All Blacks v Ireland II
-
As usual these blokes are pretty close to the money on their review of the game ,
-
It's getting (really) boring so I stop. But before that
Here is Darcy writing in the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/gordon-d-arcy-when-you-go-over-the-edge-there-should-be-consequences-1.2878356
And here is Darcy spear tackling Rua Tipoki in 2005:
At least Quinlan in his article went "mea culpa, I can hardly talk".
But I agree with catogrande, the whinging about the whinging is becoming worse than the whinging itself, so that's it. Finished.
On to next weekend's games.
-
@Billy-Tell that's hilarious.
-
@Billy-Tell said in Ireland II:
It's getting (really) boring so I stop. But before that
Here is Darcy writing in the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/gordon-d-arcy-when-you-go-over-the-edge-there-should-be-consequences-1.2878356
And here is Darcy spear tackling Rua Tipoki in 2005:
At least Quinlan in his article went "mea culpa, I can hardly talk".
But I agree with catogrande, the whinging about the whinging is becoming worse than the whinging itself, so that's it. Finished.
On to next weekend's games.
Oh D"Arse
-
@Billy-Tell said in Ireland II:
It's getting (really) boring so I stop. But before that
Here is Darcy writing in the Times today: http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/gordon-d-arcy-when-you-go-over-the-edge-there-should-be-consequences-1.2878356
And here is Darcy spear tackling Rua Tipoki in 2005:
At least Quinlan in his article went "mea culpa, I can hardly talk".
But I agree with catogrande, the whinging about the whinging is becoming worse than the whinging itself, so that's it. Finished.
On to next weekend's games.
By the cringe, that's bloody bad from D'Arcy.
On the high tackles in the game I would say this in summary:-
Cane: High, exacerbated by Henshaw twisting into contact. Worthy of a penalty only. However if you go high do not be surprised to be cited. Luckily for Cane the judiciary got this one right.
Fekitoa. Awful. High, clumsy, not really even any attempt at a tackle. Lucky not to see red and again the judiciary got this one right.
Sexton. First off, it was a try and therefore could not ever be a penalty try. It was high, it was a neck roll (albeit a harmless one). Very lucky not to get penalised and even yellowed. Lucky again not to be cited. WTF the citing commissioner was on not to refer that one I don't know.
-
@molloyjh said in Ireland II:
@antipodean said in Ireland II:
@molloyjh said in Ireland II:
Ah now there are more level headed reactions in fairness:
Analysis: Ireland's failure to convert costs them dearly against the All Blacks
Joe Schmidt’s men couldn’t turn their big chances into the tries they needed.
Ireland left frustrated and tryless as All Blacks edge brutal battle in Dublin
Beauden Barrett was involved in all three of the Kiwi’s tries at the Aviva Stadium.
Barrett-inspired defeat a missed opportunity for wasteful Ireland
Amid the all the darkness, Beauden Barrett's black magic won the match on Saturday.
I'd also point out that there cannot be any question that NZ have a discipline issue at the moment. 12-4 was the penalty count in Chicago. 14-4 in Dublin. 3 yellow cards across both Tests to 0. 2 citings to 0. And the citing commissioner apparently referred 12 incidents in the game on Saturday back to the teams. 11 of those to NZ. While I don't like the whinging and the moaning it's pretty clear there is a discipline issue there that can't be ignored.
The Test on the weekend was a one-sided joke from the refereeing. There should have been at least one yellow card for Ireland and Aaron Smith should never have been penalised. Ireland had carte blanche at the ruck and how you get a scrum for being the last man in defence knocking a pass down is beyond baffling.
So how does that explain Chicago? Was that a one sided joke as well? Given that both games had pretty consistent stats with regards discipline are you happy to just write that off? And how does the above comment not fit with the whinging description that Irish fans and media have been labelled with?
A lot of Irish fans and media have gone totally overboard (and quite frankly bat shit crazy at times) with what happened at the weekend, but I've also seen a corresponding extreme from a lot of NZ fans and media refusing to acknowledge that there are discipline issues. If the roles were reversed I'd be very focused on the penalty count issue for Ireland and desperately want to see an improvement. I wouldn't be looking to sweep it all under the rug and blame the opponents for daring to speak of it. The truth often tends to be in the middle somewhere. The 2 extremes that we're seeing (NZ are cheating bastards who always get away with it as opposed to the NZ are being victimised buy the ref and opposition) are equally unfair reactions to what went on in what was, all officiating issues aside, a superb contest.
Your first paragraph:
It doesn't. Different game. Different circumstances. There were no complaints after Chicago because there couldn't be. Ref was good made no or few obvious errors.Dublin ... well ...
Re the relative amount of whinging ... I feel it is mitigated somwhat by considering who won.
Add in which side of the divide seems to be on a witch hunt ...
As you say: shades of grey. But I have may opinion about which end oc the spectrum the grey is closer to.
-
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.
