Discipline Stats of the top 4

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 11:44 am

Interesting article from Stuff.co.nz re the dicipine of the top four sides in world rugby:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/all-blacks/86846127/digging-the-data-do-the-all-blacks-really-get-away-with-murder

Ireland are the most disciplined side in world rugby at them moment as pretty much everyone knows. NZ and Australia are quite ill disciplined.

For me though the thing that grinds is how NZ literally havent got a red card since 1967 when Colin Meads kicked a Scottish player in Murrayfield. They have definitely merited one or two since then.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:09 pm

New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

by uncle_nigel Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:12 pm

Where was the red for Fekitoa?

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I think the stats disagree with you Laurie. Why do New Zealander's struggle with criticism so much?

I mean there are pages and pages of rugby articles in Ireland that praise New Zealand too.

by Geordie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm

Even the most one eyed Kiwi fan...which generally covers them all must admit that NZ get away with murder at times.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:33 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I think the stats disagree with you Laurie. Why do New Zealander's struggle with criticism so much?

I mean there are pages and pages of rugby articles in Ireland that praise New Zealand too.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:38 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:Even the most one eyed Kiwi fan...which generally covers them all must admit that NZ get away with murder at times.

I do not believe that New Zealand get away with murder... and I've got two eyes.

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:47 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I think the stats disagree with you Laurie. Why do New Zealander's struggle with criticism so much?

I mean there are pages and pages of rugby articles in Ireland that praise New Zealand too.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

I'm glad that post inserted a lot of 'Some's, Laurie. Yep, there are over-reacting nutcases (some for money making publicity - i.e. media) in every part of the globe. Ireland isn't impervious to the breed but neither is New Zealand, who have their own share of the 'how dare you!' brigade.

But fair dues to the Kiwis on the south west coast who ridiculed, and sent up and humourously laid into that French nutball who complained that he spent a week trying to thumb himself out of village he refused to walk out of with his own two feet! Wink

At least many of us agree on that one... Cool

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:51 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

Not true. I think the Moody tackle on Henshaw in Chicago was dangerous and borderline red but yes there were more dangerous incidents in the match in Dublin.

I dont see why people arent allowed praise New Zealand for their strengths and criticise them for their weaknesses. Discipline is definitely a weakness.

No one really cares about the poppies Laurie except you. Why not agree to put that one to bed.

by Cyril Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:53 pm

I do get the impression that this 'stuff' website is pretty much on a par with walesonline or the Daily Mail when it comes to rugby reporting.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:56 pm

Cyril wrote:I do get the impression that this 'stuff' website is pretty much on a par with walesonline or the Daily Mail when it comes to rugby reporting.

Its definitely not that bad. Some good stuff some bad.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 1:57 pm

SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I think the stats disagree with you Laurie. Why do New Zealander's struggle with criticism so much?

I mean there are pages and pages of rugby articles in Ireland that praise New Zealand too.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

I'm glad that post inserted a lot of 'Some's, Laurie. Yep, there are over-reacting nutcases (some for money making publicity - i.e. media) in every part of the globe. Ireland isn't impervious to the breed but neither is New Zealand, who have their own share of the 'how dare you!' brigade.

But fair dues to the Kiwis on the south west coast who ridiculed, and sent up and humourously laid into that French nutball who complained that he spent a week trying to thumb himself out of village he refused to walk out of with his own two feet! At least many of us agree on that one...

Often the best opinions of a game come from a group that for some reason are too often over looked, It was most encouraging to see the healthy comments of the New Zealanders from the members of the Irish team. Guess they just had a different view of things.

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:00 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

FFS

To say it wasn't warranted is idiotic since Fekitoa was banned

Cane should have been red carded despite what the disciplinary panel suggested, World Rugby stated on Friday that anybody making contact with the head should see red.

There were a number of red cards for this at the weekend.

As for Paris both Julian Savea and Scott Barrett should have been cited, if they haven't already. Saveas Dynamite Kid-esque head first clear out was illegal and dangerous and in the melee that followed Scott Barrett aimed a headbutt at a French player

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:02 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

Not true. I think the Moody tackle on Henshaw in Chicago was dangerous and borderline red but yes there were more dangerous incidents in the match in Dublin.

I dont see why people arent allowed praise New Zealand for their strengths and criticise them for their weaknesses. Discipline is definitely a weakness.

No one really cares about the poppies Laurie except you. Why not agree to put that one to bed.

Besides looking for Red cards, are there any other pleasures you derive from Rugby?

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:04 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Often the best opinions of a game come from a group that for some reason are too often over looked, It was most encouraging to see the healthy comments of the New Zealanders from the members of the Irish team. Guess they just had a different view of things.

You didn't hear Heaslip's comments? I think there were a few more from other Irish players. But then our ears probably get biased too at these times Wink

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:05 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

FFS

To say it wasn't warranted is idiotic since Fekitoa was banned

Cane should have been red carded despite what the disciplinary panel suggested, World Rugby stated on Friday that anybody making contact with the head should see red.

There were a number of red cards for this at the weekend.

As for Paris both Julian Savea and Scott Barrett should have been cited, if they haven't already. Saveas Dynamite Kid-esque head first clear out was illegal and dangerous and in the melee that followed Scott Barrett aimed a headbutt at a French player

very cute what youve done with the quote button.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:10 pm

SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:

Often the best opinions of a game come from a group that for some reason are too often over looked, It was most encouraging to see the healthy comments of the New Zealanders from the members of the Irish team. Guess they just had a different view of things.

You didn't hear Heaslip's comments? I think there were a few more from other Irish players. But then our ears probably get biased too at these times

What did Heaslip say?

by **profitius** Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:14 pm

Whinging about whingers. Erm

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:17 pm

profitius wrote:Whinging about whingers.

No I didnt see that Profitius, could you refer me to it please?

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:18 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

I am a New Zealander, I only struggle with criticism when its not valid or warranted. There was no criticism of New Zealand after the Chicago game, there was no criticism after the Italian game (Even though some Irish very utterly disrespectful to New Zealand for having the audacity to recognise and respect fallen New Zealand soldiers who perished in Italy without getting clearance from Ireland first) there was no no criticism of New Zealand after the game in Paris.

But after the game in Dublin the outrage from the Irish (some even were so stupid as to suggest that Sam Cane should have been red carded) was deafening. the fact that new Zealand won that game shows that some Irish are disrespectful bad losers, the others are the authors of pages and pages of rugby articles that praise New Zealand. Its up to you which camp you decide to join.

FFS

To say it wasn't warranted is idiotic since Fekitoa was banned

Cane should have been red carded despite what the disciplinary panel suggested, World Rugby stated on Friday that anybody making contact with the head should see red.

There were a number of red cards for this at the weekend.

As for Paris both Julian Savea and Scott Barrett should have been cited, if they haven't already. Saveas Dynamite Kid-esque head first clear out was illegal and dangerous and in the melee that followed Scott Barrett aimed a headbutt at a French player

very cute what youve done with the quote button.

It called a mistake, like the disciplinary panel made when they let Cane off yet again

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:18 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
profitius wrote:Whinging about whingers.

No I didnt see that Profitius, could you refer me to it please?

You don't see a lot

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:19 pm

The panel would not have made the mistake of vindicating Cane if there had of been any evidence against him.

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:20 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:

Often the best opinions of a game come from a group that for some reason are too often over looked, It was most encouraging to see the healthy comments of the New Zealanders from the members of the Irish team. Guess they just had a different view of things.

You didn't hear Heaslip's comments? I think there were a few more from other Irish players. But then our ears probably get biased too at these times

What did Heaslip say?

"It's a contact sport, people get hurt. I am not concerned at all. You enter the game knowing there is a risk. It's a physical game, you know. You hope everyone who's involved in the game is putting things in place to make sure they're looking after you.
We're given the guidance from our coaches, who get it from World Rugby or the referees. We play to the best of our ability within those rules. It's a physical game, a dynamic game. It's ever-moving, ever-evolving. People make mistakes.
Sometimes someone gets a shot in the head. A lad falls on you, you get a knee in the head. All sorts of things can happen, you know what I mean.
I'm not going to hide the fact that it's a physical sport. You're running into someone!
Physics dictates there's going to be impact, there's going to be force and sometimes lads get banged up.
I've been playing professional rugby now for 11 years and the approach to injury and whatever it is with the body, has drastically changed in that time.
As a player that's what you hope for. As a player you enter the game knowing there is a bit of risk to it.
If it was easy everyone would be playing it but it's not. It's a tough bloody game."

by thebandwagonsociety Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:21 pm

Not sure what that article is trying to get to? It doesn't talk about red cards awarded in those same games.
It splits penalties between foul play and breakdown.

In my experience ref's dish out cards for;
- cynical play, killing an attack
- a single individual committing multiple penalties during a game
- a team committing multiple penalties in a particular aspect of the game (lineout, breakdown, scrum)
- a team committing multiple penalties in a particular part of the pitch (5m from own line or within their 22m)
- particularly dangerous or reckless actions

Ireland could concede 4 penalities in a match, but if they were the first or second last or last items, they could all be yellows depending on circumstances.

Equally you could rack up 10-12 penalties in a match and if they spread across the team, don't rack up in close succession, have no malice or cynicism then no yellow might be dished out.

Quite often the red cards and yellows tend to follow referees ('oh that ref likes to put our guys in the bin') but in reality the players are infringing and running the risk of letting a ref decide on the level of punishment.

I thought the main reason for Ireland not conceding as many penalties as some of the other sides was that we didn't flood the breakdown, therefore didn't get pinged at the breakdown, therefore had an additional 1-2 players in the defensive line, which meant we didn't have to scramble as much in our defensive schemes.

We also didn't knock on as much as usual and were very solid on our own scrum and didn't go overly aggressive into the breakdown. We scrambled less than our opponents also.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:21 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
profitius wrote:Whinging about whingers.

No I didnt see that Profitius, could you refer me to it please?

You don't see a lot

Well I admit to not seeing everything.

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:22 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: The panel would not have made the mistake of vindicating Cane if there had of been any evidence against him.

There was, they cleared him because it was 'accidental' which is irrelevant as World Rugby clarified on Friday and this is the result

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:25 pm

SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:

Often the best opinions of a game come from a group that for some reason are too often over looked, It was most encouraging to see the healthy comments of the New Zealanders from the members of the Irish team. Guess they just had a different view of things.

You didn't hear Heaslip's comments? I think there were a few more from other Irish players. But then our ears probably get biased too at these times

What did Heaslip say?

"It's a contact sport, people get hurt. I am not concerned at all. You enter the game knowing there is a risk. It's a physical game, you know. You hope everyone who's involved in the game is putting things in place to make sure they're looking after you.
We're given the guidance from our coaches, who get it from World Rugby or the referees. We play to the best of our ability within those rules. It's a physical game, a dynamic game. It's ever-moving, ever-evolving. People make mistakes.
Sometimes someone gets a shot in the head. A lad falls on you, you get a knee in the head. All sorts of things can happen, you know what I mean.
I'm not going to hide the fact that it's a physical sport. You're running into someone!
Physics dictates there's going to be impact, there's going to be force and sometimes lads get banged up.
I've been playing professional rugby now for 11 years and the approach to injury and whatever it is with the body, has drastically changed in that time.
As a player that's what you hope for. As a player you enter the game knowing there is a bit of risk to it.
If it was easy everyone would be playing it but it's not. It's a tough bloody game."

Thank you fly, I agree with Heaslip, and not the mention of a red card in sight.

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:30 pm

Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:32 pm

marty2086 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote: The panel would not have made the mistake of vindicating Cane if there had of been any evidence against him.

There was, they cleared him because it was 'accidental' which is irrelevant as World Rugby clarified on Friday and this is the result

Marty if the prosecution submitted that as evidence in the Cane hearing then no wonder he was acquitted.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:35 pm

marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

Well there has been a lot of talk about Sexton being guilty of a dangerous tackle on Barrett. Cant see it myself.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:35 pm

marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

People have been taking Barrett around the head all year, he is a lot tougher than maybe first impressions suggest.

You could have hit his dad over the head with a hunk of railway line and all you would of achieved was a bent hunk of railway line.

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:38 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

Well there has been a lot of talk about Sexton being guilty of a dangerous tackle on Barrett. Cant see it myself.

High maybe not dangerous at least not shoulder in the face dangerous

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:40 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

People have been taking Barrett around the head all year, he is a lot tougher than maybe first impressions suggest.

You could have hit his dad over the head with a hunk of railway line and all you would of achieved was a bent hunk of railway line.

Sure he is 6 foot 1 and well built. I wouldnt be too worried about him.

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:49 pm

Discipline stats of the top 4 - not top 2 Whistle

So how are the other two doing in the eyes of 606?

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 2:56 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

People have been taking Barrett around the head all year, he is a lot tougher than maybe first impressions suggest.

You could have hit his dad over the head with a hunk of railway line and all you would of achieved was a bent hunk of railway line.

Sure he is 6 foot 1 and well built. I wouldnt be too worried about him.

Henshaw is 6ft4 and well built still got knocked out from Canes illegal shot

by aucklandlaurie Mon 28 Nov 2016, 3:00 pm

marty2086 wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

Well there has been a lot of talk about Sexton being guilty of a dangerous tackle on Barrett. Cant see it myself.

High maybe not dangerous at least not shoulder in the face dangerous

And got absolutely nothing to do with it.

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 3:04 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:Lets see how quickly Lauries opinion changes when someone takes Beauden Barrett around the head

Well there has been a lot of talk about Sexton being guilty of a dangerous tackle on Barrett. Cant see it myself.

High maybe not dangerous at least not shoulder in the face dangerous

And got absolutely nothing to do with it.

Whats got nothing to do with what?

by **LondonTiger** Mon 28 Nov 2016, 3:05 pm

marty2086 wrote:Henshaw is 6ft4 and well built still got knocked out from Canes illegal shot

While I strongly disagree with their verdict, the authorities deemed Cane's actions to be OK.

Personally I feel that many posters change their current tune if that challenge was committed either against or by their own players. I hope I would not defend an England player if they made such a challenge, but the way of the net I would probably get defensive about what I perceived to be tub thumping from the opposition fans.

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 4:35 pm

I defended Stander when he got a red in SA but because he did get that red I was a little annoyed Cane didnt even get a yellow. Thats not consistent.

by poissonrouge Mon 28 Nov 2016, 4:46 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

However maybe they are cynical players a proportion of the time? - see quote from Duncan Johnstone

The All Blacks aren't coached to go out and tackle high.
They are encouraged to find the operational perimeters allowed by each referee they are confronted with and, yes, sometimes, it results in cynical play, a win at all costs approach.

Link to article

Also - and maybe this is a bit like lobbing a grenade into the room and hiding behind the sofa - and I am not necessarily putting this forward as my particular point of view but this is a rebuttal to Johnstones article regarding "whinging"
Article on Kiwi journalism

by marty2086 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 5:04 pm

GunsGermsV2 wrote:I defended Stander when he got a red in SA but because he did get that red I was a little annoyed Cane didnt even get a yellow. Thats not consistent.

Wasn't Stander deemed by the ref to have deliberately caught Lambie though?

by GunsGermsV2 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 5:19 pm

marty2086 wrote:
GunsGermsV2 wrote:I defended Stander when he got a red in SA but because he did get that red I was a little annoyed Cane didnt even get a yellow. Thats not consistent.

Wasn't Stander deemed by the ref to have deliberately caught Lambie though?

Not sure how he can delve inside Standers mind to prove mens rea. Also I think Stander's back was to Lambie at the time no?

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016, 5:34 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

We didn't complain after losing in 2013 angel

That was a hugely physical game, but one with not so much controversy. Ireland failed to close the game out, and that's what many Ireland supporters voiced at the time.

It's rare that Ireland supporters blame the opposing side for Ireland loses.

by Cyril Mon 28 Nov 2016, 5:50 pm

Munchkin wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

We didn't complain after losing in 2013

That was a hugely physical game, but one with not so much controversy. Ireland failed to close the game out, and that's what many Ireland supporters voiced at the time.

It's rare that Ireland supporters blame the opposing side for Ireland loses.

Kinda true, it's normally the ref who gets the complaints from you guys.

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 5:58 pm

Cyril wrote:
Kinda true, it's normally the ref who gets the complaints from you guys.

If his name is Wayne, yeah. Wink

Who knows, Jaco might be the new favourite for the English booing class by the end of the next game. It's a fun sport - pantomime ref shaming.

by Cyril Mon 28 Nov 2016, 6:01 pm

'Boozing' class maybe Wink

We aim to have champagne corks bouncing off land rovers at HQ by full time next weekend.

by SecretFly Mon 28 Nov 2016, 6:03 pm

Oh yeah, I forgot about you lads..... bit cold for popping champagne corks and damaging paintwork on the neighbouring Land Rover but I guess any excuse for a crowd warming riot is always a good reason, Cyril. Bubbly

by Cyril Mon 28 Nov 2016, 6:09 pm

Warm champers is a sin even in winter. The players will be ok with lots of warming tackles around the throat. No snoods required in international rugby Smile

by Guest Mon 28 Nov 2016, 6:15 pm

Cyril wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:
New Zealand are only cynical dirty players when they beat Ireland.

We didn't complain after losing in 2013

That was a hugely physical game, but one with not so much controversy. Ireland failed to close the game out, and that's what many Ireland supporters voiced at the time.

It's rare that Ireland supporters blame the opposing side for Ireland loses.
Kinda true, it's normally the ref who gets the complaints from you guys.

It's normally players/coach that incur the wrath for loses. Occasionally supporters will vent righteous angel

indignation towards a poor refereeing display. Recently, Peyper and Barnes have been on the receiving end. Peyper deserves it mad

by Engine#4 Mon 28 Nov 2016, 7:05 pm

poissonrouge wrote:

Also - and maybe this is a bit like lobbing a grenade into the room and hiding behind the sofa - and I am not necessarily putting this forward as my particular point of view but this is a rebuttal to Johnstones article regarding "whinging"
Article on Kiwi journalism

Ah there was no need Tommy, it had all died down. The best response for me was Horgan's prediction of the NZ response straight after the match.

by Sponsored content