Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

First topic message reminder :

       
IRELAND v NEW ZEALAND
19 November 2016
KO: 17:30
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on Sky Sports 2

Referee: Jaco Peyper (South Africa)
Assistant referees: Mathieu Raynal (France), Ian Davies (Wales)
Television match official: Jon Mason (Wales)
Assessor: Chris White (England)

A. Head to Head

29 Played 29
1 Won 27
1 Drawn 1
27 Lost 1
310 Points 812

B. Recent Form 

5 November 2016
Soldier Field, Chicago IL
40–29 to Ireland

24 November 2013 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
22 – 24 to New Zealand 

23 June 2012 
Waikato Stadium, Hamilton 
60 – 0 to New Zealand 

16 June 2012 
Rugby League Park, Christchurch 
22 – 19 to New Zealand

9 June 2012 
Eden Park, Auckland 
42 – 10 to New Zealand

20 November 2010 
Aviva Stadium, Dublin 
18 – 38 to New Zealand 

C. Teams

IRELAND 

R Kearney; A Trimble, J Payne, R Henshaw, S Zebo; J Sexton, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, T Furlong; D Toner, D Ryan; CJ Stander, S O'Brien, J Heaslip.

Replacements: S Cronin, C Healy, F Bealham, I Henderson, J van der Flier, K Marmion, P Jackson, G Ringrose.

NEW ZEALAND

B Smith; I Dagg, M Fekitoa, A Lienert-Brown, J Savea; B Barrett, A Smith; J Moody, D Coles, O Franks; B Retallick, S Whitelock; L Squire, S Can, K Read (capt).

Replacements: C Taylor, W Crockett, C Faumuina, S Barrett, A Savea, TJ Perenara, A Cruden, W Naholo.

No arms, head high shoulder charge. Frankly it doesn't make any difference if his head hits him first or not.

ebop wrote:Well there you go

Kick up enough fuss and WR will deliver

The case of Owen Franks earlier this year points to the opposite conclusion.

Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wasting our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

clivemcl wrote:Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wating our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

Sorry, mum, but I think I'll decline. I disagree with your perception and having watched the try today, slowing it down and pausing it throughout, I am still utterly bewildered by the "clear grounding of the ball" decision. Hence why I would be interested if someone could take a snapshot of the instance where it is clear.

I see you are also admitting that it wasn't as clear as you first believed anyway. It was scored because we can "assume" it was scored. That is why there are two questions, Clive. Yes, it is quite an important part of the game.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wating our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

Sorry, mum, but I think I'll decline. I disagree with your perception and having watched the try today, slowing it down and pausing it throughout, I am still utterly bewildered by the "clear grounding of the ball" decision. Hence why I would be interested if someone could take a snapshot of the instance where it is clear.

I see you are also admitting that it wasn't as clear as you first believed anyway. It was scored because we can "assume" it was scored. That is why there are two questions, Clive. Yes, it is quite an important part of the game.

Right, but even if not grounded it was a potential yellow and penalty try (for high tackle) for NZ, so it made no difference. Lets look at and judge our own players actions, and not be like NZ fans who never see any wrong in their players actions no matter how dangerous.

Rugby Fan wrote:

ebop wrote:Well there you go

Kick up enough fuss and WR will deliver

The case of Owen Franks earlier this year points to the opposite conclusion.

That's because there was no eye contact despite the fuss to the contrary

clivemcl wrote:Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wasting our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

EST wrote:No arms, head high shoulder charge.  Frankly it doesn't make any difference if his head hits him first or not.

Shoulder made no contact with the head

You have to watch around 0.24 in real time not frame by frame

And with your eyes closed ...

No keep them open please

ebop wrote:

EST wrote:No arms, head high shoulder charge.  Frankly it doesn't make any difference if his head hits him first or not.

Shoulder made no contact with the head

You have to watch around 0.24 in real time not frame by frame

I did watch it, and that's why I said it doesn't make any difference. The tackle was way above the shoulders regardless of what part of his body first made contact, and at the point of contact his arms were at his side.

What a waste of time arguing about 22.06 vs 11.09. New Zealand tackled hard. No surprises.

If there are citings and bans, so be it. If there are no bans, so be it.

The game is done, dusted. NZ won. Move on.

Pot Hale wrote:What a waste of time arguing about 22.06 vs 11.09.   New Zealand tackled hard. No surprises.  

If there are citings and bans, so be it.  If there are no bans, so be it.

The game is done, dusted. NZ won. Move on.  

If you don't want to discuss it, then don't. Others may wish to, especially if there is an aftermath (the citing of Cane and Fekitoa).

EST wrote:

ebop wrote:

EST wrote:No arms, head high shoulder charge.  Frankly it doesn't make any difference if his head hits him first or not.

Shoulder made no contact with the head

You have to watch around 0.24 in real time not frame by frame

I did watch it, and that's why I said it doesn't make any difference.  The tackle was way above the shoulders regardless of what part of his body first made contact, and at the point of contact his arms were at his side.

There is a lot of guys here who think the same thing and keep on telling each other that same thing which sooner or later makes it 'fact' - But watching that video that was shoulder to head and dangerous play.

If Cane wasn't going for Henshaw's head what exactly was he going for? Did he mix up Henshaw with Toner?

ebop wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

ebop wrote:Well there you go

Kick up enough fuss and WR will deliver

The case of Owen Franks earlier this year points to the opposite conclusion.

That's because there was no eye contact despite the fuss to the contrary

By that logic, you concede the citations from the weekend's match are warranted.

ebop wrote:No keep them open please

Maybe this will open yours:




I've changed my mind. There was no head contact. The angle you posted creates the illusion of a head clash but, as you can clearly see o0 it was the shoulder.

Other view:



Very clearly leading with the shoulder.

From that clip it looks as though the tackle was started below the
neck,that the Ireland player leaned into him.BUT that's in slow mo
Ref has to decide in real time.

Very clear there - Cane moves his head away from contact - to avoid injury to himself. I dare say teh citing panel however will have the final word. I suspect on the basis of that video the citing will be upheld.

MrsP wrote:Very clear there - Cane moves his head away from contact - to avoid injury to himself. I dare say teh citing panel however will have the final word. I suspect on the basis of that video the citing will be upheld.

It should be, especially when they look at the other angle:

Checked rules (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10.4) - note the highlighted bit in reply to emack2

10.4 Dangerous play and misconduct
(a) Punching or striking. A player must not strike an opponent with the fist or arm, including the elbow, shoulder, head or knee(s).
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b) Stamping or trampling. A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(d) Tripping. A player must not trip an opponent with the leg or foot.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(e) Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick123

A ‘stiff-arm tackle’ is dangerous play. A player makes a stiff-arm tackle when using a stiff-arm to strike an opponent.
Sanction: Penalty kick

So even if it is accepted that Cane tried to wrap his arms around (although it is clear the arms followed the contact) it is still a breach of the rules

clivemcl wrote:Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wasting our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

Cut what out? Both Wolfball and I called the high tackle but that has nothing to do with the grounding. The ref and TMO had ample opportunity to call Sexton for the high tackle but chose not to. If Sexton's challenge had been deemed to be illegal there was no need to check the grounding as it would have been a penalty try and yellow card. Once they deemed it OK in the context of the match then it becomes purely a matter of grounding.

The TMO and Peyper looking at the big screen thought that there was grounding after the first angle. Then they had a look at a different angle and Jaco became doubtful of the grounding but as Jon had already committed to his first answer it came across that he didn't want to change his assessment. Certainly on the footage shown during the match there is no evidence of grounding - from one side Sexton's arm is below the ball, and from the other side Barrett's wrist is below the ball.

So the facts are that there was no clear evidence of grounding in the footage shown and the 'high' tackle was not judged by the referee or TMO to be so. One thing we can agree on is that none of it matters because the referee's decision is final.

Seems one way to beat the ABs is to get in their faces a la Eng 2012 and Ire a couple of weeks ago. NZ seemed wise to this and tried to turn the table with a very aggressive performance – a bit OTT occasionally. Trouble with that is if it’s your team you love the total commitment, if it’s the oppo you’re up in arms. TBH I think a lot of the incidents were punished at the time. The Cane incident looked at bit like the tackler was taken a bit by surprise when Henshaw spun out of the 1st tackle and right into Cane’s path. Cane was a bit late in wrapping his arms, but he seemed to try to make it a proper tackle. There was a definite clash of heads which, with Cane turning his head at the last moment, looked like he was gonna come of worse. Some tough cookie. A penalty for me for a degree of recklessness.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Seems one way to beat the ABs is to get in their faces a la Eng 2012 and Ire a couple of weeks ago. NZ seemed wise to this and tried to turn the table with a very aggressive performance – a bit OTT occasionally. Trouble with that is if it’s your team you love the total commitment, if it’s the oppo you’re up in arms. TBH I think a lot of the incidents were punished at the time. The Cane incident looked at bit like the tackler was taken a bit by surprise when Henshaw spun out of the 1st tackle and right into Cane’s path. Cane was a bit late in wrapping his arms, but he seemed to try to make it a proper tackle.  There was a definite clash of heads which, with Cane turning his head at the last moment, looked like he was gonna come of worse. Some tough cookie. A penalty for me for a degree of recklessness.

Disagree there. Video shows Cane lifting his shoulder as he approaches contact before he starts to move his right arm. He is therefore not attempting to tackle, rather he is trying to hit with his shoulder as the first point of impact. Yes you could say he was "a bit late in wrapping his arms" - but merely because he was trying to make contact with his shoulder rather than actually tackle. If he had gone in without raising his shoulder first I could accept that excuse but not after viewing the video footage.
And despite watching the videos several times I can see no head contact at all - so there was definitely no clash of heads

The cheap shots were called to the ref at the time. Cane also hits rucks shoulder first as did both Saveas and Dagg lined up Zebo's soft centre in a ruck for a rib cruncher. The weight of evidence is there for anyone who cares to look for it and the challenge is to call any of it accidental.

Munchkin wrote:

ebop wrote:No keep them open please

Maybe this will open yours:




I've changed my mind. There was no head contact. The angle you posted creates the illusion of a head clash but, as you can clearly see o0 it was the shoulder.

Other view:



Very clearly leading with the shoulder.

Cynical angles.

The disappointing thing for me wasn't so much the loss but the lack of cutting edge. Back to the same old story of Ireland pounding away at the opposition but getting nowhere.

profitius wrote:The disappointing thing for me wasn't so much the loss but the lack of cutting edge. Back to the same old story of Ireland pounding away at the opposition but getting nowhere.

Except for having the ball heald up on the NZ line twice and two knock ons that would have been try's if held. Cutting edge wasn't the issue I saw with our attack, rather finishing and too much poor kicking. Our offloading game is developing nicely, we have more than 1-2 ball carriers finally as all our backrow options, all of our props, and Dillane/Henderson are great carriers. Someone stated we are top 3 (edit, top 4, after the france match australia 1 try more than us) team in the world for number of tries scored in 2016 and our aggregate scoreline with NZ across the two matches was A difference of 1 point. I think our attack is now worldclass but our finishing needs more focus.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Can all my fellow Irish supporters just please give up on the whole ball grounded thing - it was a clear as day high tackle regardless.
I really love that Johnny believe to the very end that he had the ability to affect change. This is the exact spirit we want to see in every player and I applaude that. BUT, his very first contact was his hand around Barrett's neck, and then the actual roll was done whilst gripping around his neck.
OK, so none of the cameras actually showed rubber on grass, but we all know the shape of a rugby ball, and we can assume it was most likely touching grass. So we are wating our time what... quibbling over the answer given to the ref's particular phrasing of the question.
None of it matters - even if it were proved to have been held up, it would have been done so illegally - that is indisputable.

SO... cut it out.

Sorry, mum, but I think I'll decline. I disagree with your perception and having watched the try today, slowing it down and pausing it throughout, I am still utterly bewildered by the "clear grounding of the ball" decision. Hence why I would be interested if someone could take a snapshot of the instance where it is clear.

I see you are also admitting that it wasn't as clear as you first believed anyway. It was scored because we can "assume" it was scored. That is why there are two questions, Clive. Yes, it is quite an important part of the game.

Rory, I don't give a hoot what way the ref decides to word his question - the truth is - I don't want to win games when a try is awarded that wasn't actually grounded, nor vice versa. The only thing that matters is the truth. It either touched the ground or it didn't. The video doesn't show that Sexton's arm was fully under the whole ball - nor does it show that the ball (which in part was leading towards the ground of the side of Sextons arm) was in contact with the ground.
BUT - I know the shape and size of a rugby ball - and it's my belief that there was enough rugby ball there to have been making contact.

Is that really what rugby has come down to? A team executes a good play, the oppositions defense is fairly beaten, the player crosses the whitewash and.... lets all cross our fingers and hope they haven't  got a good camera angle??  

I guess it depends if your hope in winning is based on what gets seen, or on what actually happens.

Also I see you conveniently ignored the more crucial second part of my post - the illegality of Sexton's tackle.

We've talked at length on here regarding players asking ref's to look at things. I'm sure Peyper etc.. saw the high tackle anyway, but just didn't see the need to address it as the chat was leading towards a try awarded anyway. I can assure you, if there was a whisper of 'held up', the AB players would have been drawing his attention to the very clear and very obvious high tackle.

If you think he would have got away with that tackle with a held up call, you are in a fantasy land.

profitius wrote:The disappointing thing for me wasn't so much the loss but the lack of cutting edge. Back to the same old story of Ireland pounding away at the opposition but getting nowhere.

I need to watch the game again, but I reckon the amount of penalty's against the ABs might have something to do with that. Isn't that what POC was alluding to?

Having said the above; we do need to be more accurate. The game could have been much closer than the final score but for poor ball handling, lack of accuracy and a few poor kicks. I'm not too disheartened by that though. There's plenty of positives to build on, and the basics will come right.

Fly asked about going for the 3 points, and I feel that was a mistake. Taking the points was letting the ABs off and rewarding their efforts to give us nothing more than 3 points. We should have kept the pressure on and battered them, legally, in the process. Taking the 3 points would have given them more of a lift, and the opposite for us.

Munchkin wrote:Don't agree, Fly. It's fair to look at what we could control and what we couldn't. I have already pointed out that Ireland were at fault for lack of composure at times, ball handling letting us down. The ABs should be credited for some outstanding defense as well.
The things we couldn't control should be looked at also. The ABs were cynical. The amount of penalty's tell as that much. Why should anyone turn a blind eye to that? In the interests of niceness? We should be able to give honest opinions on the game without being shackled by some pc supporters code.
If any criticism is over the top, or unfair, then it's right to challenge that, but not gag it.

Why?
Because the games over. Where's it gonna get you?

'The lack of cutting edge' for Ireland was not helped by losing CJ and Henshaw. VDF and Ringrose were excellent and good replacements respectively, but they do not have a same ability to punch a hole where one does not exist. Losing Sexton was also a major factor. He is such a competitor.

The AB's got their win and deserved it for a remarkable defensive performance when under intense pressure. Barrett had a great game, though he should have just dived over the line and saved us all the was it/wasn't debate!
Ireland can be proud of their efforts in both games and will have learned an enormous amount even in this loss.

It does rankle though that every-time NZ are accused of being cynical or physical beyond the laws of the game the accusation in return is that the rest of us are soft.

I feel in the Chicago game NZ were living offside but were rarely punished.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:...I'm not sure what the Irish defence had to do with the Sam Cane incident. It wasn't malicious, but he did come in high leading with the shoulder, which are both illegal in the game. That isn't me being a sore loser, it is dangerous play according to the laws.

It will be interesting to see if there is a citing. If not, perhaps my perception is wrong. We will see.

Rory you are very hard to discuss this with whist you are being so emotional, it will not be interesting if there is a citing, and I'll tell you why.
There will be no citing. I know that you now will demand that I produce evidednce of this, and I cant, doesnt mean to say I am wrong though.

The Irish defence had lot to do with Ireland not winning that game yesterday.

Hmmm

profitius wrote:The disappointing thing for me wasn't so much the loss but the lack of cutting edge. Back to the same old story of Ireland pounding away at the opposition but getting nowhere.

There was plenty of cutting edge, but you can't score when stopped illegally. Ireland lost but didn't resort to the cheap shots that NZ were reduced to, and that is a victory for their discipline. The game can do without the notion that taking players out is an acceptable means to the end goal of winning.

When a player gets knocked out in a 1 on 1 tackle there is a clue there as to whether or not the tackle was high or dangerous. The game can not condone players being knocked out and having to leave the field in 1 on 1 tackles. The ref should have red carded the NZ player then we may have seen a proper game of rugby rather than a litany of NZ attempts to injure and maim Irish players. But as we all know from the BOD dislocated shoulder incident many years ago in NZ there seems to be one rule for NZ and another for the rest of the world. Saturday was a sad day for the game that so much NZ foul play went unpunished.

It was sad for Henshaw, hope he's ok

Congrats to Ireland on another monumental effort. I think this is just great for the Lions, the invincible aura has certainly been demolished.

If your intention is to critique the ref's performance then the Barrett try discussion is relevant. If it is your intention to suggest the Barrett try affects the result then I'd suggest it's pointless. Blatant penalty try.

Others have complained about "whining" about NZ physicallity and whilst I don't agree the Cane tackle was as bad as others seem to think (in real time), NZ are always a dirty side and seem to get away with all sorts. They were a step up on Saturday and it's time they were held to account.

I actually thought the Dagg on Stander "tackle" was far worse and that has inexplicably escaped a citing.

Despite the fabrications of one delusional poster on here the simple fact is that Sam Cane led with the shoulder into Robbie Henshaw's head and knocked him out. Red cards have been given for much less and how even a yellow wasn't considered is beyond all logic. There is no clash of heads. Cane will receive a ban of that I have no doubt.
The Barrett try was exactly that, a try and as much as I would have loved the TMO to reply with no clear grounding, common sense has to be applied. It had contacted the ground but just because we don't see the ball surface touch the grass doesn't mean it didn't happen. I like that common sense approach but it doesn't clear the TMO from either being blind or a liar as there was definitely no clear grounding. Happy with the try being awarded though.

The ABs were out to push the laws of the game to the limit and went beyond the line IMO. I've always followed and admired the ABs since I was a child. I didn't admire the tactics that were used on Saturday but on the other hand, it's not tiddlywinks

Ireland played so well and if we'd had a wee rub of the green the scoreline would have been much tighter. Twice we crossed the NZ line only to be held up and there were a few things that on any other day would have come off but didn't. Thems the breaks and that's sport for you.

New Zealand were the better side so congrats to them. Was disappointed that they were quite dirty and cynical and was also quite disappointed with the referee.

The game reminded me of the Ireland France game in the six nations. France beat up Ireland, they were very dirty and anytime Ireland came close to scoring they gave away a cynical penalty and yet were never carded for it. Jaco Peyper was referee that day too. The message that comes across after these two games is that it pays to be dirty and cynical.

NZ deserved the win but was disappointed how it unfolded. I think TJ Perrenara's pass was forward for the last try and it should have been reviewed. The Barret try I have seen them given as a try or disallowed. If it was our day it may have gone our way but as with the Ben Smith non try in the previous fixture it went NZs way. At that point we were still in the game and on another day I think we may have drawn them back in as the effort and game plan was there so not too disheartened.

Really happy with the Irish performance given the context of the match, I think it was closer than the scoreline suggested.

Some of the young guys like Ringrose, Furlong, VDF, Stander and Jackson really stepped up to a new level but so impressed with Best, Heaslip, Trimble, Ryan who seem to be getting better with age - O'Brien looks to be coming back to his best too.

Heaslip in particular is in the form of his career and he and Best must be potential lions captain.

NZ defence was brutal, often legally but sometimes not, another referee may have shown another few cards.

They were good for the win but I believe we have closed the gap and shown Chicago was no fluke. Hopefully we have something in the tank got the wallabies  -a win would cap of an excellent November series.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ebop wrote:No keep them open please

Maybe this will open yours:




I've changed my mind. There was no head contact. The angle you posted creates the illusion of a head clash but, as you can clearly see o0 it was the shoulder.

Other view:



Very clearly leading with the shoulder.

Cynical angles.

Didn't watch the game, but that looks horrible. Leading with the shoulder and goes high to the head, how on earth was Cane allowed to stay on the pitch for that? Clear red card IMO, expect to see a couple weeks ban at least.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:New Zealand were the better side so congrats to them. Was disappointed that they were quite dirty and cynical and was also quite disappointed with the referee.

The game reminded me of the Ireland France game in the six nations. France beat up Ireland, they were very dirty and anytime Ireland came close to scoring they gave away a cynical penalty and yet were never carded for it. Jaco Peyper was referee that day too. The message that comes across after these two games is that it pays to be dirty and cynical.

NZ deserved the win but was disappointed how it unfolded. I think TJ Perrenara's pass was forward for the last try and it should have been reviewed. The Barret try I have seen them given as a try or disallowed. If it was our day it may have gone our way but as with the Ben Smith non try in the previous fixture it went NZs way. At that point we were still in the game and on another day I think we may have drawn them back in as the effort and game plan was there so not too disheartened.

Throw in the disallowed Heaslip try that on replay was actually a try, but Peyper didn't even deem it worth a look.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ebop wrote:No keep them open please

Maybe this will open yours:




I've changed my mind. There was no head contact. The angle you posted creates the illusion of a head clash but, as you can clearly see o0 it was the shoulder.

Other view:



Very clearly leading with the shoulder.

Cynical angles.

Didn't watch the game, but that looks horrible. Leading with the shoulder and goes high to the head, how on earth was Cane allowed to stay on the pitch for that? Clear red card IMO, expect to see a couple weeks ban at least.

New Zealand dont get red cards. You can be absolutely 100% guaranteed that the line from Hansen and the ABs will be that it was completely unintentional and accidental.

The Great Aukster wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:New Zealand were the better side so congrats to them. Was disappointed that they were quite dirty and cynical and was also quite disappointed with the referee.

The game reminded me of the Ireland France game in the six nations. France beat up Ireland, they were very dirty and anytime Ireland came close to scoring they gave away a cynical penalty and yet were never carded for it. Jaco Peyper was referee that day too. The message that comes across after these two games is that it pays to be dirty and cynical.

NZ deserved the win but was disappointed how it unfolded. I think TJ Perrenara's pass was forward for the last try and it should have been reviewed. The Barret try I have seen them given as a try or disallowed. If it was our day it may have gone our way but as with the Ben Smith non try in the previous fixture it went NZs way. At that point we were still in the game and on another day I think we may have drawn them back in as the effort and game plan was there so not too disheartened.

Throw in the disallowed Heaslip try that on replay was actually a try, but Peyper didn't even deem it worth a look.

Don't think he could look at that though as he blew the whistle before Heaslip dotted down

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Didn't watch the game, but that looks horrible. Leading with the shoulder and goes high to the head, how on earth was Cane allowed to stay on the pitch for that? Clear red card IMO, expect to see a couple weeks ban at least.

I didn't think that was the worse one - Fekitoa nearly took Zebo's head off and the one on Stander was bad- there were at least 5 that were yellow cards, 1 or 2 borderline red.

That said Trimble should have went to the bin for the attempted intercept when it was certain try, so it wasn't all one way but the ref and TMO were very poor.

Both AB tries were good in my opinion although have seen them not awarded.

Thought Fekitoa was more clumsy than vicious, looked like an accidental clothesline as he's beaten by Zebo's step inside. YC correct decision for me. Cane certainly should have gone though IMO, it's a deliberate shoulder and hits him on the head. Felt like cheap targeting of one of Ireland's key players.

Taylorman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Don't agree, Fly. It's fair to look at what we could control and what we couldn't. I have already pointed out that Ireland were at fault for lack of composure at times, ball handling letting us down. The ABs should be credited for some outstanding defense as well.
The things we couldn't control should be looked at also. The ABs were cynical. The amount of penalty's tell as that much. Why should anyone turn a blind eye to that? In the interests of niceness? We should be able to give honest opinions on the game without being shackled by some pc supporters code.
If any criticism is over the top, or unfair, then it's right to challenge that, but not gag it.

Why?
Because the games over. Where's it gonna get you?

You could say that about any post match discussion. In having a discussion about reasons why points were won/lost I think it's relevant to speak about those things that were outside our control.

I think the ABs crossed a line with some of the head shots, but they are a fantastic side and I still have huge respect for them. I'm all for a really bruising contest, and both tests delivered that in spades. Just watch the head.

rodders wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Didn't watch the game, but that looks horrible. Leading with the shoulder and goes high to the head, how on earth was Cane allowed to stay on the pitch for that? Clear red card IMO, expect to see a couple weeks ban at least.

I didn't think that was the worse one - Fekitoa nearly took Zebo's head off and the one on Stander was bad- there were at least 5 that were yellow cards, 1 or 2 borderline red.

That said Trimble should have went to the bin for the attempted intercept when it was certain try, so it wasn't all one way but the ref and TMO were very poor.

Both AB tries were good in my opinion although have seen them not awarded.

Barretts should not have been awarded given the question asked

Also Ireland should have had a penalty try for the AB backrow pulling down a rampaging Irish scrum

Never been a fan of Peyper and this game reaffirmed why, how those in charge at World Rugby think he and a few others are capable when games become like the Wild West is baffling

rodders wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:
Didn't watch the game, but that looks horrible. Leading with the shoulder and goes high to the head, how on earth was Cane allowed to stay on the pitch for that? Clear red card IMO, expect to see a couple weeks ban at least.

I didn't think that was the worse one - Fekitoa nearly took Zebo's head off and the one on Stander was bad- there were at least 5 that were yellow cards, 1 or 2 borderline red.

That said Trimble should have went to the bin for the attempted intercept when it was certain try, so it wasn't all one way but the ref and TMO were very poor.

Both AB tries were good in my opinion although have seen them not awarded.

Dont agree re Trimble. He attempted to catch the ball rather than knock it down. That would have been really harsh.

The Stander incident:

JOE.I.E

Two GIFs

Doesn't look good.