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 7&1/2 wrote:

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.

So every time 2 players collide, and 1 has the ball, it is a tackle?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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.

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

Forward momentum? That would be Cane.

No, momentum. - Henshaw.

So you don't think Cane had momentum?

Break it down for me.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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.

So every time 2 players collide, and 1 has the ball, it is a tackle?

Yup.

Or an attempt at one.

But we've moved past this as you've admitted it was an attempt at a tackle. Who do you support RF?

I like the idea that in the fraction of a second after this still image, that it takes Henshaw to spin around into Cane's immediate area, Cane has the superhuman speed of thought process to think of going for Henshaw's head, move into position and thrust his shoulder into Henshaw's head area deliberately trying to injure him via  ahead injury.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But we've moved past this as you've admitted it was an attempt at a tackle. Who do you support RF?

It is not an attempt at a tackle because it is an accidental collision. I don't really have a team, just follow all rugby.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

I like the idea that in the fraction of a second after this still image, that it takes Henshaw to spin around into Cane's immediate area, Cane has the superhuman speed of thought process to think of going for Henshaw's head, move into position and thrust his shoulder into Henshaw's head area deliberately trying to injure him via  ahead injury.

Cane is already setting himself for the tackle there.

Did anyone look at Cane's knee????

Hmmmm............ quite sinister. Only spotted that now.

An accidental collision? But you've just stated more than once he was going to try and create a maul (through tackling him).

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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.

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

Forward momentum? That would be Cane.

No, momentum. - Henshaw.

So you don't think Cane had momentum?

Break it down for me.

Again, I have not stated Cane had no momentum. Just that Henshaw had more momentum, which shows Henshaw is travelling towards Cane and not the other way around.

SecretFly wrote:Did anyone look at Cane's knee????

Hmmmm............ quite sinister.  Only spotted that now.

Clearly aiming for the tail of Henshaws spine

But you said Cane wasn't stationary so they were travelling towards each other.

No 7&1/2 wrote:An accidental collision? But you've just stated more than once he was going to try and create a maul (through tackling him).

Right (apart from the tackling bit). He was going to join a possible maul situation. He ended up colliding with Henshaw about 2 metres infront of where he thought contact would take place. Because Henshaw unexpectedly spins out of the Reid contact. This is probably all in the Citing hearing info if it is released.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

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.

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

Forward momentum? That would be Cane.

No, momentum. - Henshaw.

So you don't think Cane had momentum?

Break it down for me.

Again, I have not stated Cane had no momentum. Just that Henshaw had more momentum, which shows Henshaw is travelling towards Cane and not the other way around.

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But you said Cane wasn't stationary so they were travelling towards each other.

This is correct

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

Munchkin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Did anyone look at Cane's knee????

Hmmmm............ quite sinister.  Only spotted that now.

Clearly aiming for the tail of Henshaws spine

Just what I thought. I'd say he should get a lifetime ban now, to be honest, in all fairness, at the end of the day, when all is said and done.

But then I looked at the number '2' on Henshaw's shirt...and well, I have to say, he was just as bad. That was sickening stuff.
There are no good guys in that clash. Both should never be let play rugby again.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

How can you disagree? It's all there in front of your eyes.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:An accidental collision? But you've just stated more than once he was going to try and create a maul (through tackling him).

Right (apart from the tackling bit). He was going to join a possible maul situation. He ended up colliding with Henshaw about 2 metres infront of where he thought contact would take place. Because Henshaw unexpectedly spins out of the Reid contact. This is probably all in the Citing hearing info if it is released.

Yes and joining that potential maul would have resulted him tackling Henshaw as the ref hadn't called maul. Indeed when Henshaw spun out it's then a 1 on tackle. Where Cane doesn't use his arm and ends up going high with the shoulder. Taking it back to my first post, penalty and yellow for me.

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

How can you disagree? It's all there in front of your eyes.

Because Henshaw travels about 2 metres towards Cane after he launches himself off his left foot.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

How can you disagree? It's all there in front of your eyes.

Because Henshaw travels about 2 metres towards Cane after he launches himself off his left foot.

He traveled two metres without moving his right leg? Some man.

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

It's a double whammy. One AB collision twists and disorientates, the other comes in for the put down. Both ABs moving forward, Henshaw twisting on the spot because of the hit he got just before the second.

Tough game.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

How can you disagree? It's all there in front of your eyes.

Because Henshaw travels about 2 metres towards Cane after he launches himself off his left foot.

You mean when Cane tackles him?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:An accidental collision? But you've just stated more than once he was going to try and create a maul (through tackling him).

Right (apart from the tackling bit). He was going to join a possible maul situation. He ended up colliding with Henshaw about 2 metres infront of where he thought contact would take place. Because Henshaw unexpectedly spins out of the Reid contact. This is probably all in the Citing hearing info if it is released.

Yes and joining that potential maul would have resulted him tackling Henshaw as the ref hadn't called maul. Indeed when Henshaw spun out it's then a 1 on tackle. Where Cane doesn't use his arm and ends up going high with the shoulder. Taking it back to my first post, penalty and yellow for me.

Well we don't know how that maul situation would have ended up as we can't hypothesis over something that didn't take place. But the body shape that Cane would have got set to join a possible maul situation is nothing like the body shape that he would have made for an attempted tackle. That's why the panel did not suspend Cane. Because the eventual situation where Cane makes contact with Henshaw was one he was not prepared for. It wasn't a premeditated tackle. He was getting ready to join 2 upright players not to tackle one to the ground. Your understanding of the situation is blurred because you are lumping different actions together into the term "tackle".

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Henshaw isn't travelling anywhere. Look at his right leg. It's rooted.

I'm going to have to disagree with that one

How can you disagree? It's all there in front of your eyes.

Because Henshaw travels about 2 metres towards Cane after he launches himself off his left foot.

You mean when Cane tackles him?

Cane doesn't tackle him. Henshaw collides into Cane.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:An accidental collision? But you've just stated more than once he was going to try and create a maul (through tackling him).

Right (apart from the tackling bit). He was going to join a possible maul situation. He ended up colliding with Henshaw about 2 metres infront of where he thought contact would take place. Because Henshaw unexpectedly spins out of the Reid contact. This is probably all in the Citing hearing info if it is released.

Yes and joining that potential maul would have resulted him tackling Henshaw as the ref hadn't called maul. Indeed when Henshaw spun out it's then a 1 on tackle. Where Cane doesn't use his arm and ends up going high with the shoulder. Taking it back to my first post, penalty and yellow for me.

Well we don't know how that maul situation would have ended up as we can't hypothesis over something that didn't take place. But the body shape that Cane would have got set to join a possible maul situation is nothing like the body shape that he would have made for an attempted tackle. That's why the panel did not suspend Cane. Because the eventual situation where Cane makes contact with Henshaw was one he was not prepared for. It wasn't a premeditated tackle. He was getting ready to join 2 upright players not to tackle one to the ground. Your understanding of the situation is blurred because you are lumping different actions together into the term "tackle".

Possibly true that he was set to join a maul, but false that he followed through with that intention. Just look at how Cane slightly adjusts his run to target Henshaw (just before impact). It's obvious that Cane intended the tackle and aimed high.

Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Cane doesn't tackle him. Henshaw collides into Cane.

Come on, RugbyFan...who was Cane running towards? The man in possession? I'd hope so or Hansen would have been pi-ssed. He was running at Henshaw to try and dispossess him. He was after Henshaw.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

They did, and I'm sure every citing panel has got it right .....

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

I blame Gavin Henson/Danny Cipriani/Richie McCaw/Steve Shingler/Andy Robinson/Craig Joubert (delete as appropriate)

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

They may believe the shoulder to head was accidental, but they are not going to believe that the collision was accidental.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

He did get penalised....

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

He did get penalised....

Right. He also got cited.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

He did get penalised....

Right. He also got cited.

Hold on here, RF. If you're going to debate at least try to be honest.

You said; "If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. "

So now you must agree that there was an infringement, and that you were mistaken in your belief that there was no infringement.

You must also conclude that the basis for your argument is null and void.

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

He did get penalised....

Right. He also got cited.

Hold on here, RF. If you're going to debate at least try to be honest.

You said; "If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. "

So now you must agree that there was an infringement, and that you were mistaken in your belief that there was no infringement.

You must also conclude that the basis for your argument is null and void.

You've lost me. There was no infringement. It should not have been a penalty.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Is season one of this on Netflix?

It's good! It's very good.

You can't just run into players without using your arms or that would be tackling without using your arms. Starting to believe you don't really follow much rugby as you don't understand basic laws it appears.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Both

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can't just run into players without using your arms or that would be tackling without using your arms. Starting to believe you don't really follow much rugby as you don't understand basic laws it appears.

+1

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Both

Then why did he propel himself forward?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yes as does the rule book RF. It was a tackle hence he has to obey rules like using his arms, not leading with the shoulder and keeping it below the neck. I assume you agree it was at least a pen. By the sounds of it you do and we agree it wasn't a red.

If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. There was no infringement. Henshaw ran into a player who was setting up to join two upright players.

He did get penalised....

Right. He also got cited.

Hold on here, RF. If you're going to debate at least try to be honest.

You said; "If it was at least a penalty, then there would have to be an infringement. "

So now you must agree that there was an infringement, and that you were mistaken in your belief that there was no infringement.

You must also conclude that the basis for your argument is null and void.

You've lost me. There was no infringement. It should not have been a penalty.

Ah, my bad if that's what you genuinely meant.

So, we're still left with the clear video evidence that you are in denial of. The evidence is clear that Cane intended the hit. The evidence is clear that Cane intended to hit high. There is doubt that Cane intended to strike the head with his shoulder.

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Oh, and look at how Cane adjusts his direction just before impact with Henshaw. It was deliberate.

Thankfully the hearing concluded otherwise.

Sweet jaysus

Please show us where they concluded that

Where they said it was accidental.

And what part did they say was accidental?

I'm going by the report on the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38072748

"Cane was reported for the high tackle which ended Robbie Henshaw's game. However, the disciplinary committee ruled Cane's actions had been accidental and he had not therefore committed an act of foul play."

What action was accidental?

The contact to the head or the fact there was contact at all?

Both

Then why did he propel himself forward?

Because he was expecting to join 2 upright players 2 metres further forward.