South Africa vs Ireland

First topic message reminder :

South Africa: Willie le Roux; Cheslin Kolbe, Jesse Kriel, Damian de Allende, Kurt-Lee Arendse; Handre Pollard, Faf de Klerk; Ox Nche, Bongi Mbonambi, Frans Malherbe; Eben Etzebeth, Franco Mostert; Siya Kolisi (capt), Pieter-Steph du Toit, Kwagga Smith.

Replacements: Malcolm Marx, Gerhard Steenekamp, Vincent Koch, Salmaan Moerat, RG Snyman, Marco van Staden, Grant Williams, Sacha Feinberg-Mngomezulu

Ireland - TBC

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

What??

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

What??

Not sure what he’s on about either.

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

Frawley absolute balls of steel that lad. What a game that was, absolutely brutal.
I do love boks Ireland games

To be fair Kolbe made a fool of himself pretending to have been fouled

Ireland unbeaten in their last tour against all four SH sides!!

Pete330v2 wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

if any SA fan has the gaul to complain reffing decisions during this tour, please do one because it was an absolute disgrace this tour.

How we one even one test was a miracle

Well done Ireland - I didn’t think they had it in them to come back, but some real grit to get that over the line.

The claim of obstruction for a tackler falling into a static player added a very silly end to the game, though. The Boks should have a little more dignity.

Ireland have been involved in many of the best games of rugby I've seen over the last few years.

Bundee Aki enjoying himself:

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1e2mlhl/the_boys_are_enjoying_their_win/

Good man, James Lowe

https://x.com/patmccarry/status/1812226502819242120

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

if any SA fan has the gaul to complain reffing decisions during this tour, please do one because it was an absolute disgrace this tour.

How we one even one test was a miracle

I've only seen the highlights but how Doris didn't get a red card for the attempted knee break on PSDT I don't know. Got away with one there. Some players have had long layoffs effecting their careers in serious ways from those kind of clearouts.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

if any SA fan has the gaul to complain reffing decisions during this tour, please do one because it was an absolute disgrace this tour.

How we one even one test was a miracle

I've only seen the highlights but how Doris didn't get a red card for the attempted knee break on PSDT I don't know. Got away with one there. Some players have had long layoffs effecting their careers in serious ways from those kind of clearouts.

Lame post. I sorry but you really think he “attempted” to break his leg?

Collapse2005 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

if any SA fan has the gaul to complain reffing decisions during this tour, please do one because it was an absolute disgrace this tour.

How we one even one test was a miracle

I've only seen the highlights but how Doris didn't get a red card for the attempted knee break on PSDT I don't know. Got away with one there. Some players have had long layoffs effecting their careers in serious ways from those kind of clearouts.

Lame post. I sorry but you really think he “attempted” to break his leg?

That's not the standard for a red card, though. Charlie Ewels and Kanji Shimokawa have both been red-carded in recent Tests for ruck clearouts aimed at prone lower limbs. Neither set out to break an opponent's leg.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

LeinsterFan4life wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

protea438 wrote:Its a bit rich mentioning the Boks complaining about ref decision where all last week all we heard was how hard done by Ireland was. But now know complainst after Ireland got many decisions. I guess we will see Ireland in the semi-final quarterfinal.

How very, very mature.
Away and use up ya halfwit.

if any SA fan has the gaul to complain reffing decisions during this tour, please do one because it was an absolute disgrace this tour.

How we one even one test was a miracle

I've only seen the highlights but how Doris didn't get a red card for the attempted knee break on PSDT I don't know. Got away with one there. Some players have had long layoffs effecting their careers in serious ways from those kind of clearouts.

Lame post. I sorry but you really think he “attempted” to break his leg?

That's not the standard for a red card, though. Charlie Ewels and Kanji Shimokawa have both been red-carded in recent Tests for ruck clearouts aimed at prone lower limbs. Neither set out to break an opponent's leg.

I agree the expectation now is you do something reckless which you know could be very dangerous then you deserve red.

Doris knew what he was doing and the possible outcome, now he probably didn't think it through in amongst the frantic action of the game that's not an excuse for attempting something you know to be dangerous. He should be copping a ban and shouldn't have been returning to the field.

We've seen Jack Willis and Nic Dolly as internationals who had their careers halted for more than 12 months by nearly carbon copy reckless clearouts.

Grow up. He deserved a card but saying he attempted to break someones leg is infantile. Cant tell of you are being a troll or just a bit naive. The intent was to clear the ruck, nothing else.

Jean de Villiers, Schalk Burger, and Hanyani Shimange review the match

Collapse2005 wrote:Grow up. He deserved a card but saying he attempted to break someones leg is infantile. Cant tell of you are being a troll or just a bit naive. The intent was to clear the ruck, nothing else.

He knew the risk he took when he attempted to clear the ruck in that manner. He didn't go out with the intention to cause damage but he was reckless in a situation he was in control of. It was entirely his decision to complete the illegal roll, there's not another player pushing him into it. Should have been red and he should pick up a ban.

I haven't been on in a while but I wanted to say well done to Ireland - a truly great achievement.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Grow up. He deserved a card but saying he attempted to break someones leg is infantile. Cant tell of you are being a troll or just a bit naive. The intent was to clear the ruck, nothing else.

He knew the risk he took when he attempted to clear the ruck in that manner. He didn't go out with the intention to cause damage but he was reckless in a situation he was in control of. It was entirely his decision to complete the illegal roll, there's not another player pushing him into it. Should have been red and he should pick up a ban.

downgraded from red to yellow as another player was involved. all in accordance with the laws and guidence

Rugby has never really come to grips with situations where two players engage in illegal acts, perhaps with the exception of brawls. Referees tend to look for which player acted illegally first, when sometimes both acts deserve censure.

The Premiership came close in 2007, when Brad Barritt and Richard Barrington tackled Geoff Parling dangerously. The referee red-carded Barrington and left Barritt unpunished. However, both players were called to the disciplinary committee, where Barritt ended up getting banned, while Barrington was cleared to play. In effect, the panel thought Barrit was red, while Barringto was yellow.

https://www.espn.com.au/rugby/story/_/id/18449765/three-week-ban-brad-barritt-richard-barrington-cleared-play-rfu

Although no-one was punished or cited at the time, arguably the spear tackle on BOD in 2005 could have seen repercussions for both Umaga and Mealamu.

Rugby Fan wrote:
Although no-one was punished or cited at the time, arguably the spear tackle on BOD in 2005 could have seen repercussions for both Umaga and Mealamu.

"No case to answer"

I still fume at that from time to time. The optics of refusing to investigate a clear deliberate act that could have led to a career ending injury or worse were terrible for World Rugby. Though presumably someone somewhere felt that the optics of investigating it and either having to ban them or clear them would have been even worse.

TJ wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Grow up. He deserved a card but saying he attempted to break someones leg is infantile. Cant tell of you are being a troll or just a bit naive. The intent was to clear the ruck, nothing else.

He knew the risk he took when he attempted to clear the ruck in that manner. He didn't go out with the intention to cause damage but he was reckless in a situation he was in control of. It was entirely his decision to complete the illegal roll, there's not another player pushing him into it. Should have been red and he should pick up a ban.

downgraded from red to yellow as another player was involved.  all in accordance with the laws and guidence

Personally I dont think Doris should have been penalised as he didnt complete any croc role, he set out to but gave up half way, Ryan was the one who came flying in afterwards and did it. Marx barely moved at all with Doris actions. Thats play on every time if Ryan hadn't come in.

The sanction for a croc roll under the new law introduced in July is a penalty. I assume the refs must have discretion to increase the penalty for something they deem dangerous. I think a yellow was fair enough but should have gone to Ryan, a red would have been a bit hysterical like some of the comments here. The talk of bans and "intent to break legs" is real Karen level stuff.

“Banning the ‘crocodile roll’: The action of rolling, twisting/pulling of a player on their feet in the tackle area (the ‘crocodile roll’) will be outlawed, sanctioned by a penalty.

Collapse2005 wrote:

TJ wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Grow up. He deserved a card but saying he attempted to break someones leg is infantile. Cant tell of you are being a troll or just a bit naive. The intent was to clear the ruck, nothing else.

He knew the risk he took when he attempted to clear the ruck in that manner. He didn't go out with the intention to cause damage but he was reckless in a situation he was in control of. It was entirely his decision to complete the illegal roll, there's not another player pushing him into it. Should have been red and he should pick up a ban.

downgraded from red to yellow as another player was involved.  all in accordance with the laws and guidence

Personally I dont think Doris should have been penalised as he didnt complete any croc role, he set out to but gave up half way, Ryan was the one who came flying in afterwards and did it. Marx barely moved at all with Doris actions. Thats play on every time if Ryan hadn't come in.

The sanction for a croc roll under the new law introduced in July is a penalty. I assume the refs must have discretion to increase the penalty for something they deem dangerous. I think a yellow was fair enough but should have gone to Ryan, a red would have been a bit hysterical like some of the comments here. The talk of bans and "intent to break legs" is real Karen level stuff.

“Banning the ‘crocodile roll’: The action of rolling, twisting/pulling of a player on their feet in the tackle area (the ‘crocodile roll’) will be outlawed, sanctioned by a penalty.

Aside from the pathetic insult did you see what Ewels for a red card for?

Thanks for the breakdown on the TMO decision TJ.

Erasmus says Marx sustained a fractured tibia.

Mostert is also out of early Rugby Championship games with a broken leg.

I think it's maybe been said already, but I'm late and too lazy to read.

But yea, I did raise an eyebrow when two players attempted to do the same illegal thing in the same breakdown, of the same player, and only one of them got penalised for it.

Strange one to not give two cards, never mind downgrade one card because it was done by two players.

But hey, I've long ago given up trying o find sense in the rugby laws.

For instance, they bring in high hit laws because they believe high hits lead to dangerous head contact, yet they don't penalise the tackle height - they only penalise the head contact.

How does that discourage the tackle height problem?

Or take the tackle in the air. They believe they need to stamp out tackles in the air because it can lead to injuries to head/neck. So do we penalise contact in the air?
Well sometimes - it depends if they both had a 'reasonable chance of getting etc ball'... and then even if you're penalised - the severity of the penalisation is dictated by the outcome - as if, while in the air, you have control of just how badly the player you foul lands.

Another thing about high hits and no arms tackles - the rules out the window at the try line. When trying to stop a try from a breakdown on your line, you can make contact with the head and your shoulder all you like. No issue.

If you want to eliminate the danger, you have to penalise the action - not the outcome. Which we all know is a lottery.

I think the high tackle change is coming. Tackles below the sternum are already enforced at everything below semi-pro level, and it can only be a matter of time before that is extended to the pro level.

Contact in the air is a trickier one. As long as players from both sides are allowed to jump for the ball, there will always be situations in which two players are contesting the same space, and sometimes it will lead to poor outcomes.

That's exacerbated by the tactics that teams use to protect their catchers by putting a shield of other players around them - arguably, Tom Curry's red card vs Argentina was a result of being unsighted by the presence of a shielding Puma ahead of him.

The only realistic options for change would be to ban defenders from jumping for the ball or ban all players from jumping for it, either of which would radically change the nature of the game. But arguably the current rules are working pretty well - I'm trying to think of the last injury I've seen from an aerial collision.

There was one between Hodge and Murley at the start of the season that resulted in a dislocated elbow, but I can't remember if there has been one since.

Poorfour wrote:..I'm trying to think of the last injury I've seen from an aerial collision...

Another sort of aerial collision is when a defender jumps in the air to charge down a kick. Springbok scrumhalf Grant Williams was knocked out during last year's shortened Rugby Championship. The referee ruled no foul play but Argentina fullback, Juan Cruz Mallia, was cited and got a two week ban.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:..I'm trying to think of the last injury I've seen from an aerial collision...

Another sort of aerial collision is when a defender jumps in the air to charge down a kick. Springbok scrumhalf Grant Williams was knocked out during last year's shortened Rugby Championship. The referee ruled no foul play but Argentina fullback, Juan Cruz Mallia, was cited and got a two week ban.

Wasn't it Mallia who did the same to George Ford in the RWC and got away with a penalty? Far more dangerous and less mitigated than Curry's behaviour. But it seems to be unique to Mallia, or at least Argentina.

I'd be quite happy to see a ban on leaping into the kicker; it's easy to police and very rarely leads to a chargedown so it wouldn't unduly affect the game.

Poorfour wrote:
Contact in the air is a trickier one. As long as players from both sides are allowed to jump for the ball, there will always be situations in which two players are contesting the same space, and sometimes it will lead to poor outcomes.

This is my point though - 'sometimes' - and let's be honest, none of these players choose the way the player lands - they only (arguably) choose the contact. So why is there different severity given for an outcome that couldn't be predicted? The contact alone should be penalised, and it should be one singular consistent penalty regardless of outcome.

Poorfour wrote:

The only realistic options for change would be to ban defenders from jumping for the ball or ban all players from jumping for it, either of which would radically change the nature of the game.  

I actually do think this should be the law. Current laws actually encourage jumping for the catch, either to potentially gain a penalty, or to make sure you don't give one away. It is therefore a bit counter productive if, in trying to eliminate the danger, the laws actually encourage players to get airborne, at pace, and colliding in the air.

If two player collide in the air in a 'fair battle' and one lands on his neck and gets paralysed, do we then shrug and say, 'well at least it was a fair contest!'.

I know people love to complain rugby getting soft, but, as a parent of a young lad - I'm starting to see the benefits in eliminating some of the games' danger.

I think in practice there would be unexpected and potentially dangerous side effects from banning jumping for the ball.

Players would now be contesting the ball with their feet on the ground, but in many cases the players from the kicking side would be arriving faster than the receivers, and with significantly more momentum which would be maintained because they are still driving with their legs rather than airborne.

The current law has largely eliminated the horror show that was Jarrod Payne's charge into Alex Goode's path, because a chasing player will be carded if they recklessly enter the space without a realistic chance to compete for the ball.

That has meant that collisions when they happen are much more likely to be between two players who are both upright and whose centres of gravity are at similar heights, which reduces the chance of players tipping past the horizontal. I don't have the stats, but I don't remember there being many head and neck injuries from aerial collisions in the past few seasons - if you have something that says different then please let me know.

Poorfour wrote:I think in practice there would be unexpected and potentially dangerous side effects from banning jumping for the ball.

There has just been a red card against Australian winger Filipo Daugunu for jumping into a Georgian player in an attempt to charge down the kick. The Georgian player took a knee to the head.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/rugby/wallabies-vs-georgia-2024-highlights-filipo-daugunu-flying-knee-yellow-card-video/clytrq7ua001q0gl79ercp6yq

Rugby Fan wrote:

Poorfour wrote:I think in practice there would be unexpected and potentially dangerous side effects from banning jumping for the ball.

There has just been a red card against Australian winger Filipo Daugunu for jumping into a Georgian player in an attempt to charge down the kick. The Georgian player took a knee to the head.

https://wwos.nine.com.au/videos/rugby/wallabies-vs-georgia-2024-highlights-filipo-daugunu-flying-knee-yellow-card-video/clytrq7ua001q0gl79ercp6yq

Kind of an understatement when the referee said he mistimed his jump. That gave me a chuckle.