All Blacks v Ireland II
-
@Bones said in Ireland II:
No problem, just go back and watch all the tries/games. Let us know how you get on. Cheers
@Stargazer you've got until Thursday to do it, because I hear that's when the team will be named and we won't want to detract from that...
-
OK I'm 21 and a bit minutes in and totally confused as to why they is an outcry about this game.
I am carefully watching each contact and watching behind the play after a breakdown to see if any players are showing signs of being aggrieved as well.
It is quite bizarre as if you believe the pundits, the ABs came out of the blocks looking to hurt the Irish. There is no sign whatsoever of any over aggression at all. The are playing hard and focussed on going forward but there are no knee lifts, high hits etc except for the following
- the collision between Cane/Henshaw (accidental in my eyes, but worth investigation)
- the high tackle on BB as he scores.
- Cane taking a smash to the face from a clumsy attempt to clear him away from a ruck
- Coles coming through on the halfback with a clean out which is hard to see detail of but likely that initial contact was shoulder to shoulder
- Dagg and Stander making shoulder to shoulder contact (looks more that Stander plays as much a part in this as Dagg, he is charging forward with the ball shoulder first. Made to look bad because Stander is brought down from behind as contact with Dagg is made)
- the Rettalick 'knee drop' on SOB which isn't actually a knee drop. SOB takes out BBBR around the knees beside a ruck and twists around him. BBBR throws his arms in the air as there is an element of risk to his knees here. The 'tackle' ends up with SOB lying prone with BBBR kneeling on top of him. He was pulled there by the tackle.
All of these incidents were pretty normal rugby (apart from the unfortunate collision). Absolutely no sign of over-aggression or even intent to hit harder than normal. Especialy not to maim (as some claim). In fact the ABs clap Henshaw off in the usual sporting manner.
The weird bit is that the Irish have a whinge to Peyper (just after the Cane ruck and Coles clean out ) about shoulder charging as if it is happening constantly yet the Coles possible one was the only time it had occurred.
I am starting to wonder if there is a bit of 'clever' coaching or gamesmanship going on in these early stages which the stupid commentators are totally buying in to despite the lack of evidence.
One thing that is very noticeable is that the Irish ball carriers are leading with their heads down. It could well be that, given the directive from WR, they decided that if you do this then there is a great chance of getting the tackler sanctioned as any tackle shoulder on shoulder can look like a high shot. The ABs are initiating contact when carrying with a good crouch but with heads up. The Irish are charging with heads down and forward inviting high contact. Was this planned? Was Best getting in Peyper's ear to set the scene?
-
Went back to watch some more.
There was a different shot of the Dagg/Stander one and there is contact with the head. Most likely one of the ones looked at as suspected but also easy to dismiss. It is Stander charging that initiates contact, Dagg more bracing for impact than driving forward. Worth a look but nothing deliberate.
However, here's the crunch. Moody gets pinged for a high tackle (which is exactly one of these ones I described where the Irish ball carrier leads with the head). Bit clumsy from Moody as he hooks the arm around the neck. Fair penalty but nothing more. What then happens is that the Irish commentators say "this is getting ridiculous now, every single breakdown there are shoulder charges and high tackles. It has to stop. It has to be dealt with".
Now this is the seed that has surely been planted in the fans minds. It is nothing like that at all. There has been one accidental collision, one possible shoulder to shoulder from Coles (which the comms didn't even notice) and one grab around the head on a charging player offering no other place to grab (not an excuse, a fact). Meanwhile it is being escalated among the fans that there is a malicious plan from the ABs to play dirty.
I note that this is all during a good period of play from the Irish that isn't getting them much reward and frustration is building especially with the penalty only call on Read detaching.I also haven't seen too much out of the ordinary decision wise from Peyper. I disagree with the call on Smith, but then other refs may agree with it. Again, the comms have made it look like he isn't in control by disputing his handling of the Cane/Henshaw incident, making out that he was very unsure about the BB grounding but bottled it (it actually sounds to me like he is simply trying to make sure he hears the TMO correctly and there aren't crossed wires as the crowd is making a racket over the replays), and then intimating that he is allowing the ABs to target heads and do shoulder charges every ruck. In fact the only one he missed was the Dagg one and he may have actually made a judgement on that.
I actually think the post match assessment on Peyper up to this point is probably quite good although you would point out that the team should make sure they don't miss the wood for the trees when looking at a try replay. They really should have noticed the high tackle even if they dismissed it.
-
I'm not going to bother picking through the rest of the game. I'm pretty sure the seed of 'dirty play' has been sown by this point. Fekitoa adds plenty of fertiliser.
The call from the comms has come from too much emotion, too much hyperbole and too much frustration with their own team's inability to convert good play into good points. They are looking for someone to blame and pointing fingers at the ref and opposition.Still call bullshit on this 11-1 thing as well. I am really scratching to add things to the AB list that wouldn't even be looked at in a school game let alone a pro test match and adding any contact above the shoulders from the ABs while having to ignore the high shot on BB
-
The stat about the further incidents referred by the citing commissioner intrigues me. I've never heard of this information being made public before.
Odd.
-
@Catogrande said in Ireland II:
The stat about the further incidents referred by the citing commissioner intrigues me. I've never heard of this information being made public before.
Odd.
I think we are being sold a pup on this one. The wheels of spin started during the test match and it's been spinning out of control since the final whistle. I don't pay it much attention because if you do it will do your head in.
On the test, wasn't it refreshing to not see Owen Franks give away the first penalty of the test
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland II:
@Catogrande said in Ireland II:
The stat about the further incidents referred by the citing commissioner intrigues me. I've never heard of this information being made public before.
Odd.
I think we are being sold a pup on this one. The wheels of spin started during the test match and it's been spinning out of control since the final whistle. I don't pay it much attention because if you do it will do your head in.
On the test, wasn't it refreshing to not see Owen Franks give away the first penalty of the test
If its true, and I have no reason to believe it. Shows just how shiity a job the assistant did. Recommends 12 things to the citing commissioner, who says harden up we'll look at 2 of them.
-
@Catogrande said in Ireland II:
@mooshld said in Ireland II:
I am not surprised by this reaction at all. You never beat the
Irishwives, they are always the victims of some injustice it seems. But if they beat you, oh you better be a good loser take it in your stride and accept it or you will never hear the end of it.Source: Wife
is Irish.
FixedOr, more simply,
Never right. Married. -
@Crucial said in Ireland II:
I'm calling bullshit on this claim that the citing commissioner decided 11 AB actions required a look at and 1 Ireland one.
For starters when has anyone ever seen these type of stats before? They aren't provided for the simple fact that they get misused. Even if they were correct (and not exaggerated by the Irish management) They narrative seems to be that the ABs are horrendous because 11!! incidents needed a look yet the one Irish one was cleared. Hello, that also means 9 AB ones were cleared of wrongdoing as well you pillocks.
You know, I think I recall reading somewhere that something weird happened and the CC couldn't watch the game so someone else did and submitted that number of instances to him to review, of which he identified 3.
Does that sound familiar to anyone else?
In which case, yes it's a bullshit stat that would only ever exist in rare circumstances whereby someone unqualified and with no authority reviews a game.
-
@mooshld said in Ireland II:
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland II:
@Catogrande said in Ireland II:
The stat about the further incidents referred by the citing commissioner intrigues me. I've never heard of this information being made public before.
Odd.
I think we are being sold a pup on this one. The wheels of spin started during the test match and it's been spinning out of control since the final whistle. I don't pay it much attention because if you do it will do your head in.
On the test, wasn't it refreshing to not see Owen Franks give away the first penalty of the test
If its true, and I have no reason to believe it. Shows just how shiity a job the assistant did. Recommends 12 things to the citing commissioner, who says harden up we'll look at 2 of them.
Silly thing is they also claim they they made no after match referrals to the CC. They are trying to tell everyone that the CC alone saw 12 things to look at and only one of them from Ireland.
They know that no one will come out publicly to dispute this claim so have thrown it out there as an excuse as to why they were beaten.As others have said, long may this train of thought remain in Irish rugby. They will never top the world by making excuses for themselves and looking elsewhere for reasons.
Plain fact is that they thought they were better than they were because they played one very good game against a side that was off it's game on the day. The took penalty shots when they had the ABs on the ropes twice because they thought they were so far on top they would get more chances again anyway (Best said so when questioned).
-
@nostrildamus said in Ireland II:
@Catogrande said in Ireland II:
@mooshld said in Ireland II:
I am not surprised by this reaction at all. You never beat the
Irishwives, they are always the victims of some injustice it seems. But if they beat you, oh you better be a good loser take it in your stride and accept it or you will never hear the end of it.Source: Wife
is Irish.
FixedOr, more simply,
Never right. Married.Ha! Reminds me of the famous add in the classified section of some paper:-
For sale: Entire edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Newly married. Wife knows fucking everything.
-
@Crucial Who is the "they" being referred to? All I have seen is some random suggestion. No source attached?
-
@Catogrande - Mick Kearney - according to Press Assocation
"Ireland team manager Mick Kearney confirmed the citing officer raised 12 incidents -- 11 relating to New Zealand" -
@Crucial said in Ireland II:
Went back to watch some more.
There was a different shot of the Dagg/Stander one and there is contact with the head. Most likely one of the ones looked at as suspected but also easy to dismiss. It is Stander charging that initiates contact, Dagg more bracing for impact than driving forward. Worth a look but nothing deliberate.
However, here's the crunch. Moody gets pinged for a high tackle (which is exactly one of these ones I described where the Irish ball carrier leads with the head). Bit clumsy from Moody as he hooks the arm around the neck. Fair penalty but nothing more. What then happens is that the Irish commentators say "this is getting ridiculous now, every single breakdown there are shoulder charges and high tackles. It has to stop. It has to be dealt with".
Now this is the seed that has surely been planted in the fans minds. It is nothing like that at all. There has been one accidental collision, one possible shoulder to shoulder from Coles (which the comms didn't even notice) and one grab around the head on a charging player offering no other place to grab (not an excuse, a fact). Meanwhile it is being escalated among the fans that there is a malicious plan from the ABs to play dirty.
I note that this is all during a good period of play from the Irish that isn't getting them much reward and frustration is building especially with the penalty only call on Read detaching.I also haven't seen too much out of the ordinary decision wise from Peyper. I disagree with the call on Smith, but then other refs may agree with it. Again, the comms have made it look like he isn't in control by disputing his handling of the Cane/Henshaw incident, making out that he was very unsure about the BB grounding but bottled it (it actually sounds to me like he is simply trying to make sure he hears the TMO correctly and there aren't crossed wires as the crowd is making a racket over the replays), and then intimating that he is allowing the ABs to target heads and do shoulder charges every ruck. In fact the only one he missed was the Dagg one and he may have actually made a judgement on that.
I actually think the post match assessment on Peyper up to this point is probably quite good although you would point out that the team should make sure they don't miss the wood for the trees when looking at a try replay. They really should have noticed the high tackle even if they dismissed it.
Around the 20 minute mark peyper missed a blatant knock forward that set up about 10 minutes of Irish pressure and smiths yellow card. Also straight after this SOB made the turnover wilhile he was lying horizontal on the ground. There was also the incident where toner dived conmpletely over the ruck onto retallick (I think) no attempt to stay on feet,
That was just I. The first 30 minutes I think.
Also he pinged smith just before toners by going off his feet where the Irish clearly dragged him on to their side.
I thought he was shit
-
@Kruse Thanks chap. Kearney is a dick for coming out with that.
-
@Catogrande
Yeah - he just spouts a lot of stupid shit, some dick reporter repeats some of the worst parts of it multiple times and slaps a provocative headline up the top.
I'm assuming Schmidt would be fuming at that, especially if he considers he's lumped in with "Irish bosses". -
-
I'm looking forward to Irish love fest over the Aussies. They will be all "So glad those awful New Zealander's have left, God we love Australia"
