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.

Submachine wrote:

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).

EDIT: Which when you think about the bolded bit above is what Strauss did. Knew he couldn't compete in the air, got out of the way but as an after thought tried to knok the ball out of Kearneys grasp. Missed and knocked Kearney over. Penalty upgraded to yellow (rightly or wrongly) due to the high tackle a couple of minutes previously.

Biltong wrote:

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.

Agree 100%. My issue with Petes stance was that he felt it is ok for a chaser not to jump and take up the space where a jumping player might land.

ME-109 wrote:True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

love it.

in all likelihood, England will be your obstacle to both a 6N Slam and getting to RWC Final.

unfortunately ireland are 0 for 3 against england in 6Ns. not sure i have seen anything particularly different about this Ireland or England than the ones that played at Twickenham a few months back.

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

love it.

in all likelihood, England will be your obstacle to both a 6N Slam and getting to RWC Final.

unfortunately ireland are 0 for 3 against england in 6Ns. not sure i have seen anything particularly different about this Ireland or England than the ones that played at Twickenham a few months back.

Well we did win against SH opposition last weekend. That's one difference.

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

love it.

in all likelihood, England will be your obstacle to both a 6N Slam and getting to RWC Final.

unfortunately ireland are 0 for 3 against england in 6Ns. not sure i have seen anything particularly different about this Ireland or England than the ones that played at Twickenham a few months back.

Well we did win against SH opposition last weekend. That's one difference.

Will be playing in a different stadium. Thats two.

so were France. does that mean they should expect to do a Slam and make RWC semis?

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

love it.

in all likelihood, England will be your obstacle to both a 6N Slam and getting to RWC Final.

unfortunately ireland are 0 for 3 against england in 6Ns. not sure i have seen anything particularly different about this Ireland or England than the ones that played at Twickenham a few months back.

Where were you in Saturday? Under schmidt Ireland havent played England at home yet. We will see how that goes.

quinsforever wrote:so were France. does that mean they should expect to do a Slam and make RWC semis?

OK. Your reading too much into this. The lads are having a go off each other about who the better coach is Kidney or Schmidt. The pro Kidney camp is stating what he feels JS would have to achieve to be considdered a better coach.

Kind of a my grandpa and your grandpa sitting by the fire scenario but without all the flag burning.

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:True but...Grand Slam and Semi for the WC....then maybe that will disappear.

love it.

in all likelihood, England will be your obstacle to both a 6N Slam and getting to RWC Final.

unfortunately ireland are 0 for 3 against england in 6Ns. not sure i have seen anything particularly different about this Ireland or England than the ones that played at Twickenham a few months back.

On the last outing at Twickenham the two teams were pretty eveny matched and anyone could have won the game on the day. The two before that were down to the Kidney factor so disregard please.

I'd say England and Ireland are as equally matched this season. The rock and the hard place. Both are looking in rude health with quality all over the park. It will be a titanic struggle at the Aviva in the 6 Nations of that I have no doubt.

Ah Jees....I just typed Aviva without thinking, I have been assimilated.

Biltong wrote:

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.

All agreed, as I said at the time the yellow was BS, and like Notch, I wish we had beaten you 15 to 15. i think most irish posters have been consistent that the Payne red card last season wasnt a card and the yellow card at the weekend wasn't a card. (A much-loved english poster on these boards on the other hand seems to be slightly inconsistent on this point though if you read through the thread )

wolfball wrote:

Biltong wrote:

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.

All agreed, as I said at the time the yellow was BS, and like Notch, I wish we had beaten you 15 to 15. i think most irish posters have been consistent that the Payne red card last season wasnt a card and the yellow card at the weekend wasn't a card. (A much-loved english poster on these boards on the other hand seems to be slightly inconsistent on this point though if you read through the thread )

I don't think your win was devalued because of it, even though I understand the reasoning.

We were poor and hopefully Meyer will have learnt from that. I personally think the Boks have not yet come down to earth after beating the AB's.

If you have an opportunity watch the demeanor of the Boks as they wait for proceedings to begin one they went onto the field of play.

They were smiling, chatting and almost seemed as if they were congratulating themselves already.

Difference for me was Payne was going for the ball but Strauss was going for the man.

I didnt like either decision much to be honest but I was pleased that at least now a days we seem to be getting the rub of the green at home a little more.

Your blinkers are truly fixed Guns.

You have to love the banter on here. The razor wit. The cut and thrust. It's why I only post on this forum.

Nothing to do with my work servers only allowing me access to one sports forum (how do you manage that by the way). Honestly.

Biltong wrote:Your blinkers are truly fixed Guns.

What did I say that you dont agree with? Im at a loss.

As I see it the Payne incident was a complete accident but quite dangerous while the Strauss ordeal was intentional but not dangerous at all.

Completely different cases neither in my opinion warrented the sanction they got. Dont think Im saying anything particularly blinkered or contraversial there.

For once GunsGerms, I cant see anything wrong with your post and you know I tried to find something

wolfball wrote:

Biltong wrote:

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.

All agreed, as I said at the time the yellow was BS, and like Notch, I wish we had beaten you 15 to 15. i think most irish posters have been consistent that the Payne red card last season wasnt a card and the yellow card at the weekend wasn't a card. (A much-loved english poster on these boards on the other hand seems to be slightly inconsistent on this point though if you read through the thread )

i assume you are referring to me

there is no inconsistency. IRB guidance is for refs to take into account the danger and outcome of the result of the tackle in the air. Goode landed on his head and was knocked clean out. Ref had little choice given the IRB guidance. for him to do i 3 minutes into the game, and after a 5minute break for treatment and repeated review of the tapes, suggests he was in no doubt whatsoever.

kearney was already falling over (he slightly over-ran the ball) and the arm that barely touched him had no impact on how kearney landed, in my opinion. plus, even the ref said that the yellow was as a result of repeated infringements not that single incident, but it appears he got vermeulen and strauss confused, as when he awarded the yellow he referred to the same players being involved in the high tackle. Plus the TMO was not keen on a yellow either.

if strauss's had been a genuine yellow, then kearney should have been yellow carded in the 5th minute for an identical tackle (penalty was awarded). no-one complained about that decision. yet the crowd had plenty to say about Strauss's decision, and the tackle on Heaslip that was marginally high.

The referee has enough autonomy to award a yellow for repeated infringements. Firstly he spoke to both captains, then penalised DV and finally carded AS.
Given the Kearney incident had no previous it's hard to see how that should have been a card.

The inconsistency of the IRB is that the severity of the aerial penalty is dependent on the outcome which is unpredictable. Everyone on a rugby pitch runs at full tilt at some stage, if they happen to run into someone else then the ref has to see if there was any real damage done to decide what penalty should be applied if any? This cannot modify behaviour in any way if that is the intention of penalties and cards, because in most cases it's still ok to run at full tilt.

Accidents cannot be penalised out of the game so the IRB stance is inconsistent with the rest of their Laws that are genuinely trying to make the game safer.

quinsforever wrote:

Brennus wrote:Just to clear up the confusion on why Poite gave the yellow to Strauss:

Poite:"He was late and deliberately hit the player in the air. Cos this is the 2nd tackle in the air and a high tackle on [number]8, I will sin bin the player."

the first tackle in the air was by kearney in the 5th minute. and the high tackle was vermeulen not strauss.

so where was the warning and how did strauss get implicated?

utterly ridiculous decision by Pointe. every sensible poster agrees.  kearney would have fallen over anyway.

You're missing the point again. After watching the replays, Poite quite rightfully considered it deliberate. Surely a self-proclaimed 'sensible poster' like yourself would agree that a deliberate tackle in the air warrants a yellow card at the very least, right!?

wrong. payne's tackle was "accidental" yet he got given a red because he knocked Goode out.

i am pretty sure you will find that most tackles are, in fact, deliberate. and any "sensible" poster would find it hard to say that what strauss did to kearney was a "tackle". whereas what kearney did to the SA catcher around the 5 minute mark was most definitely "deliberate" and a "tackle". what determines the colour of the card or whether there is a card, is how it affects the landing of the player and whether it was deemed dangerous by the referee.

you should learn the rules and current IRB guidance before picking a fight. Poite incorrectly blamed Strauss for Vermeulen's tackle, as he made clear over the ref-mike, and gave a yellow. had the "tackle" been deserving of a yellow in its own right he would not have mentioned the previous infringements.

neither "tackle" should have been carded.

there was no warning to both captains either.

and Strauss is not Vermeulen.

quinsforever wrote:neither "tackle" should have been carded.

there was no warning to both captains either.

Brings me back to my original point I think.

Had Poite issued a team warning to De Villiers it would have been harsh but slightly justified. In the absence of any team warning, it was a harsh and unjustified card.

quinsforever wrote:neither "tackle" should have been carded.

there was no warning to both captains either.

and Strauss is not Vermeulen.

On 60 Minutes their was a clear warning to POC and JDV. On 61 mins Vermeulen carried out the round the neck tackle on Heaslip and was warned. After Strauss' silly indiscretion Poite said it was for multiple fouls. That was on 64 mins so directly after the warning.

Check it out yourself.

Nachos Jones wrote:For once GunsGerms, I cant see anything wrong with your post and you know I tried to find something

I wouldnt doubt that. We are here to debate afterall.

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:neither "tackle" should have been carded.

there was no warning to both captains either.

and Strauss is not Vermeulen.

On 60 Minutes their was a clear warning to POC and JDV. On 61 mins Vermeulen carried out the round the neck tackle on Heaslip and was warned. After Strauss' silly indiscretion Poite said it was for multiple fouls. That was on 64 mins so directly after the warning.

Check it out yourself.

poite also refers to Strauss having made the tackle on Heaslip. maybe all blonds look the same to him.

fact remains, neither tackle should have been carded.

quins, As I said on another thread. When Poite warns captains you should listen, as when he warns, a yellow card is only minutes away. The fact the he got players confused is irrelevant, SA simply did not heed his warning and Ireland did. Strauss only received a penalty but Poite was waiting to give a card.

Strauss was unlucky but SA were naïve in not understanding Poite's way of reffing. POC has past with Poite and knew exactly what to do. SA will not make that mistake again with Poite now.

"wrong. payne's tackle was "accidental" yet he got given a red because he knocked Goode out."

Wrong, it was the ground that knocked Goode out, Payne was just a bystander

indeed Pete. if payne had knocked him out in the air, there would have been arguably no penalty even. the fact the ground did it is what led to the red (ie according to the guidance, landing on head makes it much more serious). combined with payne not competing in the air.

Pete330v2 wrote:"wrong. payne's tackle was "accidental" yet he got given a red because he knocked Goode out."

Wrong, it was the ground that knocked Goode out, Payne was just a bystander

Regardless of whether or not Payne's red was perhaps, perhaps a little harsh....

Wouldn't it be unfair if even by accident Payne came back 10 mins later and Goode was taken out of the match completely?

Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

GunsGerms wrote:Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

An accident caused by recklessness?

GunsGerms wrote:Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

as it turned out it didnt ruin the ulster game. it changed it. was an amazing match and effort by ulster.

dane coles yellow card didnt ruin the ABs game vs England either.

quinsforever wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:neither "tackle" should have been carded.

there was no warning to both captains either.

and Strauss is not Vermeulen.

On 60 Minutes their was a clear warning to POC and JDV. On 61 mins Vermeulen carried out the round the neck tackle on Heaslip and was warned. After Strauss' silly indiscretion Poite said it was for multiple fouls. That was on 64 mins so directly after the warning.

Check it out yourself.

poite also refers to Strauss having made the tackle on Heaslip. maybe all blonds look the same to him.

fact remains, neither tackle should have been carded.

Regardless of what you think or others. It is a fact that Poite warned both captains, let Vermeulen know he thought the tackle was reckless and whether he mistook Strauss or not is irrelevent he clearly indicated it was for the number and type of tackles. There is a clear sequence of events and Poite is never ambiguous (annoying - yes, wrong - sometimes, always certain - definitely).

Its not for Poite (or any referee) to change their game because its Ireland, The Boks or whoever. Its up to the teams to adapt. Its not like both teams didnt know about him.

Anyway...yellow was harsh on the individual penalty (and yes it was a penalty). But that was the sequence.

Please explain to me how one adapts?

Please explain to me to what one can adapt?

PLease explain to me whether you believe players PLAN to tackle high?

Please explain to me whether player intentionally take players out?

PLease explain to me how one team conceded 10 penalties and the other 12, and all of a sudden there is a "you should adapt to the plonker the way we did"?

Poite gets ratty that players don't understand his very particular version of English (Clouseau?)
Players get ratty that Poite can't speak English.

Players use their rattiness as an excuse not to listen to him
Poite uses his to issue cards.

End of Lesson.

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

An accident caused by recklessness?

Isn't Rugby, by it's very nature, reckless?
Every big hitting tackle that we like to cheer at is reckless and could lead to a player being injured in all honesty.

Now let me explain to you how one adapts to a referee.

You assess how he blows the breakdown, the scrum, the line out, the offside line.

Those are the things you "adapt" too.

There is a tendency amongst posters to smartingly suggest the losing team shoul have adapted. Whilst in the areas I mentioned it is true, there are certain areas that is not something you adapt to.

It is mere moments in time that is not planned.

Poite is an idiot, I said so last year, I say it again.

I cannot see how South Africa all of a sudden has to somehow avoid contesting in the air in case their "innocuous" attempts are deemed unacceptable to a certain referee, the same goes for the occasional high tackle etc.

South Africa has cleaned up their game immeasurably since Heyneke Meyer has taken over.

Just look at the action he took with Dean Greyling in 2012 when he used an elbow on McCaw, he summarily dropped him and he has never bee selected again.

Every team in world rugby is guilty of the occasional high tackle or aerial challenge. It happens.

BUT, please some of you need a reality check.

Biltong wrote:Please explain to me how one adapts?

1/ Please explain to me to what one can adapt?

2/ PLease explain to me whether you believe players PLAN to tackle high?

3/ Please explain to me whether player intentionally take players out?

4/ PLease explain to me how one team conceded 10 penalties and the other 12, and all of a sudden there is a "you should adapt to the plonker the way we did"?

1/ Do exactly as POC did, call for no penalties immediately after Poite issues a warning.

2/ Players don't plan to go high but it happens, possibly more composure required? Not sure what relevance this has to the point...

3/ Players don't generally plan to take others out, possibly more composure required? Not sure what relevance this has to the point...

4/ This has been pointed out to you numerous occasions but you seem incapable of understanding it. Its the infringements AFTER Poite issues a warning that is relevant. SA committed 2 in less than 3 minutes after the warning and paid the price.

Biltong wrote:Please explain to me how one adapts?

Please explain to me to what one can adapt?

PLease explain to me whether you believe players PLAN to tackle high?

Please explain to me whether player intentionally take players out?

PLease explain to me how one team conceded 10 penalties and the other 12, and all of a sudden there is a "you should adapt to the plonker the way we did"?

One watches lots of rugby games that poite refs.  That's how you do all that stuff, Bilt

Really.  The idea is that Poite is a bastard and SA have been done by him already.  The idea is also - and South Africans might not be aware of this - that Poite is a bastard and Ireland have been done by him already.

Now nothing is perfect.  But you can be damn sure POC didn't annoy the man too much with whines and yelps in his ear.  Now that might be Paulie remembering Poite or it might have even been instructions from Schmidt, who I'm sure would have a session or a few detailed words on Poite as ref.

All I continue to say is that the SA coach should be reminding his player how trigger-finger light Poite is.  That you might not think you're being warned about incoming yellows but you are.  I think he's a man very sensitive about not being listened to.  And cards fly if he thinks his real warning are being ignored.  
SA have been done by him before it seems.  They should learn from it as much as possible.  But the guy Strauss just hit unlucky.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

An accident caused by recklessness?

Isn't Rugby, by it's very nature, reckless?
Every big hitting tackle that we like to cheer at is reckless and could lead to a player being injured in all honesty.

In a rugby context reckless is too troublesome a word to define. Its too easy to just say oh but you were reckless and therefore you deserve a sanction. I honestly dont think anything done unintentionally should be called reckless.

Biltong wrote:Please explain to me how one adapts?

Please explain to me to what one can adapt?

PLease explain to me whether you believe players PLAN to tackle high?

Please explain to me whether player intentionally take players out?

PLease explain to me how one team conceded 10 penalties and the other 12, and all of a sudden there is a "you should adapt to the plonker the way we did"?

Oh God...

1. Stop doing silly things like coming in from the side (Du Plessis on numerous occassions), High shots (Vermeulen...should have known better after first half leading with elbow being reviewed), Not touching man in the air (it was a brain fart but Strauss knew what he was doing and didnt get away with it).

Dont do anything like the last two items once warned by the ref...

2. No idea...not sure if someone gets out a spreadsheet and pinpoints the 64th minute to challenge an opposing player in the air....you need to ask the players.

3. No idea...ask the players.

4. I didnt say we adapted but the penalties we were giving away were clearly less vexatious to Poite and his way of reffing (for a change).

To add. This year we have received 3 yellow cards, a third of what as issued last year.

Habana was carded for a high tackle close to our line on AAC, AAC himself was penalised to a high tackle 10 minutes earlier.

Strauss this pas weekend

Flip v d Merwe for taking someone out in the air vs Wales in June.

Unfortunately I cannot remember the incident so cannot provide more detail.

Not one card for foul play the whole season.

SecretFly wrote:

Biltong wrote:Please explain to me how one adapts?

Please explain to me to what one can adapt?

PLease explain to me whether you believe players PLAN to tackle high?

Please explain to me whether player intentionally take players out?

PLease explain to me how one team conceded 10 penalties and the other 12, and all of a sudden there is a "you should adapt to the plonker the way we did"?

One watches lots of rugby games that poite refs.  That's how you do all that stuff, Bilt

Really.  The idea is that Poite is a bastard and SA have been done by him already.  The idea is also - and South Africans might not be aware of this - that Poite is a bastard and Ireland have been done by him already.

Now nothing is perfect.  But you can be damn sure POC didn't annoy the man too much with whines and yelps in his ear.  Now that might be Paulie remembering Poite or it might have even been instructions from Schmidt, who I'm sure would have a session or a few detailed words on Poite as ref.

All I continue to say is that the SA coach should be reminding his player how trigger-finger light Poite is.  That you might not think you're being warned about incoming yellows but you are.  I think he's a man very sensitive about not being listened to.  And cards fly if he thinks his real warning are being ignored.  
SA have been done by him before it seems.  They should learn from it as much as possible.  But the guy Strauss just hit unlucky.

Fly, I am not saying South Africa are his only victims, I am not saying he is targeting us, what I am saying is there is almost certainly talk in the dressing room that we must tread lightly around him, but, at the end of the day, he remains a trigger happy plonker.

My displeasure of Poite is about his officiating abilities, I rate him the worst of the worst.

GunsGerms wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:Yes but you can take someone out of the match just by tackling them legally which is also unfair. An accident is an accident and rugby being a physical game you have to account for that. Penalising people for accidents doesnt solve anything really IMO but it does tend to ruin games especially if the punishment is a red.

An accident caused by recklessness?

Isn't Rugby, by it's very nature, reckless?
Every big hitting tackle that we like to cheer at is reckless and could lead to a player being injured in all honesty.

In a rugby context reckless is too troublesome a word to define. Its too easy to just say oh but you were reckless and therefore you deserve a sanction. I honestly dont think anything done unintentionally should be called reckless.

Exactly Guns. If there is no premeditation and intention to take a player out then it's called an accident. In the majority of cases it's clear enough for a ref to judge whether an action was intentional or accidental. It's a decision area that's been removed when the outcome overrules an opinion on the incident.

This is getting silly now.

My last words on it is this. Poite is a fiery ref, most teams know now that when he warns captains then he is minutes away from giving a yellow card, warranted or not, its what he does. This is where he is inconsistent.

What POC did on Saturday was adapt very quickly to Poites demeanour by immediately calling for 'no penalties' from his team as he has past and knew full well what Poite was about to do. SA didn't, they then preceded to commit 2 infringements within a few minutes after the warning and saw a yellow.

ME 109 wrote:Oh God...

No, it's me biltong.

ME 109 wrote:1. Stop doing silly things like coming in from the side (Du Plessis on numerous occassions), High shots (Vermeulen...should have known better after first half leading with elbow being reviewed), Not touching man in the air (it was a brain fart but Strauss knew what he was doing and didnt get away with it).

Dont do anything like the last two items once warned by the ref...

SO it is OK to commit a high tackle before he warns you?

You do realise that coming in from the side is a deliberate/planned action as you have time to think about your action rather than a high tackle or competing in the air an accidental event?

ME 109 wrote:2. No idea...not sure if someone gets out a spreadsheet and pinpoints the 64th minute to challenge an opposing player in the air....you need to ask the players.

I'll help you out, it just happens, there is no planning involved, hence you cannot adapt to it.

ME 109 wrote:
3. No idea...ask the players.

Ditto

ME 109 wrote:4. I didnt say we adapted but the penalties we were giving away were clearly less vexatious to Poite and his way of reffing (for a change).

Wrong, you committed the same infringements (bar the high tackle) but the timing of yours were lucky.

Billtong, I think everyone agrees you were a unlucky to get the card. I also think that even though you were unlucky in retrospect Strauss will have wished he was a little more composed, waited for Kearney to drop and smash him then as that would have been a smarter thing to do in that scenario. A big lump like Strauss isnt going to challenge for the ball in the air 9 times out of 10 so I think the chances are although the card was pretty harsh he will be disapointed he made the wrong call himself in that particular scenario. The lesson being where possible either challenge for the ball or wait for the guy in the air to drop.

I actually wouldnt even be surprised if Kearney milked it a bit or if knowing the rules others wont play up to the ref in scenarios like that.

Nachos Jones wrote:This is getting silly now.

My last words on it is this. Poite is a fiery ref, most teams know now that when he warns captains then he is minutes away from giving a yellow card, warranted or not, its what he does. This is where he is inconsistent.

What POC did on Saturday was adapt very quickly to Poites demeanour by immediately calling for 'no penalties' from his team as he has past and knew full well what Poite was about to do. SA didn't, they then preceded to commit 2 infringements within a few minutes after the warning and saw a yellow.

My final word as well, the incidents that lead to the yellow card had nothing to do wit adapting, it was simply that your infringement's timing (taking a player out in the air) was lucky.

had it happened later in the game, Ireland may well have caught a yellow card as well, BECAUSE POITE IS A LOOSE CANNON.

Do you have a clip of the Ireland guy taking a player out in the air. Missed that when I was freezing my balls off at the game.

Kearney...early as I remember.