Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Page 17 of 20 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by George Carlin on Mon 14 Nov 2016, 7:15 am

First topic message reminder :

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Irelan10       Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 All_bl10
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 
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Guinne10
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
Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Speigh10
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.


Last edited by George Carlin on Sat 19 Nov 2016, 12:35 pm; edited 3 times in total
George Carlin
George Carlin
Admin
Admin

Posts : 14708
Join date : 2011-06-23
Location : United Arab Emirates

Back to top Go down


Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:39 am

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE!!!

Why is that so hard to grasp for some?

The law states if you tackle above the shoulder its foul play, the panel have created a whole new interpretation contrary to the laws of the game and the most recent edict from World Rugby.

The panel have said it wasn't foul play because it was accidental yet there is no mention of intent anywhere in the laws

How can you tackle someone accidentally?

Where you make contact can be accidental

picard

But a an accidental tackle? The panel ruled it accidental. So it can't have been a player making a tackle. So it cant have been a high tackle.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:40 am

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DELIBERATE!!!

Why is that so hard to grasp for some?

The law states if you tackle above the shoulder its foul play, the panel have created a whole new interpretation contrary to the laws of the game and the most recent edict from World Rugby.

The panel have said it wasn't foul play because it was accidental yet there is no mention of intent anywhere in the laws

How can you tackle someone accidentally?

Where you make contact can be accidental

picard

But a an accidental tackle? The panel ruled it accidental. So it can't have been a player making a tackle. So it cant have been a high tackle.

You cant be that dumb?

The contact with the head was the accidental part not the tackle

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:40 am

I guess I'll bow out of the conversation now. I don't wish to let it get into name calling.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:41 am

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

It looks that way, but if you look at the incident frame by frame, you can clearly see that he doesn't. Sexton catches the player around the collar and his hand sticks there. So, it's most likely that Sexton has him by the collar. Still a high tackle, but not a strike.

Still looks like a strike to the head to me. The fact he then grabbed his collar is incidental. Should have been cited.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 LZV21x

Oh come on. What sort of strike is it that Sexton manages to grab the collar. Also, watch it frame by frame. Sexton doesn't strike the head. You honestly think that deserves a citing?

What did deserve a citing was Daggs clearly driving the shoulder into the head of Stander. Wasn't even penalised.


Last edited by Munchkin on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:42 am; edited 1 time in total

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Pete330v2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:42 am

Try reading this article from Mr D'arcy folks. Well written and insightful as usual.

http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/gordon-d-arcy-when-you-go-over-the-edge-there-should-be-consequences-1.2878356

Pete330v2

Posts : 3780
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:43 am

RugbyFan100 wrote:I guess I'll bow out of the conversation now. I don't wish to let it get into name calling.

Rolling Eyes

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:43 am

marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So it seems if you claim it was an accident you can get away with it but you hold your hands up you get punished Rolling Eyes

Much like a murder case might go.  You plead innocent, you might get off on a technicality.  You plead guilty - court proceedings end and you're sentenced.


The technicality being that those presiding are incompetent?

No.  I just don't get the bit where you say a player claims 'an accident' and 'can get away with it'.  That's the logical first step in getting away with anything - claiming it was an accident.  Then the debates go on about whether it was or not.  But you get the chance to do the pleading when you don't admit guilt.

The player that owns up is a player pleading guilty.  The guilty get punished.  Your initial comment seems to suggest it should be the other way round?  Claim accident, get punished.  Admit guilt, get off?

SecretFly

Posts : 30889
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Pete330v2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:44 am

Also on the subject of Irish whinging etc here's what Mick Kearney had to say

Kearney, never given to flights of fancy during his five-year tenure with Declan Kidney and Joe Schmidt, said the citing officer for the match, Bruce Kulklinski, a Kiwi Canadian, said there were 12 incidents that needed looking at and just one of those related to Ireland.
He added that Ireland should not be seen as a whinging team after defeat and that the Irish management had made no complaints after the match. Kulkinski’s work alone identified the possible transgressions.

“We don’t cite anybody. We don’t make complaints to the citing officer because at the end of the day they have the angles to look at the game. The citing officer has the angles to look at it forensically.”


Pete330v2

Posts : 3780
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:49 am

SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

So it seems if you claim it was an accident you can get away with it but you hold your hands up you get punished Rolling Eyes

Much like a murder case might go.  You plead innocent, you might get off on a technicality.  You plead guilty - court proceedings end and you're sentenced.


The technicality being that those presiding are incompetent?

No.  I just don't get the bit where you say a player claims 'an accident' and 'can get away with it'.  That's the logical first step in getting away with anything - claiming it was an accident.  Then the debates go on about whether it was or not.  But you get the chance to do the pleading when you don't admit guilt.

The player that owns up is a player pleading guilty.  The guilty get punished.  Your initial comment seems to suggest it should be the other way round?  Claim accident, get punished.  Admit guilt, get off?

My overall point, poorly made as it is, is that Fekitoa did not deliberately make contact with Zebos head. Canes was not deliberate either.

The panels ruling clearly says Fekitoa deserved red, yet it was accidental so how can being accidental then be used as a get out when Fekitoa could have been ruled as just being a penalty as it was accidental.

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by munkian on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:50 am

Has anyone accused the actual team of moaning ?
munkian
munkian

Posts : 8456
Join date : 2011-04-01
Age : 38
Location : Bristol/The Port

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 11:52 am

munkian wrote:Has anyone accused the actual team of moaning ?

AB supporters have. They have accused the team of reporting the incidents. I don't think any of the news outlets have though.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by SecretFly on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:14 pm

munkian wrote:Has anyone accused the actual team of moaning ?

If they did, they'd be wrong. Rory said he has children of his own and concussion is not a thing he likes looking at on the field. Does any player?

The rest of the guys were actually being reasonable about the intensity of the game.... things happen at that pace and that power level. One of the newbies, can't remember who at the moment, even said if wasn't that big a deal playing them in terms of what he was led to expect....

But even so - neither should any of the players feel the need to Not Speak, if they felt they wanted to, simply to avoid the Dreaded Kiwi 'Whinger' title! Wink

We've overtaken England!!!!! We've won the Whinger Cup!!!! Yahoo Beat that, Old Blighty! Wink

SecretFly

Posts : 30889
Join date : 2011-12-12

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Rory_Gallagher on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:19 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Rory_Gallagher

Posts : 11324
Join date : 2011-09-18
Age : 27
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:32 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Guessing what Cane was going to do is presumptious and cannot form the base of any foul play sanction. All we know is what happened. And what happened was a complete accident, as the panel rightly concluded.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:33 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Guessing what Cane was going to do is presumptious and cannot form the base of any foul play sanction. All we know is what happened. And what happened was a complete accident, as the panel rightly concluded.

Can you show me in the laws where it says that intent matters?

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:35 pm

The laws actually specifically mention that if a tackle starts below the line of the shoulder but moves up its still a penalty

Why people go on about accidental is really baffling

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:40 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Guessing what Cane was going to do is presumptious and cannot form the base of any foul play sanction. All we know is what happened. And what happened was a complete accident, as the panel rightly concluded.

Can you show me in the laws where it says that intent matters?

I cannot.

What you seem to be hinting at is that if a player runs into you, it must be foul play. I'm sure you can see that is a bit silly.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:42 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Guessing what Cane was going to do is presumptious and cannot form the base of any foul play sanction. All we know is what happened. And what happened was a complete accident, as the panel rightly concluded.

Can you show me in the laws where it says that intent matters?

I cannot.

What you seem to be hinting at is that if a player runs into you, it must be foul play. I'm sure you  can see that is a bit silly.

Im not hinting at anything Im clearly saying that the edict is that if you make contact with a players head its foul play. The panel have clearly contradicted the laws and statements from their employers with the ruling


marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:47 pm

marty2086 wrote:

Im not hinting at anything Im clearly saying that the edict is that if you make contact with a players head its foul play. The panel have clearly contradicted the laws and statements from their employers with the ruling


So if you brush against another players head whilst jumping for a lineout, it's foul play? Can you point me to the law which confirms this?

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:48 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
.Cane clattering into Henshaw was a complete accident. He was preparing himself for a possible maul situation. Correct to face no sanction.
.New Zealand should have had a penalty try when Trimble deliberately knocked the ball on.

You seem to be using reverse logic on these two

The first one the intent is irrelevant, it doesn't matter what he was preparing himself for he was still going high

Looks to me like he was going to wrap his arms around a maul situation. There is no way a human being can plan to deliberately shoulder a players head within 0.1 seconds. If you start banning players for "what they might have been trying to do" then it's a dangerous precedent. The hearing got it right thankfully. Absolute accident.

For it to be a penalty try it has to be a deliberate knock on, now you may think it was but seeing it  looked like to try to regather it

You can still try and gather a deliberate knock on. There was such a small chance that he would ever catch the ball at that pace that it should have been seen as a deliberate attempt to disrupt the play.

Leading with the shoulder in a maul situation is also an illegal offence.

Guessing what Cane was going to do is presumptious and cannot form the base of any foul play sanction. All we know is what happened. And what happened was a complete accident, as the panel rightly concluded.

Can you show me in the laws where it says that intent matters?

I cannot.

What you seem to be hinting at is that if a player runs into you, it must be foul play. I'm sure you  can see that is a bit silly.

Obstruction you mean?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:49 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Im not hinting at anything Im clearly saying that the edict is that if you make contact with a players head its foul play. The panel have clearly contradicted the laws and statements from their employers with the ruling


So if you brush against another players head whilst jumping for a lineout, it's foul play? Can you point me to the law which confirms this?

Now you are getting ridiculous

You want to know, read back Ive posted it 10.4

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:52 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Im not hinting at anything Im clearly saying that the edict is that if you make contact with a players head its foul play. The panel have clearly contradicted the laws and statements from their employers with the ruling


So if you brush against another players head whilst jumping for a lineout, it's foul play? Can you point me to the law which confirms this?

Now you are getting ridiculous

You want to know, read back Ive posted it 10.4

Dangerous tackle? It wasn't a tackle. You can't tackle someone accidentally.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:55 pm

It was a tackle as there wasn't 3 players involved at that moment.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:57 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:

Im not hinting at anything Im clearly saying that the edict is that if you make contact with a players head its foul play. The panel have clearly contradicted the laws and statements from their employers with the ruling


So if you brush against another players head whilst jumping for a lineout, it's foul play? Can you point me to the law which confirms this?

Now you are getting ridiculous

You want to know, read back Ive posted it 10.4

Dangerous tackle? It wasn't a tackle. You can't tackle someone accidentally.

So he was just standing there and fell into Henshaw?

You are really talking sh!te, he clearly went into Henshaw if it wasn't a tackle was he wanting a hug?

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:57 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a tackle as there wasn't 3 players involved at that moment.

A tackle has to be a conscious effort by the tackler. The panel ruled it was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:58 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a tackle as there wasn't 3 players involved at that moment.

A tackle has to be a conscious effort by the tackler. The panel ruled it was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

They did no such thing

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 12:59 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a tackle as there wasn't 3 players involved at that moment.

A tackle has to be a conscious effort by the tackler. The panel ruled it was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

So he ran into the player without using his arms. Even worse if he wasn't even thinking of a tackle.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:03 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a tackle as there wasn't 3 players involved at that moment.

A tackle has to be a conscious effort by the tackler. The panel ruled it was an accidental collision, not a tackle.

So he ran into the player without using his arms. Even worse if he wasn't even thinking of a tackle.

Nope. The player ran into him.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:05 pm

So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:07 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

Cane just happened to propel himself forward unaware Henshaw was there Erm

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:08 pm

Not according to RF, as he didn't instigate any contact at all so must have been stationary. Not what I saw and continue to see on those replays though.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:09 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not according to RF, as he didn't instigate any contact at all so must have been stationary. Not what I saw and continue to see on those replays though.

Starting to think hes just a troll

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Pete330v2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:11 pm

I've read many delusional things on here over the years but this crock that rugbyfan is posting really does take the biscuit. Bravo for posting the dumbest crapola I've read on 606v2, bravo.

Pete330v2

Posts : 3780
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:11 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

I don't recall claiming Cane was stationary.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:12 pm

So Cane was actually moving towards him and making a tackle then. Glad we got there at least RF.

BTW are the same RF who was an England fan?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by marty2086 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:13 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

I don't recall claiming Cane was stationary.

Nope you claimed he didn't tackle Henshaw despite making a move towards him so if he wasn't tackling him, which moving his head to the side and trying to wrap his arms indicates, then what in the name of holy sweet jaybus was he doing?

marty2086

Posts : 11208
Join date : 2011-05-13
Age : 33
Location : Belfast

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:13 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was actually moving towards him and making a tackle then. Glad we got there at least RF.


Why does he have to be making a tackle just because he is moving?

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:14 pm

marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

I don't recall claiming Cane was stationary.

Nope you claimed he didn't tackle Henshaw despite making a move towards him so if he wasn't tackling him, which moving his head to the side and trying to wrap his arms indicates, then what in the name of holy sweet jaybus was he doing?

Getting ready to join a maul situation. (As you've indicated by wrapping his arms)

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So Cane was stationary in your view then and not wanting to influence play?

I don't recall claiming Cane was stationary.

Nope you claimed he didn't tackle Henshaw despite making a move towards him so if he wasn't tackling him, which moving his head to the side and trying to wrap his arms indicates, then what in the name of holy sweet jaybus was he doing?

Getting ready to join a maul situation. (As you've indicated by wrapping his arms)

A 1 on 1 maul is a tackle, indeed even if there's more than one player involved it's a tackle until the ref calls maul. So no arm tackle, leading with shoulder and high.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Pete330v2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:15 pm

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 1347041234

Pete330v2

Posts : 3780
Join date : 2012-05-04

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:17 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:19 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Doesn't matter if he ran in (whoch he did) or not as you've admitted that he was trying to instigate a maul. As he was the only one involved and the ref hadn't called maul it was a tackle. Hence no arm, and high.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:20 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 SplendidUntidyAgama

Shocked













Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:21 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Doesn't matter if he ran in (whoch he did) or not as you've admitted that he was trying to instigate a maul. As he was the only one involved and the ref hadn't called maul it was a tackle. Hence no arm, and high.

Why would he be the only one involved? I believe he thought he'd try and join Keiran Read and Henshaw in an upright position by wrapping his arms round them. But Henshaw unexpectedly spun into him in a fraction of a second.


RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:23 pm

[quote="Munchkin"]
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 SplendidUntidyAgama

Shocked



That's a great gif. Who's got the most momentum there?

RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:23 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Doesn't matter if he ran in (whoch he did) or not as you've admitted that he was trying to instigate a maul. As he was the only one involved and the ref hadn't called maul it was a tackle. Hence no arm, and high.

Why would he be the only one involved? I believe he thought he'd try and join Keiran Read and Henshaw in an upright position by wrapping his arms round them. But Henshaw unexpectedly spun into him in a  fraction of a second.


And once he was 1 on 1 with Cane it was a tackle.

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Guest on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:24 pm

RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 SplendidUntidyAgama

Shocked



That's a great gif. Who's got the most momentum there?

Forward momentum? That would be Cane.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by No 7&1/2 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:24 pm

Who do you support RF?

No 7&1/2

Posts : 18881
Join date : 2012-10-20

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by RugbyFan100 on Wed 23 Nov 2016, 1:25 pm

Munchkin wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
RugbyFan100 wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:So he ran into Henshaw without instigating a tackle. So that comes under not using the arms and is a foul. Are you the England fan RF we used to have?

He didn't run into Henshaw. I'm not the poster you speak of.

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 SplendidUntidyAgama

Shocked



That's a great gif. Who's got the most momentum there?

Forward momentum? That would be Cane.

No, momentum. - Henshaw.


RugbyFan100

Posts : 1615
Join date : 2016-10-07

Back to top Go down

Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November - Page 17 Empty Re: Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 17 of 20 Previous  1 ... 10 ... 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum