Ireland vs South Africa 8th of November

First topic message reminder :

In six days time Ireland will host South Africa in their first test of the November tours. South Africa will have to lift themselves for this one as the standard under Meyer has ben exemplary in Europe, he is yet to lose a test match and the Six Nations champions gets first shot at breaking Meyer's unbeaten streak over the Six Nations teams.

It seems both teams are effected by injuries so their depth will be severely tested.

South African players unavailable due to injury.

Props - Marcel v d Merwe, Frans Malherbe
Hooker - Schalk Brits, Callie Visagie
Locks - Pieter Steph du Toit, Flip v d Merwe
Back Row - Frans Louw, Willem Alberts, Siya Kolisi, Arno Botha
Halfback - Fourie du Preez, Ruan Pienaar (Pending a fitness test)
Midfield - Jaque Fourie

Irish players unavailable due to injury.
Props - Healy, Moore, Ross (Questionable)
Hooker - Cronin, Best (questionable)
Locks - Tuohy, Ryan
Back Row - Henderson, Murphy, O'Brien
Halfback -
Flyhalf - Sexton (Questionable)
Midfield - Darcy (questionable)
Back Three - Kearney, Earls, Trimble, Fitzgerald, McFadden, Bowe (questionable)

Ireland has been rather successful against South Africa in the last decade, managing wins in 2004, 2006 and 2009.

South Africa 31 - 17 Ireland
South Africa 26 - 17 Ireland
Ireland 17 - 12 South Africa
Ireland 32 - 15 South Africa
Ireland 15 - 10 South Africa
Ireland 21 - 23 South Africa
Ireland 12 - 16 South Africa

Likely matchday 23 for South Africa.

1. Tendai Mtwarira
2. Bismarck du Plessis
3. Jannie du PLessis
4. Eben Etzebeth
5. Victor Matfield
6. Marcell Coetzee
7. Oupa Mohoje
8. Duane Vermeulen
9. Francois Hougaard
10. Handre Pollard
11. Brya Habana
12. Jean de Villiers
13. Jan Serfontein
14. Cornal Hendricks
15. Willie le Roux.

Subs
16. Coenie Oosthuizen
17. Adriaan Strauss
18. Julian Redelinghuys
19. Bakkies Botha
20. Schalk Burger
21. Cobus Reinach
22. Johan Goosen
23. Patrick Lambie/Damien de Allende

Likely Irish matchday 23. (Help please)

Ireland will be keen to beat the Springboks, even though they are unlikely to meet them in earlier rounds of the RWC it will give them validation and confidence for the Rugby World Cup. Under their new coach I expect them to throw the ball around and attempt to run the SPringboks off their feet, Ireland is also more used to the conditions and could use that to their advantage, I suspect the territorial game will be part of their plans.

It is easier sad than done though, the only team in recent years that managed to run the Springboks off their feet was New Zealand, and that was at altitude. South Africa these days play more adventurous rugby and at a great pace as well, newcomer Handre POllard will be on his first trip to Europe, so it might take him a while to adapt, but once on song he will be the danger man, South Africa attacks a lot flatter without Morne Steyn which does provide more hesitation in opposition defences and creates more space for their outside backs.

One issue with South Africa this season has been their inconsistency in performances, and they will have to be on song from the start.

Springbok coach Heyneke Meyer has warned his team they will need to be at their best if they are to keep their unbeaten record under his management in the northern hemisphere intact.

Meyer singled out the team’s first fixture against Ireland as a crucial one to kick off the team’s four week tour, and one which is the most tricky of all their fixtures.

The Boks know they cannot focus on the Twickenham showdown before getting past the tricky Irish, who have been a team that has plagued them at this time of year under previous coaches.

The Boks will know all too well how a poor opening performance can set the trend for the tour, and with chances to experiment getting less and less ahead of the World Cup, it is imperative that the team kick off the tour on a high note.

“We have a proud record and we haven’t lost a game there. But we have a proud record and this is probably the toughest tour we have faced to the Northern Hemisphere. I truly believe Ireland is an unbelievable team, they were unlucky not to beat the All Blacks last year.

“They’ve got a great coaching staff, a lot of in-form players and their defence is great. They’ve got a good kicking game in those conditions."

That's it boys, enjoy the discussion.

Biltong wrote:

Quins it's interesting that you think a yellow for a deliberate (if tame) foul in the air is utterly ridiculous

Didn't know it was that easy to distinguish deliberate foul play. Believe you me, when a South African does something deliberate it doesn't look like that.

Bilt to me it looked like a spur of the moment, half-arsed but deliberate attempt to make sure Kearney didn't get away from him with the ball. Sometimes a player jumps realizes he won't get it and just clumsily hits into the other guy. I may well have been that. It was a foul, I'm sure you can agree with that, even if it was a tame one. I'll take yellow cards when they benefit Ireland at the time. But to be honest I think they should only be used for malicious acts or blatant professional fouls that stop scores. I'd rather watch 30 players than 29. And I honestly believe Ireland were weathering an inevitable Bok fightback but did not look close to collapsing. They were maintaining control and would have hit back against 15 or 14.

By the way Irish teams have probably suffered more than most from Poite's eccentricity. Leinster had to play a PRO12 final with 14 men for 20 minutes because because Poite decided the Ospreys scrum was better in the first 30 seconds of the match. O'Connell has been red carded by him. You can notice the Irish are very very careful around him now and fare much better. I still feel dread when I know he's taking charge of a Leinster or Ireland game. Because somebody is going to carded controversially. "I don't like your sideburns. Yellow card".

Feckless, the thing is every team's fan base that benefits from a yellow card seems to somehow find justification for the card.

I suppose that is the natural reaction from fans to further justify the result of the match as they don't want the result be marginalized because of it.

Because of that it is unlikely you will find opposing fans to agree as to the validity of the carding.

For what it is worth, it was not deliberate, if it was Strauss would have hurt him, he would have stiffened his arm which inevitably turned his hand into a closed fist as he braced for the impact and Kearney would have been winded severely.

The call for the card was pathetic, as was Bisarck's card for tackling Daniel Carter last year.

Poite is an overzealous referee who is mostly incompetent and with a distinct dislike of South African physicality, he wants to justify his attitude towards the south african game and looks for every opportunity to brandish a card, as he did with the first contact Coetzee made in the first few minutes.

The card did not affect the result of the match though, just cemented the intense dislike SA fans have of him

Don't get all the fuss over the card. Kearney was till in the air almost taking the ball when Strauss hit him while clearly not looking for or competing for the ball, causing him to crash to the ground. The rule is clear isn't it. You can't take the player going for the ball out. It was reckless, could have caused serious injury with the fall and poite said it was a team foul or yellow being the second offence.
This was nothing like du plessis's tackle on DC which was simply a wrong call.

What am I missing?

Taylorman wrote:Don't get all the fuss over the card. Kearney was till in the air almost taking the ball when Strauss hit him while clearly not looking for or competing for the ball, causing him to crash to the ground. The rule is clear isn't it. You can't take the player going for the ball out. It was reckless, could have caused serious injury with the fall and poite said it was a team foul or yellow being the second offence.
This was nothing like du plessis's tackle on DC which was simply a wrong call.

What am I missing?

The fuss over the card is coming fro the Irish supporters, I am throwing my two cents in, as the discussion has gone from soft yellow, unintentional to now intentional.

Soon it escalate to intent to cause grievous bodily harm.

Just for the sake of fairness I just reviewed it in slow motion.

Strauss is watching the ball up to the moment he is two steps away from Kearney and he jumps, then he looks down as he becomes aware of how close he is to Kearney. They both jump in the air at virtually the same time, if you could measure it in milliseconds you would give the advantage to Kearney by a fraction, and that is watching it in ultra slow motion.

As for the contact, Strauss makes contact with Kearney's left forearm as it is pointing in the air, attempting to dislodge the ball, which in fact has come of Kearney's shoulder and he doesn't gain control of it.

If you look at Kearney's body positioning, he is leaning back which means he was going to fall backwards anyway regardless of Strauss making contact with him. But even so Strauss makes contact with his fore arm.

How anyone with any common sense can see that firstly as a mistimed jump (which happens milliseconds from each other) and then intentional contact (considering that Strauss even ran a different line as not to hit Kearney head on) is absolute rubbish.

I challenge anyone here to go look at that incident again, unbiased and super slow motion and come up with a different explanation as mine.

The law says you must protect the jumper, yes, can anyone suggest to me how Strauss who has already taken precaution by running a line not to hit Kearney head on, within milliseconds of jumping at the same time, gets and arm to dislodge the ball onto Kearney can avoid that?

Edit: Strauss is not going to jump as high as any fullback in world rugby, so it is unlikely for him to outjump a fullback, considering the jumps were timed near perfect by both, does this mean hookers should refrain from chasing balls as they will always be the guilty party?

Biltong wrote:Feckless, the thing is every team's fan base that benefits from a yellow card seems to somehow find justification for the card.

I don't think thats fair. If you read back most of the Irish fans on this board agreed it was a harsh call at the time. Naturally the more people complain about it and try and turn it into an issue after the fact the more people will play devil's advocate but none of us would have batted an eyelid if it wasn't yellow. Personally, it would have meant even more to me to beat the Springboks with 15 for 80 and I think we would have. That said, you have to take your luck when you can so I'm not complaining that we got a break there.

Biltong wrote:The card did not affect the result of the match though, just cemented the intense dislike SA fans have of him

South Africa does not suffer any more or less than any other team due to his unfortunate edicts. We all have borne the brunt of his decisions at one time or another. If anything those in the NH should have more of a problem with him as we get him more regularly.

Right now right across world rugby "tackling" in the air is the hot button topic. It's being punished really harshly across the board by almost all referees. In my opinion this is ridiculous and incidents like the Strauss one should only ever be a penalty. But there is nothing special about South Africa, they are not being treated differently to other teams. This is just a one-off test match that you lost, a similarly harsh interpretation of the laws cost Ulster a shot at a European Cup! Romain Poite is a good ref, but he's a French ref. His Frenchness will come out!

The idea that Poite has a problem with South African physicality is, I'm sorry, a bit nuts... I have seen no evidence whatsoever of him punishing physicality that is legal within the laws of the game.

Notch wrote:

Biltong wrote:Feckless, the thing is every team's fan base that benefits from a yellow card seems to somehow find justification for the card.

I don't think thats fair. If you read back most of the Irish fans on this board agreed it was a harsh call at the time. Naturally the more people complain about it and try and turn it into an issue after the fact the more people will play devil's advocate but none of us would have batted an eyelid if it wasn't yellow. Personally, it would have meant even more to me to beat the Springboks with 15 for 80 and I think we would have. That said, you have to take your luck when you can so I'm not complaining that we got a break there.

Biltong wrote:The card did not affect the result of the match though, just cemented the intense dislike SA fans have of him

South Africa does not suffer any more or less than any other team due to his unfortunate edicts. We all have borne the brunt of his decisions at one time or another. If anything those in the NH should have more of a problem with him as we get him more regularly.

Right now right across world rugby "tackling" in the air is the hot button topic. It's being punished really harshly across the board. This is just a one-off test match that you lost, a similarly harsh interpretation of the laws cost Ulster a shot at a European Cup, so there's no point in pretending there's anything too unusual about the situation you find yourself in. Romain Poite is a good ref, but he's a French ref. His Frenchness will come out!

The idea that Poite has a problem with South African physicality is, I'm sorry, a bit nuts... I have seen no evidence whatsoever of him punishing physicality that is legal within the laws of the game.

Notch, read up a bit, the harsh calls have turned into deliberate attempt to take Kearney out.

As for Poite, I don't disagree with you that others are suffering, but our "spats" with him has all been recent, an the IRB demanded we continue to play under him. their words "you are bound to cross paths with him in the world cup"

WHat they are saying is this incompetent official is not being punished severely enough for his lack of ability and WILL officiate another match for us. WHere do you think this is going to end?

ANother controversial elimination from the RWC?

Have we not had our share last RWC?

Just for interest sake, review the 64th minute of the England match, Jane takes out Farrell in the air, Farrell goes down and stays down. Not a response from the crowd, referee, TMO, touch judge or commentators?

the Ulster-Saracens ref was french as well (Jeome Garces?) if am not mistaken

FecklessRogue wrote:You can notice the Irish are very very careful around him now and fare much better. I still feel dread when I know he's taking charge of a Leinster or Ireland game. Because somebody is going to carded controversially. "I don't like your sideburns. Yellow card".

This is another reason Ireland won. The best coaches don't just prepare for your opponents tactics and strengths. Theyu prepare for the referee and his interpretation too

Notch wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:You can notice the Irish are very very careful around him now and fare much better. I still feel dread when I know he's taking charge of a Leinster or Ireland game. Because somebody is going to carded controversially. "I don't like your sideburns. Yellow card".

This is another reason Ireland won. The best coaches don't just prepare for your opponents tactics and strengths. Theyu prepare for the referee and his interpretation too

Fine, so your suggestion is Strauss should not challenge for the ball. That is the only way to avoid the wrath of Poite?

What is next, because of the personalities of various referees, you start selecting players who are "softer"

Biltong wrote:WHat they are saying is this incompetent official is not being punished severely enough for his lack of ability and WILL officiate another match for us. WHere do you think this is going to end?

Well there's two ways it can end;

1) You don't get your way and you get Romain Poite again.
2) You do get your way and don't get Romain Poite, therefore you get someone who is actually worse than him.

I don't know if you're familiar with the standard of referees worldwide but it is not a high standard. He doesn't keep getting games because he's a terrible ref. He is actually objectively one of the best refs... and what that says about the other referees I'll let you decide. Let's just say there's not a whole queue of top referees he's stopping from getting games. He actually had a quite good game at the weekend in my view. The yellow card was typical Poite, but the rest of his game was very good.

He did well on balance. He should have issued a team warning before the Strauss card. That was his big mistake in my view. If he tells Jean de Villiers that the next offence is yellow he'd have absolutely no case to answer over the card. It wasn't a bad enough offence to warrant a straight yellow, but as an accumulation of penalties it probably was.

Notch wrote:

Biltong wrote:WHat they are saying is this incompetent official is not being punished severely enough for his lack of ability and WILL officiate another match for us. WHere do you think this is going to end?

Well there's two ways it can end;

1) You don't get your way and you get Romain Poite again.
2) You do get your way and don't get Romain Poite, therefore you get someone who is actually worse than him.

I don't know if you're familiar with the standard of referees worldwide but it is not a high standard. He doesn't keep getting games because he's a terrible ref. He is actually objectively one of the best refs... and what that says about the other referees I'll let you decide. Let's just say there's not a whole queue of top referees he's stopping from getting games. He actually had a quite good game at the weekend in my view. The yellow card was typical Poite, but the rest of his game was very good.

He did well on balance. He should have issued a team warning before the Strauss card. That was his big mistake in my view. If he tells Jean de Villiers that the next offence is yellow he'd have absolutely no case to answer over the card. It wasn't a bad enough offence to warrant a straight yellow, but as an accumulation of penalties it probably was.

We are not going to see this from the same perspective, to the victor goes the advantage of being philosophical about these issues.

Just one question, how any do we deem cumulative (that is if there is a team warning). One high tackle in a match and the next dubious incident is carded?

Like they say, it happens once, it is an accident, it happens twice it is a coincidence, it happens again no more.

That is unfair because I agree with you.

Strauss' yellow was not given for his actions against Kearney but a cumulative 'team' yellow, the high tackle on Heaslip being the only penalty mentioned but there were too many leading up to the yellow card. I don't think Strauss was intentionally taking Kearney out and Kearney was in no danger so a penalty, by today's standards, was the right call. The yellow, whilst harsh, was always a danger with the penalty count building.

Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

Pete330v2 wrote:Strauss' yellow was not given for his actions against Kearney but a cumulative 'team' yellow, the high tackle on Heaslip being the only penalty mentioned but there were too many leading up to the yellow card. I don't think Strauss was intentionally taking Kearney out and Kearney was in no danger so a penalty, by today's standards, was the right call. The yellow, whilst harsh, was always a danger with the penalty count building.

Unfortunately I cannot review the game right now to see this "cumulative" penalty count you are suggesting prior to te high tackle. SA conceded 12 penalties and free kicks in the match, and Ireland 10, so I will have to go through them to see the timeline.

Biltong wrote:

Notch wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:You can notice the Irish are very very careful around him now and fare much better. I still feel dread when I know he's taking charge of a Leinster or Ireland game. Because somebody is going to carded controversially. "I don't like your sideburns. Yellow card".

This is another reason Ireland won. The best coaches don't just prepare for your opponents tactics and strengths. Theyu prepare for the referee and his interpretation too

Fine, so your suggestion is Strauss should not challenge for the ball. That is the only way to avoid the wrath of Poite?

What is next, because of the personalities of various referees, you start selecting players who are "softer"

Not at all, Bilt.  
This is another repeating hint in your posts on rugby;  the idea that some teams play it hard and some can't handle hard, and therefore choose to squeal in the ref's direction to save them.  It seems to be the notion that SA like physicality, should be allowed invest in it if it's a strength of theirs, and should profit from the advantage.... IF the refs were fair.

Well true.  Physicality is part of the game and the demands of rugby demand players who can cope with physicality.  But there is a legal framework around all that meat and physicality - and yes, it's to save players from undue injuries - not only in the present but into the future in terms of concussion/neck/spinal injuries that might come back to haunt them.  Players are people that have lives outside sport, families that care for them and all of us would like to think that most of them would lead healthy lives after sport.  There is no point in harking back to a more brutal past.  We're in a present with close up cameras and society demands even sportsmen are protected - even from themselves.  It ain't Rome and gladiators no more.  Time moves on.

So physicality through legality is the desired process in rugby.  The rest is a debate about what was legal and how severe the illegal was and how strict a ref is.  

That's the debate but rugby isn't and shouldn't be a free-for-all in imposed physicality.  And coaches should inform their players about specific refs IF they have a vested interest in their team winning.  You can't ignore the fact that indivdual refs interpret the laws their way.  A coach has a duty to his players to keep them informed about the nature of the refs they'll be reffed by.  So the idea that certain refs would require 'soft' players is a little off target.  No, what certain refs require is players sensitive to their coaches advice, advice which should tell them about when it's best to 'thread soft'.

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

I see it the same way as Mallet. I wouldnt have given a card because I hate that rule but Strauss did himself no favours by not going for the ball. So not sure what he was trying to do. Disrupt maybe? Certainly there is no question of intent to hurt anyway but it was clear he intentionally grabbed Kearney rather than the ball.

Personally I dont think anyone should ever be penalised if they are just going for the ball.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:

Notch wrote:

FecklessRogue wrote:You can notice the Irish are very very careful around him now and fare much better. I still feel dread when I know he's taking charge of a Leinster or Ireland game. Because somebody is going to carded controversially. "I don't like your sideburns. Yellow card".

This is another reason Ireland won. The best coaches don't just prepare for your opponents tactics and strengths. Theyu prepare for the referee and his interpretation too

Fine, so your suggestion is Strauss should not challenge for the ball. That is the only way to avoid the wrath of Poite?

What is next, because of the personalities of various referees, you start selecting players who are "softer"

Not at all, Bilt.  
This is another repeating hint in your posts on rugby;  the idea that some teams play it hard and some can't handle hard, and therefore choose to squeal in the ref's direction to save them.  It seems to be the notion that SA like physicality, should be allowed invest in it if it's a strength of theirs, and should profit from the advantage.... IF the refs were fair.

Well true.  Physicality is part of the game and the demands of rugby demand players who can cope with physicality.  But there is a legal framework around all that meat and physicality - and yes, it's to save players from undue injuries - not only in the present but into the future in terms of concussion/neck/spinal injuries that might come back to haunt them.  Players are people that have lives outside sport, families that care for them and all of us would like to think that most of them would lead healthy lives after sport.  There is no point in harking back to a more brutal past.  We're in a present with close up cameras and society demands even sportsmen are protected - even from themselves.  It ain't Rome and gladiators no more.  Time moves on.

So physicality through legality is the desired process in rugby.  The rest is a debate about what was legal and how severe the illegal was and how strict a ref is.  

That's the debate but rugby isn't and shouldn't be a free-for-all in imposed physicality.  And coaches should inform their players about specific refs IF they have a vested interest in their team winning.  You can't ignore the fact that indivdual refs interpret the laws their way.  A coach has a duty to his players to keep them informed about the nature of the refs they'll be reffed by.  So the idea that certain refs would require 'soft' players is a little off target.  No, what certain refs require is players sensitive to their coaches advice, advice which should tell them about when it's best to 'thread soft'.

No, I did not suggest any team squeals, I suggest rugby is going soft because or the IRB, referees and crowds going into a frenzy when they sense an advantage can be had.

Let us discuss the legal framework of the up and under. If I interpret the rule of the IRB, the first arriving player has all the advantage, in so far as the second arriving player must take due care to not put the first arriving player in danger.

Now let's look at the first arriving player. Both jump at the same time, one jumps higher than the other, but they basically arrive at the same time. Does the law then suggest the one touching the ball first is now deemed the first arrival?

The problem with any law is that it is interpreted by human beings, and that leaves it open to interpretation. To show you the extremes of the interpretation, this same weekend Ben Smith takes out Owen Farrell in the 64th minute, nothing, no query, no howl from the crowd, no TMO referral, no comment by the commentators.

Did Ben Smith take due care of Farrell, not at all, in fact he wrapped his arms around Farrell pulling him down to such an extent it took Farrell a while to recover.

Now compare that with Strauss, he was only beaten to the ball due to the athleticism of a fullback vs a hooker. Other than tat they arrive at the same time, jump at the same time, the one makes contact with the ball first, albeit on the shoulder and the other attempts to knock the ball out of his hands.

Who should have received a yellow card?

Yeah, yeah, the cumulative penalties, yaiyadiya.

As for preparing players for matches and referee interpretations, you know what can I say. I have criticised our team for not being able to adapt to the trickeries of Ireland, in fact I have berated them for that.

But if you are suggesting SA didn't adapt to Poite in regards to physicality I am going to disagree with you emphatically.

One high tackle in the whole game, and it wasn't a malicious high tackle, it came from behind and was too high, but it wasn't a clothes hangar or anything like that. Simply just high. That in my book is rather good discipline for 80 minutes.

Biltong wrote:
No, I did not suggest any team squeals, I suggest rugby is going soft because or the IRB, referees and crowds going into a frenzy when they sense an advantage can be had.

Completely agree with you on that.

Nachos Jones wrote:I would have no objection to Sexton being made captain but for me, I would choose POM.

Captained every team he has played for at every level (Bar Ireland) and is a proper leader. Many players, past and present, have nothing but compliments for the way he leads. The guy is just a natural leader.

On Sexton, I see the same. The guy is a perfectionist and expects those around him to be the same (nothing wrong with that). Sexton as a ten, pivotal position, is one of the main people that co-ordinate attacks so has a massive influence on the game.

Ireland can just be thankful that they have two excellent players who, in my mind, would be more than capable of doing the job. Happy days.

POM has captained Ireland twice on the tour to North America last year - Rory Best got called up to the Lions I think.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

He watched the ball and so knew Kearney would be there and didn't go for the ball but Kearney instead - who was somewhere under the ball.  Strauss's intent was to disrupt Kearney.  I wouldn't for a second say he intended to injure Kearney but to make Kearney fluff his catch enough so that a team-mate might steal it or catch the drop.

I personally would have been more lenient and - for my own selfish reasons - didn't want the yellow card anyway - not at that point in time.  Teams can get grittier when they feel hard done by.  So I worried that it might actually give SA the mental drive to take the win.

But Strauss is like any other player on the field...trying for any little advantage that might come from a cheeky 'sorry gov, didn't see you there' moment.  All players do it when they think a ref mightn't be looking.  Unfortunately Poite was.

Plus...teams - not just SA - kinda spread out the infringement stuff to take the ref's attention away from them.  So Poite sees infringements.  What does he do?  Give warnings to every player on the team?  In an 80 minute game, that's everyone warned and nobody punished

No, Poite probably felt that teams were transferring the little smart moves around the team to keep the refs attention off one particular player.  I think Poite told both Captains he was wise to it all and that he wasn't the kind of guy to be fooled by it.  Poite doesn't take Captains aside unless he is serious about letting them know he's about to go for cards.  It's his red-flag warning.  Other refs can often take Captains aside and take them aside and take them aside and nothing ever happens.  But Poite is actually easier to follow and usually follows through on warnings.

No, Poite probably felt that teams were transferring the little smart moves around the team to keep the refs attention off one particular player

You are giving far too much credit to rugby players.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

Wait for his feet to touch the ground then bang him as hard as you like.  Wait'n'bang.  It's really not rocket science.  Or else genuinely go for the ball in the air.  We all know body language.  None of us are dumb.  We all know when a player is genuinely going for a ball.  We've all seen those moments and we've all witnessed the often painful results when two players looking for the same ball clash.  It ain't pretty but it's legal and both players have a right to try to get it.  No problems.

Problems arise when there is no intent to challenge for the ball but every intention of stopping the opponent getting to it and not waiting for the player to come to the ground first.  You can't take a player out in the air... too much potential for serious injury and no excuse available for innocently going for the ball.

But yes too................ the legality has to go both ways.  And now we see players raising their legs very high as they try to attract the penalty - almost using their own vulnerability in the air to catch a penalty bonus.  Don't like that either.  Should be stamped out.

Biltong wrote:

No, Poite probably felt that teams were transferring the little smart moves around the team to keep the refs attention off one particular player

You are giving far too much credit to rugby players.

No I'm not. I've watched rugby for far too long Bilt Rugby players are crafty devils..and coaches craftier.

Had to do some work yesterday and still cant see any analysis from Guns except for the usual guff. Are you sure you got out of the bar and actually watched the match?

Anyhow. Whatever about the try at the end the SA try from the maul was woefully defended Heaslip and POC fell over each other and no one seemed to know what they were doing in terms of standing off or engaging.


Anyhow onwards and upwards for the canonisation of Joe.....all he has to do now is win the World Cup...easy.

Yeah it was strange that they chose to engage at that maul when the tactic of standing off was working well.

Funny how no-one is talking about the nonsense myth that Ireland's "golden generation" has passed anymore. Glad we dont have to hear about that.

True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

Dont care that about grand slams as long as we win the 6 nations. Plus a WC semi would be great and is achievable I reckon provided Sexton is on form and stays fit.

Its kinda cool how we have been able to replace one of our best OHs of all time with a player who is proving himself to be even better. I reckon things could unravel if Sexton gets injured.

Not at all Guns...Grand Slams are what its all about. That with a semi would put Joe and this bunch of players at deity level. A win against the ABs and we are talking the new messiah...

Winning 6ns has been done its old hat now.

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

Wait for his feet to touch the ground then bang him as hard as you like.  Wait'n'bang.  It's really not rocket science.  Or else genuinely go for the ball in the air.  We all know body language.  None of us are dumb.  We all know when a player is genuinely going for a ball.  We've all seen those moments and we've all witnessed the often painful results when two players looking for the same ball clash.  It ain't pretty but it's legal and both players have a right to try to get it.  No problems.

Problems arise when there is no intent to challenge for the ball but every intention of stopping the opponent getting to it and not waiting for the player to come to the ground first.  You can't take a player out in the air... too much potential for serious injury and no excuse available for innocently going for the ball.

But yes too................ the legality has to go both ways.  And now we see players raising their legs very high as they try to attract the penalty - almost using their own vulnerability in the air to catch a penalty bonus.  Don't like that either.  Should be stamped out.

Pretty sure that's a card too!

ME-109 wrote:Not at all Guns...Grand Slams are what its all about.  That with a semi would put Joe and this bunch of players at deity level. A win against the ABs and we are talking the new messiah...

Winning 6ns has been done its old hat now.

Winning back to back 6 nations has never been done by Ireland. That would be some feat.

We're getting very demanding.  6N now Joe!  I'd prefer we do our usual doubting game - it pays better when you actually do surprise yourself and win.

Seriously though, it is a big ask to repeat the 6N even with Saint Joe, who'll have to have half his mind on the WC, as indeed all coaches will - still a lot of shaping and mixing to test.  Eyes fully on a 6N victory?  

Winning every game will be the objective of course, which kinda leads to a 6N if you accomplish it - but actually the idea of winning the 6N overall as our initial goal, when England will still be prowling, when Wales won't be fooled twice by our 'non-playing' win over them, when France CAN'T be as bad as last year (can they?)... tall ask.  We Irish are better when we're not demanding but hoping....and running ourselves down
So of course that means I'll be complaining wildly if Zebo gets near the 6N squad as I think he'll ruin our chances

Yeah I doubt we will win the 6N. Everyone will want to beat us.

MrsP wrote:



Pretty sure that's a card too!

Why not!  Are you against introducing more colour into our game???  The fans love the sprinkle of colour and entertainment that a bunch of yellow and reds bring to our dull as dishwater sport.

GunsGerms wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Not at all Guns...Grand Slams are what its all about.  That with a semi would put Joe and this bunch of players at deity level. A win against the ABs and we are talking the new messiah...

Winning 6ns has been done its old hat now.

Winning back to back 6 nations has never been done by Ireland. That would be some feat.

I know you are young and probably only know the 6nations but 1948/49 and 82/83(joint winners under the rules)....

GS would be a good progression

We did it in the 5 nations a few times I know. Six nations is harder and a more relevant acheivement as we arent competing in the 5 nations anymore.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

I wasn't part of that debate but I can see where running into the space where a jumping player might land could potentially be dangerous. You see it a lot in Aussie rules where the jumping player comes down on the shoulders of the player on the ground and lands awkwardly.
Are you suggesting that the player on the ground can't know where the jumping player will land?

GunsGerms wrote:We did it in the 5 nations a few times I know. Six nations is harder and a more relevant acheivement as we arent competing in the 5 nations anymore.

Good of you to reaffirm Kidney as our best coach in recent times by winning the grand slam and also going unbeaten in one year . Up to Joe and this generation to surpass that achievement

ME-109 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:We did it in the 5 nations a few times I know. Six nations is harder and a more relevant acheivement as we arent competing in the 5 nations anymore.

Good of you to reaffirm Kidney as our best coach in recent times by winning the grand slam and also going unbeaten in one year . Up to Joe and this generation to surpass that achievement

Think you might be a little disorientated DOD. I never said anything like that.

Id actually rather EOS to Kidney. I think he was a much better organised and tactically astute coach. Ireland were 3rd in the rankings at one point with EOS. Thats the best we have ever been.

Schmidt is definitely the best coach we have ever had.

Nachos Jones wrote:I would have no objection to Sexton being made captain but for me, I would choose POM.

Captained every team he has played for at every level (Bar Ireland) and is a proper leader. Many players, past and present, have nothing but compliments for the way he leads. The guy is just a natural leader.

On Sexton, I see the same. The guy is a perfectionist and expects those around him to be the same (nothing wrong with that). Sexton as a ten, pivotal position, is one of the main people that co-ordinate attacks so has a massive influence on the game.

Ireland can just be thankful that they have two excellent players who, in my mind, would be more than capable of doing the job. Happy days.

Yeah I'd agree with you there,leave Sexton to worry about being outhalf that's enough on his plate.As for captain I'd have no issues with Best,SoB (if he can stay injury free),Heaslip,Pom or Murray being captain after PoC.

Is there any diff in prestige between winning the 6N and winning the 5N?

To be honest the only diff is Italy and no team with serious title aspirations lose to Italy, usually its a walk through.

2014 - Ireland beat Italy by 39
2013 - Wales beat Italy by 17 (the only time the winning margin was <20)
2012 - Wales beat Italy by 21
2011 - England beat Italy by 46
2010 - France beat Italy by 26
2009 - Ireland beat Italy by 29
2008 - Wales beat Italy by 39
2007 - France beat Italy by 36
2006 - France beat Italy by 25
2005 - Wales beat Italy by 30
2004 - France beat Italy by 25
2003 - England beat Italy by 35
2002 - France beat Italy by 21
2001 - England beat Italy by 57
2000 - England beat Italy by 47

The smallest margin of victory for the eventual 6N winners vs. Italy was 17, i.e. enough for the IRB to consider it a thrashing with a 1.5 ranking points multiple. Yes they got caned at the beginning but even over the last 5 years the average loss margin has been 30 points.

In reality I think the only diff between winning a 6N title and the 5N title is that you have to cater for 1 additional match and potential for more injuries.

GunsGerms wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:We did it in the 5 nations a few times I know. Six nations is harder and a more relevant acheivement as we arent competing in the 5 nations anymore.

Good of you to reaffirm Kidney as our best coach in recent times by winning the grand slam and also going unbeaten in one year . Up to Joe and this generation to surpass that achievement

Think you might be a little disorientated DOD. I never said anything like that.

Id actually rather EOS to Kidney. I think he was a much better organised and tactically astute coach. Ireland were 3rd in the rankings at one point with EOS. Thats the best we have ever been.

Schmidt is definitely the best coach we have ever had.

Its pretty clear from what you were saying. That the 6ns is harder to win and winning it and getting a grand slam is a great achievement. Something Kidney has done...also Kidney kept us at fourth for quite some time...Joe is still in fifth position

Also Joe has managed a 4 out of 5 win and by the vagaries of points scored has managed to win a championship which is great but again through the vagaries of points for and against EOS managed 4 out of 5 wins three times. Not sure Joe is the best coach ever yet. Also because you are young you probably wouldnt remember Tom Kiernan...probably our best coach(onfield and off) and also has a win against the ABs.

Submachine wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

I wasn't part of that debate but I can see where running into the space where a jumping player might land could potentially be dangerous. You see it a lot in Aussie rules where the jumping player comes down on the shoulders of the player on the ground and lands awkwardly.
Are you suggesting that the player on the ground can't know where the jumping player will land?

In this case Strauss was nowhere near the space where Kearney's body was going to land, he angled his run to avoid hitting him in a head on collision, it was only his arm that went in front of Kearney to dislodge the ball

Biltong wrote:

Submachine wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

I wasn't part of that debate but I can see where running into the space where a jumping player might land could potentially be dangerous. You see it a lot in Aussie rules where the jumping player comes down on the shoulders of the player on the ground and lands awkwardly.
Are you suggesting that the player on the ground can't know where the jumping player will land?

In this case Strauss was nowhere near the space where Kearney's body was going to land, he angled his run to avoid hitting him in a head on collision, it was only his arm that went in front of Kearney to dislodge the ball

Yeah, no. Was just a general reply to the point. I understand it does not apply here.

Submachine wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

I wasn't part of that debate but I can see where running into the space where a jumping player might land could potentially be dangerous. You see it a lot in Aussie rules where the jumping player comes down on the shoulders of the player on the ground and lands awkwardly.
Are you suggesting that the player on the ground can't know where the jumping player will land?

No I am suggesting that a player chasing the ball from the attacking team has every right to go for that ball and should have no requirement to take to the air to gather the ball. In fact why would you take to the air if your intention was to collect the ball at full tilt without stunning the momentum out of the move by leaping in the air. I would suggest that an attacking player with his eyes on the ball wouldn't necessarily know a: if there is a jumping player and b: if there's someone airborne where they will be landing.
The thing is intention can be assessed even if it takes multiple views on a big screen or discussion with the TMO. Most of the time any of us can tell the difference between an accidental collision and a malicious act as can the paid officials. Punish the malicious thugs endangering fellow players but punishing those involved in unfortunate accidents will damage the game more than protect it.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Submachine wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Biltong wrote:

fa0019 wrote:Nick Mallett said that Strauss' card was justifiable if a little weak. You simply can't challenge a man in the air if he has the ball. Kearney is probably the best high ball catcher in the world. You won't beat him to it. Strauss wasn't even looking at the ball.... that's what got him the card.

To be honest its strauss to a T. He is all gusto, little brains.

He was watching the ball until he jumped, then looked at Kearney the second before they came together.

Biltong, I'm with you on this one believe me as any Ulster fan will tell you.
It's a physical tough sport and if we offer much more protection to players it'll be touch rugby. We need to protect the players but this is not soccer, this is rugby.
For what it's worth I don't believe Strauss should have been yellow carded. He did however make no clear attempt to win the ball and by the letter of the law was rightly penalised. The yellow card was harsh to say the least. It's a law I disagree with especially when players deliberately jump into an oncoming player leaving the guy no chance to get out of the way, the result being an accidental contact that penalises the one person who usually has no control over what just occurred.
I mean there are many on this forum who used to argue that running into an area of the pitch where there may be a jumping player is red cardable. I kid you not, the said it was a reckless thing to do. I truely kid you not.

I wasn't part of that debate but I can see where running into the space where a jumping player might land could potentially be dangerous. You see it a lot in Aussie rules where the jumping player comes down on the shoulders of the player on the ground and lands awkwardly.
Are you suggesting that the player on the ground can't know where the jumping player will land?

No I am suggesting that a player chasing the ball from the attacking team has every right to go for that ball and should have no requirement to take to the air to gather the ball. In fact why would you take to the air if your intention was to collect the ball at full tilt without stunning the momentum out of the move by leaping in the air. I would suggest that an attacking player with his eyes on the ball wouldn't necessarily know a: if there is a jumping player and b: if there's someone airborne where they will be landing.
The thing is intention can be assessed even if it takes multiple views on a big screen or discussion with the TMO. Most of the time any of us can tell the difference between an accidental collision and a malicious act as can the paid officials. Punish the malicious thugs endangering fellow players but punishing those involved in unfortunate accidents will damage the game more than protect it.

OK I see your point but I would argue that if a team chooses to kick the ball away then the receiving team have a natural advantage by coming on to the ball in retrieving it. Therefore the chaser has to be more mindful of his positioning when chasing as he knows that the player coming will try increase that advantage by jumping thereby gathering the ball earlier.
This is why there is so much emphasis now on getting the kick just right to make it contestable and all contestables are in the air. If the chaser decides not to jump to contest the ball when the receiving player does then there is a higher chance of injury. Two players clashing in the air creates less impact as a lot of the energy is absorbed in the collision. One player in the air colliding with a player on the deck has the potential to injure both the jumper (falling awkwardly) and the grounded player (knee to the face).

Pete330v2 wrote:
No I am suggesting that a player chasing the ball from the attacking team has every right to go for that ball and should have no requirement to take to the air to gather the ball. In fact why would you take to the air if your intention was to collect the ball at full tilt without stunning the momentum out of the move by leaping in the air. I would suggest that an attacking player with his eyes on the ball wouldn't necessarily know a: if there is a jumping player and b: if there's someone airborne where they will be landing.

The thing is intention can be assessed even if it takes multiple views on a big screen or discussion with the TMO. Most of the time any of us can tell the difference between an accidental collision and a malicious act as can the paid officials. Punish the malicious thugs endangering fellow players but punishing those involved in unfortunate accidents will damage the game more than protect it.

Thank you, sensible reasoning.

Submachine wrote:One player in the air colliding with a player on the deck has the potential to injure both the jumper (falling awkwardly) and the grounded player (knee to the face).

I think it is important to differentiate between a chaser remaining grounded and a chaser going to the air.

The player that is grounded is unlikely to gain first access to the ball, and in his case the due care he must take is to ensure the safe landing of the airborne player. Often this tactic is to turn the player once he has safely hit the ground, or exploit the ball bouncing off the airborne player.

If the scenario is where two players are both in the air, the interpretation of what Pete is talking about now becomes crucial if they collide. Because now you have to assess whether both jumped at the same time, were they both in a position to jump for access to the ball, and what the body positioning of the jumpers are.

And this is where intent is sometimes difficult to asses but as far as possible common sense must be applied.