All Blacks v Ireland II
-
From D'Arcy's article:
Cane couldn’t have pulled out of the Henshaw tackle, and Robbie did spin into him, but the duty of care is on the tackler.
Two paragraphs later:
Well, Johnny Sexton should have been cited for the high tackle on Barrett as he crossed for his try. That doesn’t wash. Barrett was moving downwards to ground the ball.
WTF?
-
@Milk said in Ireland II:
From D'Arcy's article:
Cane couldn’t have pulled out of the Henshaw tackle, and Robbie did spin into him, but the duty of care is on the tackler.
Two paragraphs later:
Well, Johnny Sexton should have been cited for the high tackle on Barrett as he crossed for his try. That doesn’t wash. Barrett was moving downwards to ground the ball.
WTF?
Makes perfect sense to me. Thought Darcy's article was very good actually. Good analysis of some aspects of Ireland's play.
-
@Pot-Hale said in Ireland II:
@Milk said in Ireland II:
From D'Arcy's article:
Cane couldn’t have pulled out of the Henshaw tackle, and Robbie did spin into him, but the duty of care is on the tackler.
Two paragraphs later:
Well, Johnny Sexton should have been cited for the high tackle on Barrett as he crossed for his try. That doesn’t wash. Barrett was moving downwards to ground the ball.
WTF?
Makes perfect sense to me. Thought Darcy's article was very good actually. Good analysis of some aspects of Ireland's play.
Darcy is a actually a good columnist and I like his articles. Just the irony that is all.
Times have changed: 2005 Darcy gets a penalty and a warning from Walsh. 2016 that would be red card citing and 2 to 6 weeks on the sideline.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Ireland II:
@Pot-Hale said in Ireland II:
@Milk said in Ireland II:
From D'Arcy's article:
Cane couldn’t have pulled out of the Henshaw tackle, and Robbie did spin into him, but the duty of care is on the tackler.
Two paragraphs later:
Well, Johnny Sexton should have been cited for the high tackle on Barrett as he crossed for his try. That doesn’t wash. Barrett was moving downwards to ground the ball.
WTF?
Makes perfect sense to me. Thought Darcy's article was very good actually. Good analysis of some aspects of Ireland's play.
Darcy is a actually a good columnist and I like his articles. Just the irony that is all.
Times have changed: 2005 Darcy gets a penalty and a warning from Walsh. 2016 that would be red card citing and 2 to 6 weeks on the sideline.
Indeed. 2005, O'Driscoll is ahem "cleared out of a ruck" and nothing happens. 2016, that would be "cleared out of a ruck" and nothing happens.
-
@reprobate said in Ireland II:
@Bones really? i was genuinely nervous for most of it, and thought their forwards were as good as ours. i've seen plenty of games 21-9 or so which haven't had me nervous at all. maybe i was still just spooked from the previous one.
Go and watch the game again. We boss the game from about 58 minutes - straight after Ireland kick a penalty get it to 14-9. In my view, that's great leadership from Read (obviously said the right things under the post before the kick) and also good substitutions (TJP on for AS in particular is a key moment).
It's the combined nervousness of watching live and wondering whether another team is about to eclipse us. To be fair to us, in Chicago we somehow kept in the game until 75+ minutes despite getting spanked all over the park. Here, the Irish were spent (despite having all the ball) after 60.
But you are right - their forwards had the better of us in both games this series.
I think this is a major new rivalry.
-
@Tregaskis I saw the Twattue headline saying this, did you read the article?
Headline said something about all their whining being a good thing as it has created a new rivalry
-
@taniwharugby I did read his article and actually enjoyed it for once. He was pro-ABs (actually, he was just anti-whinging) until his final sentence about Fekitoa. But I'm obviously not quoting his opinion, as I praised Kieran Read.
He referred to a new rivalry beginning, and I can't help but agree with him. England is a myth (for ABs fans) until we play them - Ireland is now for real. I just hope it's not case of them lifting for us and then getting spanked by Aus next week or being mediocre in the 6N. In 2013 when they ran us so close they then went on to win consecutive 6N's.
-
Henshaw cited for punching Cane:
-
A new rivalry is always good. Whatever about all the whinging etc it certainly wasn't a boring 2 games!
What we saw at the weekend once again was the reason the ABs are so far ahead of everyone else is because of their skill level. They can score off minimum possession and Barrett is an incredible player.
From an Ireland point of view the attack was blunt. Its not that big of a surprise because Schmidt is very safety first and likes experienced players who will do the basics well but its also predictable.
-
@profitius said in Ireland II:
From an Ireland point of view the attack was blunt. Its not that big of a surprise because Schmidt is very safety first and likes experienced players who will do the basics well but its also predictable.
i think that's a bit harsh - there have been long periods of all black history where if we lost our 10 and 12 early to injury then our attack would be blunt too.
-
D'arcy article is excellent - best one I have read on the game in total.
What he writes about Cane is totally fair.
I am 100% in the boat that Cane shouldn't have been cited/banned and he wasn't. But the point that people playing rugby shouldn't be getting exposed to being concussed via contact to the head (accidental or intentional) is also fair.
-
@MajorRage said in Ireland II:
D'arcy article is excellent - best one I have read on the game in total.
What he writes about Cane is totally fair.
I am 100% in the boat that Cane shouldn't have been cited/banned and he wasn't. But the point that people playing rugby shouldn't be getting exposed to being concussed via contact to the head (accidental or intentional) is also fair.
the bit where he talks about Ireland is good. The bit where he is talking about us? Not so good. It's just fucking more of the same.
"do i have to send off and All Black here?" is just another way of saying the "one rule for them" bullshit that's been spouted all week.
I played rugby for a fucking long time (too long probably, given my frame) and the only way i could have avoided concussion was to not play at all. Shit happens.
-
@MajorRage Hansen said he didn't have a problem with them citing Cane to have a closer look at it given the result of the impact, but they would (and did) contest it as they felt it was a head clash that caused the injury, not Cane's murderous attack.
-
@mariner4life He is Irish and did play for Ireland, so looking at it from his point of view, I think it's fine.
The point you make about the red card is a fair one, although it's one I think that could be entirely possible.
What he writes about Cane is spot on.
-
@MajorRage said in Ireland II:
@mariner4life He is Irish and did play for Ireland, so looking at it from his point of view, I think it's fine.
The point you make about the red card is a fair one, although it's one I think that could be entirely possible.
What he writes about Cane is spot on.
I'm happy with them looking at it as well. I'm not overly happy about it being fairly widely accepted that the refs should have carded him, and that was a game changer.
-
@taniwharugby Exactly. A bloke gets taken out due to a hit to the head. Thats not good. So the process that follows was fair.
-
The Darcy article is in places insightful and god knows he knows more about international rugby than anyone here.
However as a writer trying to get a "tackler's responsibility for duty of care" point across (which dominates his Cane/Henshaw situation) he lost me when failing to reciprocate on the 2nd worst breach in the entire game of World Rugby's November 11 head high directive:
"The New Zealand post-match defence, led by Hansen - and their media after both players were cited - quickly changed the point of attack: Well, Johnny Sexton should have been cited for the high tackle on Barrett as he crossed for his try. That doesn’t wash. Barrett was moving downwards to ground the ball. Henshaw and Zebo were both upright, moving forward. The Sexton tackle wasn’t even referred to the citing commissioner."
No duty of care when someone is scoring or Barrett ducked so low that Sexton was unable not to hit his face and neck?
The inference that all is ok if (notoriously inconsistent) citing commissioners make no submissions further devalues his objectivity in this instance I reckons
-
@Siam seems he has 2 measuring sticks, one for Ireland and one for NZ.
The one Fekitoa got done for, the guy was falling, and Fekitoa's first impact was on the shoulder.
I thought when Sexton hit BB he was upright and Sexton definitely was aiming high in an effort to wrap up the ball, and think his hand even hit BBs face, and then was odd that when the try had been scored Sexton looked to release and then grabbed again at BBs head while both were on the deck.
Pretty sure BB didn't care either though, it's just the green/black tinted glasses when looking at these things
-
@ACT-Crusader said in Ireland II:
@akan004 said in Ireland II:
@Virgil Unfortunately all this whinging from the opposition is having an impact on how the refs are perceiving the ABs. The fact that they are the most penalised team in world rugby is largely due to this.
Mind reader in your time off are you?
I don't think what fans or media say has any major influence on what a ref does in the heat of the moment during a test match.
This is a direct quote from Shag.
"I think we get our share if not more and I think there is a perception that says look at the All Blacks and not the other team. Sub consciously I'm saying I don't think that is consciously. Look at the last game 14: 4 is not a balanced game is it, it's not reality."
