South Africa v Ireland, 11 June

First topic message reminder :

        
SOUTH AFRICA v IRELAND
11 June 2016
17:00 SAST (UTC+02)
DHL Newlands, Cape Town

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Mathieu Raynal (France)
Touch judges: [tbc]
Television match official: [tbc]

A. Head to Head

22 Played 22
16 Won 5
1 Drawn 1
5 Lost 16
422 Points 277

B. Recent Form

8 November 2014 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 29 – 15 to Ireland

10 November 2012 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 12 – 16 to South Africa

6 November 2010 - Aviva Stadium, Dublin: 21 – 23 to South Africa

28 November 2009 - Croke Park, Dublin: 15 – 10 to Ireland

11 November 2006 - Lansdowne Road, Dublin: 32 – 15 to Ireland

13 November 2004 - Lansdowne Road, Dublin: 17 – 12 to Ireland

19 June 2004 - Newlands, Cape Town: 26 – 17 to South Africa

C. Teams

SOUTH AFRICA 

15 Willie le Roux, 14 JP Pietersen, 13 Lionel Mapoe, 12 Damian de Allende, 11 Lwazi Mvovo, 10 Pat Lambie, 9 Faf de Klerk, 8 Duane Vermeulen, 7 Siya Kolisi, 6 Francois Louw, 5 Lood de Jager, 4 Eben Etzebeth, 3 Frans Malherbe, 2 Adriaan Strauss (captain), 1 Tendai Mtawarira

Substitutes: 16 Bongi Mbonambi 17 Trevor Nyakane 18 Julian Redelinghuys 19 Pieter-Steph du Toit 20 Warren Whiteley 21 Rudy Paige 22 Elton Jantjies 23 Jesse Kriel

IRELAND

J Payne; A Trimble, R Henshaw, L Marshall, K Earls; P Jackson, C Murray; J McGrath, R Best, M Ross; I Henderson, D Toner; CJ Stander, J Murphy, J Heaslip

Replacements: S Cronin, F Bealham, T Furlong, U Dillane, R Ruddock, K Marmion, I Madigan, C Gilroy.

Golden wrote:

toml wrote:

Sin é wrote:That was just a great win. Gutted for CJ. Must be very hard on him as apart from anything else, Patrick Lambie is a friend of his - they played U20s rugby for the Boks.

Special congratulations to Luke Marshall & Paddy Jackson. Both were fantastic today. What a difference Payne makes at fullback. He was brilliant  (and looked to be really comfortable there). Hope he gets to stay there.

Spot on. Payne made such a big difference. Connor Murray was superb too once he settled in.

He was very good today, but what was with that box kick on the half way line that went about 10 metres with about 4 minutes left. Just keep the ball or clear your lines properly.

I didn't know why we gave them possession back
With 40 seconds to go as well

Almost as bad as throwing a pass for an intercept try...

Geen sport voor watjes wrote:Almost as bad as throwing a pass for an intercept try...

You need to let the Madigan thing drop. It's history now

fa0019 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:I've decided to ignore my head and sound reasoning and put my money where my heart is.

€40 on Ireland to win at 5/1.

Obviously the bookies know best, but still couldn't resist....

South Africa are 1/8 and NZ 1/20 - doomsday stuff.

The manic depressant strategy right... double the joy double the pain.

Double the joy

Late to the party but just wanted to say from an England fan well done Ireland, phenomenal performance considering the early red card. Might not be the best SA team I've ever seen but that was some achievement. Hope you can carry on and take the series.

Notch wrote:

offload wrote:When the dust settles I'd like to know from Irish fans where they think that performance came from because it was absent in the 6N's.  

Brilliant gutsy win.  

Honestly, I think the issue in the Six Nations was Schmidt having to coach both defence and attack and us having really bad injuries in the tight five. Farrell has come in and taken on the role of defence and contact freeing up Schmidt work more on what he's really good at- I don't know any other Union that would let us go into a tournament with a major vacancy in the coaching staff the other coaches have to cover for. But even with that I think if we had the tight five we had out today we could have won against Wales and France because the scrum would have been a different contest and thats where France and Wales engineered their scores and really ground our pack down.

Not saying we deserved to get anything out of the games, we didn't, they are in the past and its easy to talk hypotheticals until the cows come home... but you can't underestimate the difference Ross and Henderson make to that pack. It's massive. I don't think we were a million miles away from that- it seems like we were awful, but the margins are so thin. It was better than we expected but we have produced similar performances under Schmidt.

I think it was the best result of the Schmidt era, for me the best performance was probably the one we just lost to the All Blacks at the death.

Accurate I think - without a defensive coach, Joe couldn't risk messing with our defensive line, and so he picked Payne at 13. Now we have a defensive coach, and Joe is freed to do the great work he always does with players. Some on other forums were implying that this win was all due to Farrell, Farrell is now our real coach. Absurd, but not because Farrell isn't essential. Rather, it means we have a fully stocked backroom staff. We haven't felt like we had the backroom staff in place Joe wanted since the Plumtree days (when we played some great stuff/NZ heartbreak game etc). In the same way on the pitch, every player knowing their role, means we tend to win, having coaches where everyone has a specific role is pretty essential.

Also offloading. Heaslip, Henderson and MacGrath all looked to offload constantly, it wasn't just Payne and Henshaw (though they made some beauties). We do look like we play %s rugby with offloads... Only throw one if its a +80% chance of coming off, and i noticed Heaslip in particular yesterday, looking to throw the 50/50 and then though better and went to ground. I think this is the best way to play with the players we have needing to get used to that style.

Many people are also saying we wouldn't have won except injuries "forced" Joe to make good selections. Nonsense and a disservice to Irish players who gave their hearts yesterday, and many times before. I think (for all the reasons above and seeing where this team now is) we would still have won, even if Kearney was FB. I think in that alternate universe, a Henshaw/Payne centre partnership would have run this SA team ragged. We will never know for sure, and I am delighted with how we played. How we started was amazing. How our players went from shellshocked to determined after the red, with Paddy having his finest ever 20mins as a player to pull us still alive into half time. And how we created a second half set of tactics, led my an amazing Murray (and Paddy again) which pushed SA into mistakes constantly.

We should win the series, but I am expecting a titanic backlash next weekend.

Having watched the game back last night, what I loved was that when we when down to 13 men the dicision was made to keep attacking the boks in the wide channels.
No safety first let's kick it deep, just raw bloody minded feck it lets go at em. Amazing to see.
And what did we feed jordi Murphy? He finished the league season kinda meh , but yesterday he was everywhere every ruck, every tackle he was there every break he was first there (prob a bit of exaggeration there but he ran himself to the ground)

That moment when you wake up and realise yesterday wasn't just a dream 

The moment you realise it wasn't a dream and either were the several ciders and large rum and cokes and you have to be at work at 8am.
But my god it was worth it

And by several I mean enough to kill a rhino. The 4 mile bike ride to work will be fun

I have only seen highlights of this game, but will catch one of the many full replays over the next few days.

Good on you Irish guys make the most of it, I actually had a bit of a sneaky that you might go well on this tour.

Enjoy.

wolfball wrote:

Many people are also saying we wouldn't have won except injuries "forced" Joe to make good selections. Nonsense and a disservice to Irish players who gave their hearts yesterday, and many times before. I think (for all the reasons above and seeing where this team now is) we would still have won, even if Kearney was FB. I think in that alternate universe, a Henshaw/Payne centre partnership would have run this SA team ragged. We will never know for sure, and I am delighted with how we played. How we started was amazing. How our players went from shellshocked to determined after the red, with Paddy having his finest ever 20mins as a player to pull us still alive into half time. And how we created a second half set of tactics, led my an amazing Murray (and Paddy again) which pushed SA into mistakes constantly.

We should win the series, but I am expecting a titanic backlash next weekend.

I don't think that its nonsense or a disservice to the players yesterday, they were the players in form playing in their best positions and as such proved what many had been saying. I do believe that Payne made a huge impression from 15 with his understanding and ability to bring other players into fantastic attacking positions. His runs from 15 and offloads turned Ireland onto the front foot from being on the back foot, something that Kearney has not been able to do for several seasons. For me, that was one of the standout aspects of the Irish performance yesterday. It was one of the most balanced team selections I had seen for some time, Marshall and Henshaw in the centres was an amazing partnership.

Forced changes or not, Schmidt and Farrell do deserve a lot of credit for that performance yesterday, the boys looked inspired.

Payne at fullback, and new centre partnership working fantastic, and fans have been calling it for ages and think Joe has been wrong not to do it before, and just sticks to tried and tested options.

But in fairness I think Joe's had his hands tied and wasn't able to play Payne at fullback, even if he wants to.

World cup wasn't a time to experiment, during the 6 nations there wasn't a defence coach, so it made sense to keep the player that organises the Backs defensive line in the position where he can most influence it (maybe if Farrell was in durning the 6 Nations, Joe would have made the change then). So he wasn't for moving Payne out of the 13 shirt.

It will be interesting now when Joe has a fully fit squad what he does?
Does Payne move back to 13?
Will Madigan get the bench spot?
Will Marshall become the 26th man again?

Anyway for the next game I expect to see a highly improved Bok's side, however the way Ireland won with 14 men for much of the game makes me think that we can handle the Bok's, if we play to the same level again (even if they up theirs).

Only one win needed from 2 games to win the series, that seams like a real possibility now.

Well done Ireland,

good running lines

excellent defensive effort.

Currently I don't think we have enough in the tank to pull this back. I can only imagine what you would have done with 15 men. But let's wait and see.

I'm not sure what is nonsense about it. It is no coincidence that we finally looked extremely dangerous coming from deep with Payne at fullback. It is no coincidence that we finally seemed to have some subtlety and guile in the backline through Jackson, Marshall, Henshaw and Payne in their best positions. It is no coincidence that the backline functioned so well despite having a weakened pack. I think it is nonsense to pretend all of that was coincidental or that it would have been the same with our previous backline which has struggled to make much of an impact. 

For example, why would the Henshaw-Payne combination in the centres have run SA ragged if they haven't run anyone ragged in the past? Strange. Why would we suddenly have seen Rob Kearney making good ground and throwing some spectacular offloads to create space down the wing? The evidence suggests that we actually had a functioning backline for a change and that it made a huge difference.

I hope that Schmidt will stick with the same backline for the remaining games. Are either of the Kearney brothers expected to return on this tour or are they out completely?

Sexton is still the number 1 10 for Ireland but after that performance from Paddy yesterday, the gap is not as wide as many may have thought. Sexton's positional kicking is superb but I do believe that Paddy's control on the field is superior than that of Sextons.

Paddy's defensive shift yesterday should also have put to sleep the myth's that he is weak defensively.

Also - wasn't it just great seeing Henderson totally outplay his much vaunted opposite numbers in the engine room?

I don't know if anyone thinks Paddy is weak defensively- he's always been a tough little nugget! They sent some big men down his channel but he gave them nothing and even managed to rip a few balls in the tackle. He showed he's stronger than he looks as well- remember him getting double-tackled by two of the Springbok forwards who tried to rip the ball off him, but he not only held onto the ball but got himself down to the ground too!

Maybe people who were saying he's weak defensively have been judging him on his instagram account and his Eoin McLove lookalike features, not on rugby- only explanation I can think of!

Agreed Rory, Henderson was a monster yesterday. Was also very impressed with Dillane when he came on, constantly got over the gain line.

Over the intercept try, that can be seen as a Jackson error but I actually feel that it was a superb piece of match awareness from Du Toit.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Also - wasn't it just great seeing Henderson totally outplay his much vaunted opposite numbers in the engine room?

It was pretty special Rory. Toner did as well. Great game from the tight five- we all know McGrath and Best set high standards every match, but Ross had one of his best all-round games in a while and the second row was excellent too, as said. Jordi Murphy and Jamie Heaslip did the work of three men- couldn't speak highly enough of the pack.

I'd say De Jager and Etzebeth will have a point to prove before this series is over but we can take confidence we can take it to this big Springbok pack. The intimidation factor is gone.

Btw, how cute was Best sneaking round the side to boot the ball out of the ruck metres from our try line and right under the refs nose! Not that I would ever endorse such... "gamesmanship", but when the referee seems to be watching a different match why not take advantage of that? 

I have never felt that Jackson was weak defensively Notch, far from it, its just that I had been reading many comments from people saying that he was the weak link defensively in the backline and that SA would exploit that.

His performance yesterday, after not even appearing in the 6N is a massive credit to him and a kind of slap in the face to Schmidt for not showing faith in him earlier. For me, his DG in the first half was a kind of turning point in the game, you could see the team lift after he slotted that. Quality piece of play from him.

The full game is on YouTube in good quality too

Sunday morning viewing for me!

https://youtu.be/eBR2wBfhGyY

In the cold light of day, I don't have a problem with the red. Could it have been given as a yellow? Yes- but he put the ref in a position where he had to make the call. Unfortunate but he let the emotion and the niggle get to him.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I'm not sure what is nonsense about it. It is no coincidence that we finally looked extremely dangerous coming from deep with Payne at fullback. It is no coincidence that we finally seemed to have some subtlety and guile in the backline through Jackson, Marshall, Henshaw and Payne in their best positions. It is no coincidence that the backline functioned so well despite having a weakened pack. I think it is nonsense to pretend all of that was coincidental or that it would have been the same with our previous backline which has struggled to make much of an impact. 

For example, why would the Henshaw-Payne combination in the centres have run SA ragged if they haven't run anyone ragged in the past? Strange. Why would we suddenly have seen Rob Kearney making good ground and throwing some spectacular offloads to create space down the wing? The evidence suggests that we actually had a functioning backline for a change and that it made a huge difference.

I hope that Schmidt will stick with the same backline for the remaining games. Are either of the Kearney brothers expected to return on this tour or are they out completely?

It is not a coincidence. There is just another (in my view, way more likely) causal factor. Having a full backroom staff as I highlighted.... My point is that there is this view that fans always knew the "right" team, and Joe finally is forced due to injury to get the "right" players on. That yesterday was as much about as heart and tactics with selection being a factor of course. Believe me, I want Payne at 15. But there has only been 2-3 games in the last year where I would have moved him from 13, such is his importance there. Now we have a defence coach, that importance is mitigated and Payne is freer to play his natural game.

Just seen the red card - to me it looks like Stander had absolutely no intention to cause harm - it is the classic intention vs outcome incident!

Maybe reckless but to me it looked like he was just going to charge down the ball and it was an unfortunate clash.

I'm sure it has already been debated to death though!

I think Rob Kearney has to be out of the Ireland squad for the foreseeable future. He clearly doesn't have enough to his game at the moment to be selected against the big teams. I think Payne as to be kept there with Zebo second choice, Payne showed yesterday what an attacking weapon a good fullback can be and also how they can come in at first receiver and manage the game. I reckon Zebo can further develop these attributes and take over from Payne in a couple of years, until then he will probably get a wing spot.
Rob needs to go back to Leinster and show he has what it takes.

I think Henshaw should be kept at 13, he could become a legend there so why keep moving him about. I'm worried Leinster will play him at 12, but I think he is much better with the extra space wider and can show his pace.

Andrew Porter the U20s Loosie needs to be fast tracked, he looks like he will be a weapon and should be sent on loan next season - maybe Ulster would be best they are weakest at loosehead.

Marshall has possession of the 12 shirt for now, I don't see any reason to change that.

Henderson/Toner combination is the best we have, I like Hendy at 6 but we have CJ there and POM to come back in so well stocked, also Ruddock too.

Paddy is an true alternative to Sexton now, I don't think he should be considered back up he needs to build experience with game time and push Sexton on. Some of his game is better than Sextons and as he comes on it will hopefully be a horses for courses selection as it was circa 2002-4 with ROG and Humphreys.

Hopefully the recovery in the next week is good and we will be just as competitive next week. Would not be surprised if SA ring the changes.

Of course Schmidt could have moved him there earlier, McCloskey, Olding and Marshall were fit and could all have easily moved to 12 with Henshaw at 13. Kearney has not been as good as he once was for the last 2 seasons and Payne was showing amazing form at 15 for Ulster so the switch could have been made during the 6N.

As good a coach as Schmidt is, I personally believe he is far too re-active and not pro-active enough.

Would Payne have started at 15 if Kearney was deemed fit for this tour? Personally I don't think so and we would have seen Payne at 13 and as such, Irelands backline (a huge strength yesterday) would have been less effective.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Just seen the red card - to me it looks like Stander had absolutely no intention to cause harm - it is the classic intention vs outcome incident!

Maybe reckless but to me it looked like he was just going to charge down the ball and it was an unfortunate clash.

I'm sure it has already been debated to death though!

Its very frustrating as 9/10 times an early red card determines the outcome of a match. Hypothetically I think that in the case of a reckless challenge without intent, maybe the player should be sent off - but a replacement can come on after 10 mins. In essence as red for the player and a yellow for the team.

Red cards are such an inconsistent punishment, a first minute red card is not even comparable to a 75th minute red card

I like that idea of an orange card as a halfway step toml- the player is not allowed to return to the park but after 10 minutes the team can replace him and go back to 15.

Yeah I thought about it when Payne was sent off against Saracens. I was so excited about that match and after 5 minutes such a benign incident turned it into a mismatch and ruined it.

Come on World Rugby sort it out!

a fifth minute red card should be Black whereas a 78th minute red card should be more like Milk colour

eirebilly wrote:Of course Schmidt could have moved him there earlier, McCloskey, Olding and Marshall were fit and could all have easily moved to 12 with Henshaw at 13. Kearney has not been as good as he once was for the last 2 seasons and Payne was showing amazing form at 15 for Ulster so the switch could have been made during the 6N.

It was a tough call at the time, tougher than it seems now. Truthfully Payne had only started one game for Ulster at 15 before the Six Nations and subbed in another. Came on as a sub for his first appearance against Saracens and then started against Oyonnax a week later. He was pretty rusty against Saracens and made some errors, as you'd expect after a long injury layoff, but electric against Oyonnax. However Ulster made an easy 1000m with ball in hand against them, scored 56 points and could have had more- they weren't interested and they certainly weren't good enough to draw any big conclusions from beating them. We know now that that wasn't an one off and he would go on to show the same class and creativity for the rest of the season at 15, but Schmidt didn't know that yet. He also would've had to consider the opposition and when you consider he played centre for Ulster full time in the RWC lead-up that was his first full game at fullback for a long, long time. As, I think, wolfball alluded to we had no Defence Coach and a settled centre partnership that was used to defending together. I'm not entirely convinced he wouldn't have made this change anyway. With Farrell working with the centres he would have been freed up to be bolder. We'll never know in truth. But where Payne should play wasn't necessarily a straight forward call. It could have gone either way.

On another note, this is the first season in a long time I think where Payne hasn't started at 13 in any game for Ulster. Please correct me if I'm wrong in saying that. If you are conspiracy minded you could say that there seems to have been a decision taken in Dublin that Ulster are no longer compelled to pick him there- if you're more down to earth you might just think that it was due to Ulster having a bunch of fullbacks injured and centres coming out of our ears. Either way, the Payne at 13 experiment seemed designed for the RWC and has run it's course at provincial level.

Ill have to watch the highlights for this one, but well done Ireland! Beating the boks in SA shows great character and resolve.

Payne has always seemed to be a better 15 than 13 in my opinion. I was saying this after the first 6N with Schmidt in charge. As I said, Kearney has not been the player he was for a couple of seasons so it seemed logical to me at the time that Payne should not be played at 13 but at 15 (copped copious amounts of flaq for suggesting that at the time).

As I said above, I feel Schmidt is a more re-active coach than a pro-active one. It really did take injuries for him to make the choice of putting players in their best positions. Payne showed yesterday that great players create space when there is little at international level. He deserves a lot of credit for taking Ireland from the back foot and putting them on the front foot in attack. That is something that Kearney has not been able to do for some time. It was a great team performance but Payne's lines from 15 and his ability to bring others into attacking positions was very much a part of Irelands win yesterday.

Heaslip and Best were outstanding in that match I think.

Heaslip has his doubters but he was an absolute warhorse - he's exactly the kind of player you want in a game like that!

The one negative out of such an exciting game yesterday was the performance of the ref, he was absolutely dire. He did not favour either side, he was simply poor for both teams.

Was the red card a fair call? That automatically rules Stander out of the next game doesn't it?

Here it is again

https://youtu.be/YFO7JSvDGjk

Rewatched the match and have to say again what an excellent performance Ireland put in. By far the better team and a really gutsy display.

I still don't understand why so many fans talk about "intent" as if it makes a difference. Stander smashed a player in the face with his hip, it was dangerous and always likely to attract a red. His intention is irrelevant. The ref was not as bad as many are claiming. The two cards were correct. His worst decision was allowing the SA try when there was clear obstruction.

Thankfully it didn't make a difference and Ireland got a deserved win.

Not sure about SA, they were poor. Were there better players not selected or is the problem more fundamental? Can't see them doing much in this year's Rugby Championship playing like that.

Personally, I feel the red card was harsh. A clear attempt at a charge down, you could argue whether or not it was reckless but it was a genuine attempt at a charge down. A yellow card would have probably been the correct call in my opinion but never a red.

To me it seemed the ref was swayed by both the crowd and Lambie's injury.

On a side note, glad to hear that Lambie is ok.

Well it looks a bit like Hogg-gate, but less deliberate. I'm not sure what I would give for it tbh. Was Lambie alright?

RDW_Scotland wrote:Heaslip and Best were outstanding in that match I think.

Heaslip has his doubters but he was an absolute warhorse - he's exactly the kind of player you want in a game like that!

So often the lurking glue and yet so often overlooked or over-criticised, He's had as many disappointments in his career to date as good days and yet he still chugs on and it's his attitude that has matured so much over the years that I appreciate. He takes it in his stride, he never gets too down or too elated - just chugs on to the next goal.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Just seen the red card - to me it looks like Stander had absolutely no intention to cause harm - it is the classic intention vs outcome incident!

Maybe reckless but to me it looked like he was just going to charge down the ball and it was an unfortunate clash.

I'm sure it has already been debated to death though!

Exactly. He is clearly attempting to charge the ball down; he comes in at an angle to block the trajectory of the ball, braces himself for impact from the ball and unfortunately the side of his hip catches Lambie in the face. It was clumsy and reckless and could certainly merit a yellow card, but a red? Come on. Had he ran full flight and body checked him that would be different, but he is focused on the ball and unfortunately clips him with the side of his body.

offload wrote:Rewatched the match and have to say again what an excellent performance Ireland put in.  By far the better team and a really gutsy display.

I still don't understand why so many fans talk about "intent" as if it makes a difference.  Stander smashed a player in the face with his hip, it was dangerous and always likely to attract a red. His intention is irrelevant.  The ref was not as bad as many are claiming. The two cards were correct.  His worst decision was allowing the SA try when there was clear obstruction.

Thankfully it didn't make a difference and Ireland got a deserved win.

Not sure about SA, they were poor.  Were there better players not selected or is the problem more fundamental?   Can't see them doing much in this year's Rugby Championship playing like that.

I think intent absolutely has to be taken into account.

Take a classic high ball contest - both players have their eyes fixed on the ball and make a fair attempt to catch it yet following the collision one of the players lands on their head. How is it just and fair that the other player gets carded? He made a fair attempt to contest for the ball and it was essentially an accident.

To me Stander did what every player does when chasing a kicker - charged at him as fast as he could then jumped in the air to try and block it. No intent to cause harm.

Rugby really is a strange game where you can intend to hurt someone in a big tackle and that is fine, yet accidental collisions are red cards! I'm being a bit facetious but I'm sure you get my point!

The red card is a red card and it won't be changed.  When you think of it, few reds really come now from overt viciousness.  They are given for blatant irresponsibility.  Stander charged in and turned high to leave his pelvic area right where Lambie's head was approaching.  Perhaps he thought Lambie would be rising too but it was kinda reckless and reckless gets Red.

But it's done.  It's over.  Just as Ireland had to accept 14 men for the rest of the game, they now have to accept the Red and move on.

Now is the time to say that next week Ireland should really believe they have to get even more bloody minded if possible - put in even more effort if possible.  Can't give South Africa a sniff of a revival.  It won't take long for the first win to be a distant memory if the Irish allow themselves a little mid-game breather and try to play a slow containing game.  

South Africa will be in a mood to put us back in our box and hopefully they might even have a feelings that we'll come into that game with that suspicion in our head.  But we should show up with the intention of imposing our aggressive/attacking game on them.  Our rhythm and desire imposed on the game, not theirs.

15 men full at it - sacrifices to be made.  Let's not wait for the 3rd test to try to win this series.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

offload wrote:Rewatched the match and have to say again what an excellent performance Ireland put in.  By far the better team and a really gutsy display.

I still don't understand why so many fans talk about "intent" as if it makes a difference.  Stander smashed a player in the face with his hip, it was dangerous and always likely to attract a red. His intention is irrelevant.  The ref was not as bad as many are claiming. The two cards were correct.  His worst decision was allowing the SA try when there was clear obstruction.

Thankfully it didn't make a difference and Ireland got a deserved win.

Not sure about SA, they were poor.  Were there better players not selected or is the problem more fundamental?   Can't see them doing much in this year's Rugby Championship playing like that.

I think intent absolutely has to be taken into account.

Take a classic high ball contest - both players have their eyes fixed on the ball and make a fair attempt to catch it yet following the collision one of the players lands on their head. How is it just and fair that the other player gets carded? He made a fair attempt to contest for the ball and it was essentially an accident.

To me Stander did what every player does when chasing a kicker - charged at him as fast as he could then jumped in the air to try and block it. No intent to cause harm.

Rugby really is a strange game where you can intend to hurt someone in a big tackle and that is fine, yet accidental collisions are red cards! I'm being a bit facetious but I'm sure you get my point!

I do get your point. Intent is sometimes obvious (a deliberate punch) but very often is very hard to determine. I can readily accept that Stander didn't intend to hurt Lambie and was attempting a charge down. But if that wasn't the case and he only had foul play on his mind, how would we know? That's why players have to be in control and when they are reckless they often put themselves at risk of sending off. To me it's the same as lashing out with your boot at the ball close to a players head. Might only be going for the ball, but if you kick him in the face, you could easily see red. But yes, rugby is a strange game.

Kaplan fairly criticial of ref. Thought the Yellow was correct for Henshaw.

Jonathan Kaplan Verified account
‏@RefJK

@marsav68 @JudgeRugby totally agree
Was never a red card . v poor decision by officials


On the ref in general ...
Jonathan Kaplan ‏@RefJK 5h5 hours ago

@Treas78 agree . but it should never have come to that . inept in many areas . shouldn't have been a red card at all !

eirebilly wrote:Payne has always seemed to be a better 15 than 13 in my opinion. I was saying this after the first 6N with Schmidt in charge. As I said, Kearney has not been the player he was for a couple of seasons so it seemed logical to me at the time that Payne should not be played at 13 but at 15 (copped copious amounts of flaq for suggesting that at the time).

I know you were billy, just pointing out that if you were in Schmidts shoes it wouldn't have been that easy a call to not pick him at 13 especially with no Assistant Coach to help you take on the extra work of rearranging the team after the RWC. Even if you thought he was a 15, he had played all his rugby for a year at 13 and you have only a few off weeks to work on new shapes in attack etc. I genuinely feel Schmidt, like Kidney before him when Alan Gaffney wasn't replaced by the IRFU, was undermined by not having a full coaching staff.

Personally I feel we basically played the same as we did in the RWC at the start of the Six Nations as we didn't have the resources to change things but contrary to what people have said, we played some very good attacking rugby in the latter stages even with the players we had selected and you saw an evolution in the game plan.

Now that Farrell is in, he seems to provide an excellent counter-balance to Schmidt. Where Schmidt is a more intellectual, technical coach who focuses on details and precise set plays, Farrell is pretty competitive and passionate and gets guys to put that aggression into their game. Farrell was also assistant coach under Lancaster when England played some pretty expansive rugby so he'll advocate for that as well.

I only hope and pray that the rumours Schmidt will leave early are not true, and we get to see what they can produce when working together for a year because i think it's a really good coaching ticket.

I dont think it is doing a disservice to the Ireland players or performance by saying that Schmidt was forced to make changes rather than making them naturally. Schmidt has many strengths as a coach but I dont selection is one of them. He has a formula and only injuries to his core players seems to make him deviate from that. The likes of the Kearneys, Madigan and McFadden look no more than serviceable at test level but are go to guys for Schmidt when its looked like there are better options available. They might have beat SA yesterday with Schmidts usual team but its hard to deny the positive effect of the (forced) changes compared to their recent 6 nations.

offload wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

offload wrote:Rewatched the match and have to say again what an excellent performance Ireland put in.  By far the better team and a really gutsy display.

I still don't understand why so many fans talk about "intent" as if it makes a difference.  Stander smashed a player in the face with his hip, it was dangerous and always likely to attract a red. His intention is irrelevant.  The ref was not as bad as many are claiming. The two cards were correct.  His worst decision was allowing the SA try when there was clear obstruction.

Thankfully it didn't make a difference and Ireland got a deserved win.

Not sure about SA, they were poor.  Were there better players not selected or is the problem more fundamental?   Can't see them doing much in this year's Rugby Championship playing like that.

I think intent absolutely has to be taken into account.

Take a classic high ball contest - both players have their eyes fixed on the ball and make a fair attempt to catch it yet following the collision one of the players lands on their head. How is it just and fair that the other player gets carded? He made a fair attempt to contest for the ball and it was essentially an accident.

To me Stander did what every player does when chasing a kicker - charged at him as fast as he could then jumped in the air to try and block it. No intent to cause harm.

Rugby really is a strange game where you can intend to hurt someone in a big tackle and that is fine, yet accidental collisions are red cards! I'm being a bit facetious but I'm sure you get my point!

I do get your point.  Intent is sometimes obvious (a deliberate punch) but very often is very hard to determine.  I can readily accept that Stander didn't intend to hurt Lambie and was attempting a charge down. But if that wasn't the case and he only had foul play on his mind, how would we know?  That's why players have to be in control and when they are reckless they often put themselves at risk of sending off.  To me it's the same as lashing out with your boot at the ball close to a players head.  Might only be going for the ball, but if you kick him in the face, you could easily see red.  But yes, rugby is a strange game.

That's what I forgot to add - the problem with intent is that you don't really know what the player really intended!