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.

Thus the idea that Poite is okay for a while until he heats up...when he heats up he talks to Captains. After talking to captains - be very careful. And yes, you still might not escape but at least you're trying as best you can to help yourself avoid a card.

The point of Poite is that no team is safe, no matter who they are, it is like playing the lottery, some actions just happen, and if it is your turn you pay for it, justified or not.

Biltong, you really are exaggerating and getting this all out of proportion.

Pete330v2 wrote:

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.

Seriously?????
You can’t make any distinction to an injury other than intentional or accidental. Intentional = sanction and Accidental = not to worry it was only an accident

Well let’s put it in a non-rugby context.
A psycho killer may decide to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. INTENTIONAL = Sanction / Life in Prison for mass murder
Joe Soap is driving down the road obeying all laws when his front tyre blows out causing him mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. ACCIDENTAL = No sanction
Joan Soap is driving down the road applying makeup, eating a bowl of cereal while texting a friend, accidentally stabs herself in the eye with an eyebrow pencil causing her to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with her SUV. ACCIDENTAL = Sanction 7 years in prison for manslaughter caused by RECKLESS driving

Rugby is NOT a reckless sport. It is certainly a dangerous sport made more so on occasion by players acting recklessly and without due care.

Cyril wrote:Biltong, you really are exaggerating and getting this all out of proportion.

I dont think they can still really believe they got beaten by Ireland....the average Bok supporter wouldnt really rate us...(with some justification)...

Cyril wrote:Biltong, you really are exaggerating and getting this all out of proportion.

Yes Sir. I am , next time it is your team or GUnsGerms team, or someone else.

ME-109 wrote:

Cyril wrote:Biltong, you really are exaggerating and getting this all out of proportion.

I dont think they can still really believe they got beaten by Ireland....the average Bok supporter wouldnt really rate us...(with some justification)...

Sorry mate, but you have it wrong. My tirade against Poite is not because we lost, my tyrade against Poite is because I don't want to watch the RWC next year and see a team eliminated like we were last time, a referee can make as many pardons as he want after a game, but it doesn't take away from the fact that you were eliminated.

I don't remember the ref being responsible for SA being knocked out of the last World Cup.

Submachine wrote:
Seriously?????
You can’t make any distinction to an injury other than intentional or accidental. Intentional = sanction and Accidental = not to worry it was only an accident

Well let’s put it in a non-rugby context.
A psycho killer may decide to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. INTENTIONAL = Sanction / Life in Prison for mass murder
Joe Soap is driving down the road obeying all laws when his front tyre blows out causing him mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. ACCIDENTAL = No sanction
Joan Soap is driving down the road applying makeup, eating a bowl of cereal while texting a friend,  accidentally stabs herself in the eye with an eyebrow pencil causing her to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with her SUV. ACCIDENTAL = Sanction 7 years in prison for manslaughter caused by RECKLESS driving

Rugby is NOT a reckless sport. It is certainly a dangerous sport made more so on occasion by players acting recklessly and without due care.

Very poor example. It is illegal to text while driving and irresponsible to apply makeup etc.

Payne wasnt applying makeup or texting when he was contesting the ball he was just running to it with his eyes on the ball at all times. If the IRB wants to legislate against that fine but dont penalise someone for doing something that is within the laws of the game ok on the grounds that he was reckless.

Completely bored with this topic anyway and you arent going to change my opinion on it.

GunsGerms wrote:

Submachine wrote:
Seriously?????
You can’t make any distinction to an injury other than intentional or accidental. Intentional = sanction and Accidental = not to worry it was only an accident

Well let’s put it in a non-rugby context.
A psycho killer may decide to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. INTENTIONAL = Sanction / Life in Prison for mass murder
Joe Soap is driving down the road obeying all laws when his front tyre blows out causing him mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. ACCIDENTAL = No sanction
Joan Soap is driving down the road applying makeup, eating a bowl of cereal while texting a friend,  accidentally stabs herself in the eye with an eyebrow pencil causing her to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with her SUV. ACCIDENTAL = Sanction 7 years in prison for manslaughter caused by RECKLESS driving

Rugby is NOT a reckless sport. It is certainly a dangerous sport made more so on occasion by players acting recklessly and without due care.

Very poor example. It is illegal to text while driving and irresponsible to apply makeup etc.

Payne wasnt applying makeup or texting when he was contesting the ball he was just running to it with his eyes on the ball at all times. If the IRB wants to legislate against that fine but dont penalise someone for doing something that is within the laws of the game ok on the grounds that he was reckless.

Completely bored with this topic anyway and you arent going to change my opinion on it.

Payne? I'm talking about the game in general. Having been involved with my club in playing coaching and reffing for a long time and seeing many avoidable injries, the safety of players is my first priority. Especially as the kids I coach and ref try to emulate what they see on TV. I will never get bored of talking about it and if I can't persuade you otherwise it doesn't mean that I will stop trying.

Fair enough. I played for years. I was by far the softest guy in my team but I still did dirty things and took a battering. I have been punched, kicked, dumped on my head, knocked out but never once broke a bone or got a really bad injury.

Played tag rugby for a month and tore my achilles and broke a finger. Go figure.

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Submachine wrote:
Seriously?????
You can’t make any distinction to an injury other than intentional or accidental. Intentional = sanction and Accidental = not to worry it was only an accident

Well let’s put it in a non-rugby context.
A psycho killer may decide to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. INTENTIONAL = Sanction / Life in Prison for mass murder
Joe Soap is driving down the road obeying all laws when his front tyre blows out causing him mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. ACCIDENTAL = No sanction
Joan Soap is driving down the road applying makeup, eating a bowl of cereal while texting a friend,  accidentally stabs herself in the eye with an eyebrow pencil causing her to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with her SUV. ACCIDENTAL = Sanction 7 years in prison for manslaughter caused by RECKLESS driving

Rugby is NOT a reckless sport. It is certainly a dangerous sport made more so on occasion by players acting recklessly and without due care.

Very poor example. It is illegal to text while driving and irresponsible to apply makeup etc.

Payne wasnt applying makeup or texting when he was contesting the ball he was just running to it with his eyes on the ball at all times. If the IRB wants to legislate against that fine but dont penalise someone for doing something that is within the laws of the game ok on the grounds that he was reckless.

Completely bored with this topic anyway and you arent going to change my opinion on it.

Payne? I'm talking about the game in general. Having been involved with my club in playing coaching and reffing for a long time and seeing many avoidable injries, the safety of players is my first priority. Especially as the kids I coach and ref try to emulate what they see on TV. I will never get bored of talking about it and if I can't persuade you otherwise it doesn't mean that I will stop trying.

Your driving examples are completely out of context and not applicable to the current discussion Subs and you know it.
Recklessness in rugby is being judged, in too many cases, by the outcome and not the actual incident.
Anyway, I'm with guns on this, I'm bored with it, opinions are like aholes, usually full of tom kite

Cyril wrote:I don't remember the ref being responsible for SA being knocked out of the last World Cup.

Aus continuously won the breakdown, that had a helping hand in SAs exit.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Submachine wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Submachine wrote:
Seriously?????
You can’t make any distinction to an injury other than intentional or accidental. Intentional = sanction and Accidental = not to worry it was only an accident

Well let’s put it in a non-rugby context.
A psycho killer may decide to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. INTENTIONAL = Sanction / Life in Prison for mass murder
Joe Soap is driving down the road obeying all laws when his front tyre blows out causing him mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with his SUV. ACCIDENTAL = No sanction
Joan Soap is driving down the road applying makeup, eating a bowl of cereal while texting a friend,  accidentally stabs herself in the eye with an eyebrow pencil causing her to mow down a group of people waiting at a bus stop with her SUV. ACCIDENTAL = Sanction 7 years in prison for manslaughter caused by RECKLESS driving

Rugby is NOT a reckless sport. It is certainly a dangerous sport made more so on occasion by players acting recklessly and without due care.

Very poor example. It is illegal to text while driving and irresponsible to apply makeup etc.

Payne wasnt applying makeup or texting when he was contesting the ball he was just running to it with his eyes on the ball at all times. If the IRB wants to legislate against that fine but dont penalise someone for doing something that is within the laws of the game ok on the grounds that he was reckless.

Completely bored with this topic anyway and you arent going to change my opinion on it.

Payne? I'm talking about the game in general. Having been involved with my club in playing coaching and reffing for a long time and seeing many avoidable injries, the safety of players is my first priority. Especially as the kids I coach and ref try to emulate what they see on TV. I will never get bored of talking about it and if I can't persuade you otherwise it doesn't mean that I will stop trying.

Your driving examples are completely out of context and not applicable to the current discussion Subs and you know it.
Recklessness in rugby is being judged, in too many cases, by the outcome and not the actual incident.
Anyway, I'm with guns on this, I'm bored with it, opinions are like aholes, usually full of tom kite

Of course it's out of context it's about a bleedin car killing people at a bus stop. You didn't reply when I provided an example that was in context. Only Biltong did and we kind of ended up agreeing. When you lads brought up the subject again I used a different analogy to get my point across in a more simplistic way. It's funny my 6 year old gets bored with arguments when she's losing them as well.

Haha. You obviously have a smart girl there.

GunsGerms wrote:Haha. You obviously have a smart girl there.

She got a "Maith an Cailin" in her parent teacher meeting yesterday. She's a cracker.

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"?

play at home, then the home crowd lets the ref know that the visitors have not adapted, whereas the home team did.

It takes a very intelligent being to walk away rather than bang your head against an immoveable object. She's very wise indeed Subs.

quinsforever 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"?

play at home, then the home crowd lets the ref know that the visitors have not adapted, whereas the home team did.

Works well............ for some

quinsforever wrote: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.

Nope. Kearney had his eyes on the ball all the time which was why it was just a penalty. Strauss had his eyes on the jumper and not the ball, which was what Poite was looking for in the replay and his use of the word 'deliberate', and ultimately why he issued the yellow. It's quite simple. Remember, before you interpret this as something personal(like you obviously took my last post), I'm only trying to help you here as you seemed pretty confused how Poite differentiated the 2 incidents.

Look at the ball, fist the shape in your peripheral vision that comes to get it?

Brennus! Naughty. You'll have to work harder than that to prove a player looking at a ball doesn't know he's going to plunge into a player who'll challenge for it.

Poite was looking for in the replay and his use of the word 'deliberate', and ultimately why he issued the yellow.

Poite is an idiot. I know deliberate when I see it.