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.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ebop wrote:Who shoulder charged someone's head?

Two of our players went off with head injuries because of a shoulder to the head (Henshaw and Stander).
There were multiple instances of shoulder charges used in the rucks.
One of our players was tackled around the neck and pulled to the ground which thankfully didn't injure him.
Sean O'Brien was taken out in the air at the very beginning of the game.
The 9 was tackled without the ball on countless occasions.

You can call that whinging, but it is very frustrating to watch your own players go off injured because of reckless or dirty play. It is also frustrating to watch a team get away with cynical penalties in important positions of the field.

As you well know, NZ always beat us with the exception of last week. This isn't sour grapes and I didn't expect us to win. I knew that NZ would be fired up and physically dominant. However, the manner in which the game was won has left many fans frustrated. Peyper, as always, was a joke and generally looks bewildered when officiating test rugby.

Rory you are starting to sound like a bad loser, Im sure your attitude doesnt reflact that of most Irish, next thing you'll be calling Richie McCaw a cheat.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:By the way, out of interest, could someone provide a picture of the first try that was "clearly grounded"? Happy to admit that I was wrong about that one but I am genuinely curious as I don't think it was clearly grounded.

I think the try was probably scored and that would be my response if the question was "any reason why..."

I dont know if you realise it Rory, but the TMO can have a number of screens on playback covering separate cameras at each end, the TMO may well have seen a clear grounding and that particular screen wasnt being broadcast onto your telly. blame the director not the TMO.

Interesting. Yes, I knew that they have several screens covering different angles at once and we are watching just one of those. But that is the first time that I have heard that the TMO used a screen that wasn't shown on the replays at all to make his decision.

Could you provide evidence that this is what happens?

I should clarify (again) that I think the ball was likely touched down in the act of scoring a try. I take issue with the TMO claiming he saw "a clear grounding of the ball" and that the first angle should have been scrutinised more. I would be keen to see a picture of the first angle where the grounding was clear because I didn't see it. Happy to be wrong.

 No I dont have evidence of it, it is just general knowledge. some screens can be showing 6, 9, 12 cameras. the technology has been the subject of rugby programmes in the past. I would have thought that as an Irishman you should be more concerned by the fact that Barrett was able to so easily get so far, without being tackled, than get all bitter in twisted that you didnt see a surface of the ball touch a blade of grass.

I mentioned earlier in the thread Barrett's ability to tear us open. It was weak from us. Of course it was concerning. Next.

Eh...the ball touching the blade of grass over the try line is sort of integral in the act of a try being scored. You do realise this? I don't see what is bitter about wanting to see the "clear grounding of the ball" that the TMO claimed to have seen. I'm asking if someone could provide a picture of this. I am genuinely curious as I didn't think it was clear. I thought that he probably did touch the ball down, as it is unlikely Sexton managed to get his entire arm underneath.

As for the "general knowledge" about the screens...interesting. So, if you will confirm - you believe that sometimes the angle that the TMO uses to make his decision is not shown on the replay for the referee/coaches/fans to see? This is general knowledge? Who slows the footage down then, when he is looking at another screen we don't have access to? All those rewinds and pauses?

Hard to believe the TMO would keep that camera angle to himself. Simply isn't true. He lied.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ebop wrote:Who shoulder charged someone's head?

Two of our players went off with head injuries because of a shoulder to the head (Henshaw and Stander).
There were multiple instances of shoulder charges used in the rucks.
One of our players was tackled around the neck and pulled to the ground which thankfully didn't injure him.
Sean O'Brien was taken out in the air at the very beginning of the game.
The 9 was tackled without the ball on countless occasions.

You can call that whinging, but it is very frustrating to watch your own players go off injured because of reckless or dirty play. It is also frustrating to watch a team get away with cynical penalties in important positions of the field.

As you well know, NZ always beat us with the exception of last week. This isn't sour grapes and I didn't expect us to win. I knew that NZ would be fired up and physically dominant. However, the manner in which the game was won has left many fans frustrated. Peyper, as always, was a joke and generally looks bewildered when officiating test rugby.

Rory you are starting to sound like a bad loser, Im sure your attitude doesnt reflact that of most Irish, next thing you'll be calling Richie McCaw a cheat.

I'm happy enough to feel aggrieved by dirty play that impeded the game as a whole and sometimes went unpunished. Call me whatever you like. I believe NZ would still have won the game as they looked hungry from start to finish and their defence was impeccable. The needless dirty play was unnecessary though.

As for Richie McCaw, he was an exceptional player who cheated countless times, making him a legendary openside flanker. One of my favourites. I can't remember him being a dirty player, though.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:I think fans are perfectly justified to be frustrated by last night. Obviously in any game there are going to be a couple of dubious calls and there are going to be instances of foul play. From the very beginning of the game we almost lost a key player who was taken out in the air, and not too long after we lost a key player who was shouldered in the head and stretchered off. The game was defined by these acts of foul play, in my view. Which is disappointing.

Many fans have complained in the past when it is the "lesser" teams such as Fiji or Samoa doing this sort of thing. Why do the All Blacks get a free pass from that sort of criticism? Not from my end.

Rory you really are acting like a bad loser, the Sam Cane incident was an innocent collision, it happens in games. Rather than blame the match officials or the big bad All Blacks maybe you should dedicate some of your scrutiny towards Irelands defence?

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

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

EDIT: Oh, and the Irish defence was poor at times. As was our ability to finish our chances. I believe that Ireland were second best in many facets of the game. I also believe that we were impeded by foul play on many occasions, some of which was allowed to pass. See how the two aren't mutually exclusive? 

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

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

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

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

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

Proceed, Munch. I gave an alternate genuine reaction and view of an Irish fan. So rather than me trying to gag anything ( something I'm increasingly being accused of trying on other subjects ) I'm making sure that I'm not gagged, or that I end up gagging myself out of 'niceness' and out of courtesy to the internet friendships I have with you guys. I didn't want to write what I wrote earlier because I'm part of a herd called 'Irish supporters'. But I finally decided to 'uncensor' myself because I don't like the tone of this thread.
But everyone to their own view.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

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

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

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

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

I'm hardly emotional. It is the following day. I am discussing the incidents on a forum. I don't see what part of the discussion you are finding difficult. The part where I disagree with your perception of the foul play? Also, if there is no citing, I will hardly be asking you for evidence. The evidence will be in the fact there is no citing...obviously.

https://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/watch-how-did-we-miss-this-concussion-inducing-hit-on-cj-stander/103576

These incidents were far too common in the game and injured some of our players who we may be missing next week. Even your coach says he will be speaking to his players about their tackling techniques. This is why I will be interested to see if some players are cited. I believe that it should certainly be looked at.

Yes, I agree. Especially in the midfield...

I agree Hansen will be complimenting some of the All Black players on their tackling technique. some of that All Black defence was the best Ive seen this year, dont you realise that it is a compliment to you're team.

The reason why I know that there will not be any citings is because no one did anything that would come close to warranting a citing, something also that you appear to be finding hard to understand.

Sure, time will tell.

How much time?

aucklandlaurie wrote:How much time?

Well, until the citing window closes. Obviously.

Anyway, let's move on.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:How much time?

Well, until the citing window closes. Obviously.

Anyway, let's move on.

i just presumed that you might be wanting to extend the citing window. like for six months?

SecretFly wrote:

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

Proceed, Munch.  I gave an alternate genuine reaction and view of an Irish fan.  So rather than me trying to gag anything ( something I'm increasingly being accused of trying on other subjects ) I'm making sure that I'm not gagged, or that I end up gagging myself out of 'niceness' and out of courtesy to the internet friendships I have with you guys.  I didn't want to write what I wrote earlier because I'm part of a herd called 'Irish supporters'.  But I finally decided to 'uncensor' myself because I don't like the tone of this thread.
But everyone to their own view.

I didn't mention 'gag' because I think you're trying to gag anyone. I mentioned it because I know you're against censorship.

I try to be a bit more careful in how I word things with those I count as friends online (often fail), but I do tend to be a bit robust whoever I'm in discussion with. I honestly don't fall out with people over debate, and usually respect the views of others, even if looks otherwise. I don't feel offended by anything said on this thread, for example, and expect none would be honestly offended by what I have to say.

You and me tend not to agree much on the political stuff (well, we agree on a lot, but come to different conclusions), but I have huge respect for your views, and how you think outside the box.

Sorry for being all gushy

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:How much time?

Well, until the citing window closes. Obviously.

Anyway, let's move on.

i just presumed that you might be wanting to extend the citing window. like for six months?

Nope. That would be silly. I'll just wait until the citing window closes to see if anyone is cited...

Munchkin wrote:

You and me tend not to agree much on the political stuff (well, we agree on a lot, but come to different conclusions), but I have huge respect for your views, and how you think outside the box.

Sorry for being all gushy

You know I enjoy the auld battles we share too, Munch ... namely our yearly ones agin them damn Welsh boys!    

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:How much time?

Well, until the citing window closes. Obviously.

Anyway, let's move on.

i just presumed that you might be wanting to extend the citing window. like for six months?

Nope. That would be silly. I'll just wait until the citing window closes to see if anyone is cited...

Excellant Rory, wake me up when the citing window closes.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

You and me tend not to agree much on the political stuff (well, we agree on a lot, but come to different conclusions), but I have huge respect for your views, and how you think outside the box.

Sorry for being all gushy

You know I enjoy the auld battles we share too, Munch ... namely our yearly ones agin them damn Welsh boys!    

Yep, maybe we should lure the enemy back in for a bit of bargy. Fun times

Anyway, what did the Irish contingent honestly think about that first half period when we looked like one more heavy duty forward assault on the AB lines would get us a try (three times lucky and all that)... but all of a sudden, the absolute heat and bite of our presence up there was turned off so casually by the decision to take three points?

That decision churned around in my head the entire half.  I was fuming with the signal that sent to the ABs when in Chicago we did the exact opposite and constantly told them, 'we're here for the real stuff.  If we have you up tight, we're going to go for it.'
And Rory himself said (and most of us know) if you're going to beat the ABs you simply have to score tries.  But we walked away from a ripe potential one when we were hot for the battle and right beside their line.

For me that remained a central mistake - especially when playing the ABs; you can never take such positions for granted and assume you're going to be up there again.

After what happened in Chicago, this game was always going to be decided by the best prepared team would perform best, end result being that team would more than likely win.Lucky for us kiwis Hansen did a better job than Scmidt in the seven days leading up to the game.

I agree fly, it was a little strange to see ireland be content to go just for the three points, I also thought Ireland might have had more of a go during the periods when the ABs were playing with fourteen men.

Deserved win for NZ, extremely clinical as always and outstanding defence.

Got to agree with some of the posts though, NZ were extremely dirty and cynical. The often play on the edge but they crossed a line yesterday, Ireland obviously shocked them last week.

The Barrett try should never have stood, it seemed like the TMO backed himself into a corner and wouldn't correct his error. There was simply no clear grounding.

I don't think NZ were dirty.. they were just pumped up and already play a margins game as it is.
Its up to the ref to control the play and quite simply their ruck work was borderline insane. The ref was at fault for most of the game... he couldn't control it. A couple of cards did nothing and NZ and at times Ireland (albeit it seemed they were just reacting) pushed the rules to the limit.

It was a quality game, great intensity but it went too far. Its not like NZ were outright cheating or committing gross foul play but it was poor for Peyper.

SecretFly wrote:Anyway, what did the Irish contingent honestly think about that first half period when we looked like one more heavy duty forward assault on the AB lines would get us a try (three times lucky and all that)... but all of a sudden, the absolute heat and bite of our presence up there was turned off so casually by the decision to take three points?

That decision churned around in my head the entire half.  I was fuming with the signal that sent to the ABs when in Chicago we did the exact opposite and constantly told them, 'we're here for the real stuff.  If we have you up tight, we're going to go for it.'
And Rory himself said (and most of us know) if you're going to beat the ABs you simply have to score tries.  But we walked away from a ripe potential one when we were hot for the battle and right beside their line.

For me that remained a central mistake - especially when playing the ABs; you can never take such positions for granted and assume you're going to be up there again.

The reason Ireland went for the points was because the ref was useless. They knew that the ABs were allowed to pull down the maul, come in the side, play on the ground and be offside with impunity.  The All Blacks were just as cynical in stopping Ireland scoring as in their attempts to inflict pain.
The Heaslip try in the second half was a good example. Ardie Savea makes a tackle on Cronin (?) but doesn't release and then pinches the ball (penalty Ireland). Franks gets the ball and Murray tackles him and he drops the ball backwards, Heaslip them dots down for a perfectly legitimate try. Peyper rules an Irish knock-on. Best asks him to have a look but no dice. That was a result of constant harping in the refs ear by guys like Coles and Smith as well as Reid questioning his every decision.

It is not being defeatist pointing out the facts of the game and the cynical brutality employed. There was simply too much of it to be ignored as a factor in the game. The Cane shoulder charge to Henshaw's head wasn't an isolated incident as he was often leading with his shoulder into rucks as well. When he went off Savea picked up where he left off. Dane Coles gave away a penalty for coming in the side yet he still managed to catch Murray's head with his shoulder. Dagg caught Stander's head square with his shoulder and took him out of the game in the process. Throw in the Fekitoa swinging arm and the numerous neck high tackles and it adds up to a game that isn't normally seen nor allowed by the Officials. Those tactics aren't easy to prepare for either.

Just up on RTE News, Cane and Fekitoa cited

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:How much time?

Well, until the citing window closes. Obviously.

Anyway, let's move on.

i just presumed that you might be wanting to extend the citing window. like for six months?

Nope. That would be silly. I'll just wait until the citing window closes to see if anyone is cited...

Excellant Rory, wake me up when the citing window closes.

Awake yet?

http://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2016/1120/833145-new-zealands-malakai-fekito-and-sam-cane-citing/

Fekitoa cited as well. It will be interesting to see what the panel make of it.

Well there you go

Kick up enough fuss and WR will deliver

Or simply break the laws ....

If we're being consistent, Trimble should have been cited for a high shot just like Cane's tackle at 79:47. Guess he won't because Fekitoa didn't fall down like a sack of spuds as there was no head clash.

ebop wrote:If we're being consistent, Trimble should have been cited for a high shot just like Cane's tackle at 79:47. Guess he won't because Fekitoa didn't fall down like a sack of spuds as there was no head clash.

Are you saying that Henshaw was faking it?

It wasn't a head clash either. It was a clear shoulder to head.

I think ebop is trolling, I wouldn't bother with what he says.

I'll just trust the citing commissioners, who have disagreed with his assessment.

No, I'm saying there was a head clash that was accidental that caused Henshaw to be concussed and it's been misconstrued as an illegal tackle and people are getting a lot of mileage out of it

Look at 0.24 in the video posted above

Treat your eyes to reality

ebop wrote:No, I'm saying there was a head clash that was accidental that caused Henshaw to be concussed and it's been misconstrued as an illegal tackle and people are getting a lot of mileage out of it

Accidental is debatable. The fact that it was a clear shoulder to head, isn't. I don't believe Cane intended to hit the head, but I do believe his intention was to go high, leading with the shoulder, to hit high and cause as much damage as possible. It was very reckless at the least, and in clear violation of the most recent WorldRugby directives. As were many hits that went in by the ABs.

"A cynical angle".

Sorry ebop I think it's you that needs a dose of reality ...

Which video above?

ebop wrote:Look at 0.24 in the video posted above

Treat your eyes to reality

Post me the link.

The shoulder into Standers head is a great example of intentionally taking the player out.

Page 7 I think, maybe 6? There's a link.

The angle everyone is referring to looks like a shoulder but from behind you can see a nasty head clash that rocks Henshaw's head back

People show footage to suit their arguments and it is cynical

A cynical angle Rory, indeed

So just for the sake of argument either get bans of a few weeks. Since suspensions seem time-based rather than game-based does this mean that either will miss next weeks game v France and then serve the rest of their suspension over the sunny SH off season and miss no other games. If that is the case then it's a bit of a joke. Rugby likes to think it doesn't have anything to learn from soccer, but in soccer a match ban carries forward into the next season.

Has anyone checked Trimble at 79:47?

Collars Fekitoa around the head

ebop wrote:Page 7 I think, maybe 6? There's a link.

The angle everyone is referring to looks like a shoulder but from behind you can see a nasty head clash that rocks Henshaw's head back

People show footage to suit their arguments and it is cynical

A cynical angle Rory, indeed

I think I've seen all the angles now, and it was a shoulder to the head. Anyway, let's leave it for the citing commission to decide.

Still can't find your video. I'm now thinking it is a cunning ploy of distraction.

Here's another one of dem cynical angles for everyone.

http://www.the42.ie/cane-fekitoa-cited-all-blacks-ireland-3092382-Nov2016/

Yeah, like I said, ebop is trolling lol.

ebop wrote:Has anyone checked Trimble at 79:47?

Collars Fekitoa around the head

He's a terrible man and should be banned for life.

Is it a YouTube video you're referring to?

Sorry I thought it was in the thread but don't think it was

Go to 0.24, head clash

Yeah,definate pen, probably a yellow for me but I can see why it was cited.

ebop wrote:Sorry I thought it was in the thread but don't think it was

Go to 0.24, head clash

Sam Cane is some hard nut.He clashed heads hard enough to cause concussion with another player and he got up and walked away without feeling a thing.Not even a hand up to his face to rub the spot where he was hit ,almost like he didn't hit anything with his head at all.

Yup

Hard nut

ebop wrote:Sorry I thought it was in the thread but don't think it was

Go to 0.24, head clash

I get why you think it was a head clash. It was, but it wasn't just a head clash. I've played it frame by frame, and it's the shoulder going into the head at almost the same time. I believe it was the shoulder that did the real damage.