Ireland v New Zealand, 19 November

GunsGermsV2 wrote:They dont care a jot. At the same time concussions do happen in rugby and Im not sure any amount of regulations by world rugby will change that. Im not entirely convinced that Cane was aiming for Henshaws head. It happened that quickly. However, I am certain that the ABs are dirtier than they claim they are.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:They dont care a jot. At the same time concussions do happen in rugby and Im not sure any amount of regulations by world rugby will change that. Im not entirely convinced that Cane was aiming for Henshaws head. It happened that quickly. However, I am certain that the ABs are dirtier than they claim they are.

There again though - what team on the planet holds their hands up and says: "Yep, we're proud that we edge the line of legality and can mix some nice cute dirty stuff in with the sublime."

What do we expect the reaction to be from any side that is accused of being 'dirty'?  You're never going to get what you want, you're never going to get any team to willingly accept that tag.

marty2086 wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:This game was shown in Sky in the UK, wasn't it. I can't seem to find it on demand.

You can watch it on YouTube.

I am not a savage. It's glorious HD or nothing.

You can get youtube in HD, what kind of caveman doesn't know that

cakeordeath wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:This game was shown in Sky in the UK, wasn't it. I can't seem to find it on demand.

You can watch it on YouTube.

I am not a savage. It's glorious HD or nothing.

You can get youtube in HD, what kind of caveman doesn't know that

You say that, but when I cast it to my TV the picture quality is not what I expect.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:In other news Israel Dagg is going to make a shock move to Leinster to cover the loss of Kirchner next year and loss of Fitz this year. He met with Leinster officials during the week aparently.

SecretFly wrote:

GunsGermsV2 wrote:In other news Israel Dagg is going to make a shock move to Leinster to cover the loss of Kirchner next year and loss of Fitz this year. He met with Leinster officials during the week aparently.

Is that a certainty or is Leinster only one of the bidders?  They'll have to get Denis O'Brien on the job again to get Dagg surely, with French and English sides aware that he's on the market.

GunsGermsV2 wrote:In other news Israel Dagg is going to make a shock move to Leinster to cover the loss of Kirchner next year and loss of Fitz this year. He met with Leinster officials during the week aparently.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Enough already! I was rooting for Ire (any NH side over the ABs) but the Irish response here is definitely OTT. I’ve read that 2 of the AB tries … weren’t (touch-down, forward pass), that Ire scored a penalty try and at least 1 other (and hence the score-line is reversed), that the ref is an eejit, the TMO lied, that the ABs went unpunished (see I thought they gave away stacks of penalties plus 2 YC), that they should have had at least 1 red and 5 or 6 yellows, that the AB fans & media are biased (ok I’ll give you that one), that the Irish player were beaten up, that the pies were cold…. It was a gnarly game but I didn’t pay to watch the girl guides play (altho the crowd noise did sound like a lot of them were watching). The ABs do get away with stuff, but I didn’t think much more than ‘usual’ this time. And they were definitely good for their win.

Still, next time any other nation blames the ref at least the Irish fans won’t have a pop…

Barney McGrew did it wrote:Enough already! I was rooting for Ire (any NH side over the ABs) but the Irish response here is definitely OTT. I’ve read that 2 of the AB tries … weren’t (touch-down, forward pass), that Ire scored a penalty try and at least 1 other (and hence the score-line is reversed), that the ref is an eejit, the TMO lied, that the ABs went unpunished (see I thought they gave away stacks of penalties plus 2 YC), that they should have had at least 1 red and 5 or 6 yellows, that the AB fans & media are biased (ok I’ll give you that one), that the Irish player were beaten up, that the pies were cold…. It was a gnarly game but I didn’t pay to watch the girl guides play (altho the crowd noise did sound like a lot of them were watching). The ABs do get away with stuff, but I didn’t think much more than ‘usual’ this time. And they were definitely good for their win.

Still, next time any other nation blames the ref at least the Irish fans won’t have a pop…

geoff999rugby wrote:If Dagg goes to Leinster it will be a total joke.

Already had Kelleher and Conway blocked by Nacewa and Kirchener, and having change province as a result, and now another NIQ back three player.
Pienaer who is blocking nobody has to leave

GunsGermsV2 wrote:Dont forget Peyper reffed Ireland v France in the 6 nations this year which was an equally dirty and cynical performance from the French.

Gwlad wrote:NZ fans and media can say what they want. It was a straight red for a swinging arm and dangerous high tackle. Of all the nations they would be throwing their dummies in every corner if this was the other way round. Having beaten beaten fair and square they resort to another game in order to silence ireland.

Ref should be bloody cited if that were possible. Disgraceful performance. Refs must be made to view footage in these cases not just checking with linesmen.  

poissonrouge wrote:Link is
Stuff.nz piece

stub wrote:I know things have moved on to Dagg   but when will we hear about the outcome of the citing hearing?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

stub wrote:I know things have moved on to Dagg   but when will we hear about the outcome of the citing hearing?

So are we to presume that its a dutch auction between Leinster and Toulon?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:That was a long sleep, aucklandlaurie. How are ya, sir?

ebop wrote:The level of sour grapes from Ireland is off the Richter scale. It's a bit sad really and won't be forgotten especially after the way we took our medicine.

ebop wrote:

poissonrouge wrote:Link is
Stuff.nz piece

Mark Reason is a pom and is not respected in NZ but the Australian owned Stuff enjoy uploading his rubbish to wind kiwis up.

wolfball wrote:To the NZ fans complaining on sour grapes, I have seen few if any Irish fans complain about the result. We lost, even if the match officials caught all the foul play, we still in my view would have lost. The issue is not one of ye admit that any of your players have done anything wrong at all. That's what sticks in the gob; its the view that NZ are above the laws all the rest of us have to follow.

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:To the NZ fans complaining on sour grapes, I have seen few if any Irish fans complain about the result. We lost, even if the match officials caught all the foul play, we still in my view would have lost. The issue is not one of ye admit that any of your players have done anything wrong at all. That's what sticks in the gob; its the view that NZ are above the laws all the rest of us have to follow.

Do you really believe that? the fact that the ABs were penalised 14 penalties to 4 suggests that the opposite might apply.

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:To the NZ fans complaining on sour grapes, I have seen few if any Irish fans complain about the result. We lost, even if the match officials caught all the foul play, we still in my view would have lost. The issue is not one of ye admit that any of your players have done anything wrong at all. That's what sticks in the gob; its the view that NZ are above the laws all the rest of us have to follow.

Do you really believe that? the fact that the ABs were penalised 14 penalties to 4 suggests that the opposite might apply.

I absolutely believe that and you are a major example of someone on here in many NZ matches against many different sides has consistently stated that NZ has nothing to answer for no matter how illegal the action is. Now that the citing commissioner has ruled, do you admit that there was a case to answer for or are the blinkers still on that NZ can do no wrong?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:To the NZ fans complaining on sour grapes, I have seen few if any Irish fans complain about the result. We lost, even if the match officials caught all the foul play, we still in my view would have lost. The issue is not one of ye admit that any of your players have done anything wrong at all. That's what sticks in the gob; its the view that NZ are above the laws all the rest of us have to follow.

Do you really believe that? the fact that the ABs were penalised 14 penalties to 4 suggests that the opposite might apply.

I absolutely believe that and you are a major example of someone on here in many NZ matches against many different sides has consistently stated that NZ has nothing to answer for no matter how illegal the action is. Now that the citing commissioner has ruled, do you admit that there was a case to answer for or are the blinkers still on that NZ can do no wrong?

I at no stage ever excused the Fekitoa incident, it was reckless, but very much at the lower end, and definitely no intent to injure, personally I thought Peyper was correct a penalty and definitely a yellow, but to the Irish fans that came on here accusing NZ of trying to mame players was completely OTT, and a bit of balance needed to be applied, which is something I often attempt to do on this forum.

marty2086 wrote:So for the second time this year Sam Cane is cleared of any wrong doing and his contact was accidental

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

The relevant law says

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of accidental or deliberate so seems the commission is rewriting the laws now

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

wolfball wrote:To the NZ fans complaining on sour grapes, I have seen few if any Irish fans complain about the result. We lost, even if the match officials caught all the foul play, we still in my view would have lost. The issue is not one of ye admit that any of your players have done anything wrong at all. That's what sticks in the gob; its the view that NZ are above the laws all the rest of us have to follow.

Do you really believe that? the fact that the ABs were penalised 14 penalties to 4 suggests that the opposite might apply.

I absolutely believe that and you are a major example of someone on here in many NZ matches against many different sides has consistently stated that NZ has nothing to answer for no matter how illegal the action is. Now that the citing commissioner has ruled, do you admit that there was a case to answer for or are the blinkers still on that NZ can do no wrong?

I at no stage ever excused the Fekitoa incident, it was reckless, but very much at the lower end, and definitely no intent to injure, personally I thought Peyper was correct a penalty and definitely a yellow, but to the Irish fans that came on here accusing NZ of trying to mame players was completely OTT, and a bit of balance needed to be applied, which is something I often attempt to do on this forum.

No one ever accused NZ of trying to 'mame' anyone but given the regularity of the foul play it was clearly a tactic

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So for the second time this year Sam Cane is cleared of any wrong doing and his contact was accidental

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

The relevant law says

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of accidental or deliberate so seems the commission is rewriting the laws now

Finally! some sanity. I came on here days ago saying it was an accidental collision, but would anyone listen to me?

wolfball wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So for the second time this year Sam Cane is cleared of any wrong doing and his contact was accidental

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

The relevant law says

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of accidental or deliberate so seems the commission is rewriting the laws now

Finally! some sanity. I came on here days ago saying it was an accidental collision, but would anyone listen to me?

I think you missed marty's point...

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So for the second time this year Sam Cane is cleared of any wrong doing and his contact was accidental

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

The relevant law says

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of accidental or deliberate so seems the commission is rewriting the laws now

Finally! some sanity. I came on here days ago saying it was an accidental collision, but would anyone listen to me?

marty2086 wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So for the second time this year Sam Cane is cleared of any wrong doing and his contact was accidental

Sam Cane, the New Zealand flank forward, appeared today in London (Heathrow) before an independent Disciplinary Committee (appointed by World Rugby), having been cited by an independent Citing Commissioner (appointed by World Rugby) for allegedly tackling an opponent dangerously in contravention of Law 10.4 (e) in the Autumn International match between Ireland and New Zealand at the Aviva Stadium, Dublin, on Saturday 19 November 2016. Mr Cane did not accept that he had committed an act of foul play .

The Disciplinary Committee, chaired by Antony Davies (England), alongside Derek Bevan (Wales) and John Doubleday (England), having viewed video footage of the incident, listened to evidence and representations from and on behalf of the player, and reviewed all of the other evidence, concluded that Mr Cane's actions had been accidental and that he had not therefore committed an act of foul play. The citing complaint was not upheld and Mr Cane is therefore free to resume playing immediately.

The relevant law says

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

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

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

Playing a player without the ball is dangerous play.
Sanction: Penalty kick

A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

No mention of accidental or deliberate so seems the commission is rewriting the laws now

Finally! some sanity. I came on here days ago saying it was an accidental collision, but would anyone listen to me?

Seems it was you who wouldnt listen, it doesnt matter if it was accidental its still foul play according the laws of the game

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