All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@ACT-Crusader said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Victor-Meldrew said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Mrs Meldrew has just removed all throwable objects from the lounge.
There’s still the TV….
Thank fuck we don't have a piano or swimming pool.
Has she put a fresh pack of razor blades in the bathroom?
-
@DaGrubster said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Stop being a dickhead
Noted Grubster. Anything I said in particular?
-
Don’t make me have to go and find it again!
Just some some gloating about retallick injury and non red card and delicious irony or something.Was a bit twattish I thought but y’know we can all be that way at times can’t we!?
😉 -
-
@DaGrubster said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Don’t make me have to go and find it again!
Just some some gloating about retallick injury and non red card and delicious irony or something.Was a bit twattish I thought but y’know we can all be that way at times can’t we!?
😉Wasn't intended that way. It was meant as sarcasm, not to gloat.
-
@Hooroo said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
The lack of a red card in that collision was great. I don’t even like it was yellow.
Not sure I agree. Imagine for a second you’re watching that happen to your son or partner. You’d feel absolutely sick, not just about the immediate injury but potential long term effects. There’s an element of chance in this for sure but you have to make it worth players’ while to put the effort in to change their technique.
I think each was a clear yellow, but the committee reaffirmed with Ta’avao’s ban that red is the correct sanction, so these two must surely have met the same threshold as they resulted in actually injuries.
-
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@BerniesCorner said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
As stated Samisoni not starting , quite unfathomable
We are in perpetual sh*t until forwards 1-5 become consistently competitive.NZ has enough raw material to work with. Need a better mix of ball players Vs workers. If you can't do your core job (throwing, lifting, scrummaging), offer nothing around the field and are a liability on defence, it is time to sit out until you show you can do it again. Consistently.
NZ miss someone like Franks who shifts bodies and does their core job well. They have a player like Mealamu in ST. Moody's drop off in form has been a big hit to the tight five.
Locks....there is some talent coming through, but they are green. But still enough to form a good enough tight five that is more than competitive.
@Steve said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders I don't think the insularity is a problem.
There is no sensible gameplan.
Look at the Ireland back 3. A Brumbie cast off, a NZ cast off and Hugo Keenan.
None of the 3 of them would get in New Zealands team.
Keenan is not Christian Cullen.
Hansen is a journey man and Lowe was being slagged by Chris Ashton for being slow and fat last year.
But the three of them catch all their kicks and kick back intelligently. They don't get tackled into touch, they recycle and they make their tackles.
James Lowes left boot is used the way Dagg's used to be. They play all the rugby in our half. Their wingers fall over the line from 5 yards for their tries. Will Jordan has to score his from 70 meters. They have a system and we don't. Imagine what Andy Farrell could do with Reece, Jordan and Jordie.
Every player on that Ireland team is squeezing every ounce out of their ability.
Ireland choose the players to fit the system and game plan. NZ seem to choose their best players and then the game plan.
Are NZ too scared to drop the stars for fear they will leave?
Keenan may be no Christian Cullen, but then again who is? I must admit I was stunned when he was first capped, but he quickly became one of my favourite players. He is a very complete fullback who is equally comfortable in defence or attack, and is rated by even English papers as the best full back in the NH. Low error and runs great support lines.
I’m not a fan of Lowe’s as I think his error rate is too high, but Hansen has been a revelation from his first touch in international rugby. He is a brilliant footballer who plays right across the line, and understands fully what Farrell wants. As was said he suits the multiphase game Farrell has put in place, and he has been outstanding for us, a real bolter. The ABs love strike runners on the wing, and they’ve produced some of rugby’s greatest wingers, but we don’t have a lot of Howletts or Lomus hanging about.
Ireland's back 3 complement each other and suit the game plan. They are good players, but their combination makes them better.
Henry chose Kahui on the wing, not because he was the best winger, but because he brought balance to the back 3. Low error rate, high work rate. Perfect for test match rugby.
NZ have to select better. Test match rugby is about pressure. How much you can exert on the other team until they break. Then you can use your skills to seize on the opportunities. Not before.
In NZ we want every player to be an excitement machine. Trouble is that attitude is now part of the makeup of our players. They are rewarded for risks at lower levels that they can’t get away with against top flight test teams. We have to have a reset. The Crusaders have always had a more conservative, more structured game plan than say the Blues, Chiefs, Hurricanes. Their dominance of Super Rugby over a long period of time often with players that are less flashy, but play within a pattern is a good indicator of what works. Two of our best players are a good indicator of our problems. BB is a 1st five that can’t kick (despite 1 excellent touch finder last night ) and Ardie Savea who is a light weight 7 (in todays rugby) playing at 8 impacting the balance of our loose forwards. We seem to want to fit all these talented players on the field before working out a plan that will win Test matches.
-
@JC The difference was Porter was moving backwards, while Ta avao was moving forward. In any game there are a huge amount of upright tackles where the defender is going backwards and it's a bit of a lottery whether there is head contact.
I completely agree that it's the tacklers responsibility to get into a safe position. But I think if you look at it objectively, the two events were different.
If the Ta avao red card hadn't happened I don't think there would be many people saying porter deserves a red.
-
@Ludraman said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@JC The difference was Porter was moving backwards, while Ta avao was moving forward. In any game there are a huge amount of upright tackles where the defender is going backwards and it's a bit of a lottery whether there is head contact.
I completely agree that it's the tacklers responsibility to get into a safe position. But I think if you look at it objectively, the two events were different.
If the Ta avao red card hadn't happened I don't think there would be many people saying porter deserves a red.
We can argue about the separate incidents. The fact remains that there was no consistency in the rulings. They both have to be RCs once WR sets the precedent
-
@JC said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Hooroo said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
The lack of a red card in that collision was great. I don’t even like it was yellow.
Not sure I agree. Imagine for a second you’re watching that happen to your son or partner. You’d feel absolutely sick, not just about the immediate injury but potential long term effects. There’s an element of chance in this for sure but you have to make it worth players’ while to put the effort in to change their technique.
I think each was a clear yellow, but the committee reaffirmed with Ta’avao’s ban that red is the correct sanction, so these two must surely have met the same threshold as they resulted in actually injuries.
I’ve watched rugby all my life and my rugby thought process isn’t like that.
If it is foul and intentional, send them. The red last week and this collision were neither of those.
Site and sort after game for those ones. Don’t ruin the game because of a genuine accident
-
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Ludraman said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@JC The difference was Porter was moving backwards, while Ta avao was moving forward. In any game there are a huge amount of upright tackles where the defender is going backwards and it's a bit of a lottery whether there is head contact.
I completely agree that it's the tacklers responsibility to get into a safe position. But I think if you look at it objectively, the two events were different.
If the Ta avao red card hadn't happened I don't think there would be many people saying porter deserves a red.
We can argue about the separate incidents. The fact remains that there was no consistency in the rulings. They both have to be RCs once WR sets the precedent
I think there's no consistency with most areas of the game at the moment. Each referee refs the breakdown, scrum, ruck etc differently. They've been pretty good overall with regard to head contacts I think. I do think they need to determine what to do if the tackler is unable to react in time though, which is arguably the case both weeks.
-
@Ludraman said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@JC The difference was Porter was moving backwards, while Ta avao was moving forward. In any game there are a huge amount of upright tackles where the defender is going backwards and it's a bit of a lottery whether there is head contact.
I completely agree that it's the tacklers responsibility to get into a safe position. But I think if you look at it objectively, the two events were different.
If the Ta avao red card hadn't happened I don't think there would be many people saying porter deserves a red.
That’s why I said that I think YC would have been right. But what I think doesn’t matter. the judiciary ruled that RC is correct by banning Ta’avao. So Porter’s starting point becomes RC as well, unless there is mitigation, and Barnes clearly said there was no mitigation.
Consistency is what people are calling for. The judiciary said accident is immaterial. So they’re both reds, they’re both yellows or their both PKs.
-
I think you have to include reckless alongside foul and intentional. I don’t think either the Ta’avu or Porter incident warranted red, but if you go back to Eng/Irl in the 6ns I’d argue the Hill fully deserved his red because it was the very definition of reckless. He came charging into a late tackle on a player leading with his head, but his lack of obvious intent was no defence.
-
Barnes is one of the better referees in that he likes to keep the game moving and tries to not disrupt the flow. He's also one of the more lenient refs when it comes to dishing out red cards. Had he reffed last weeks game, the red card would have been a yellow, but I have a suspicion the first yellow against the Hansen clash might have been a red. Nigel Owens thought so and him and Barnes are very similar.
-
@Ludraman said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@canefan said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Ludraman said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@JC The difference was Porter was moving backwards, while Ta avao was moving forward. In any game there are a huge amount of upright tackles where the defender is going backwards and it's a bit of a lottery whether there is head contact.
I completely agree that it's the tacklers responsibility to get into a safe position. But I think if you look at it objectively, the two events were different.
If the Ta avao red card hadn't happened I don't think there would be many people saying porter deserves a red.
We can argue about the separate incidents. The fact remains that there was no consistency in the rulings. They both have to be RCs once WR sets the precedent
I think there's no consistency with most areas of the game at the moment. Each referee refs the breakdown, scrum, ruck etc differently. They've been pretty good overall with regard to head contacts I think. I do think they need to determine what to do if the tackler is unable to react in time though, which is arguably the case both weeks.
There is definitely inconsistency at the breakdown and offsides among others. I thought Ireland got away with a fair amount at the breakdown, however if they get away with it good for them. We can't wait for the ref to bail us out, it is up to us to protect our own ball at ruck and maul time. But WR have decided that high tackles and head contact needs to be strictly punished. Lots of stuff that used to be fine is now penalised or more often carded. If they want to rule this area with almost netball ref like zeal, the least we should expect is consistency
