilled within the Boks. Even presuming him and Casey are on good terms post Munster, Rassie has stated his aim is to have his players hating the opposition as they go onto the pitch so that reaction isnt at all surprising. It will always be wild to me how some here still look up to Rassie.



  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement