Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2
-
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate I am TRYING to be positive here!!
To try to counter that point, I think the impact of their forwards tiring is less in the modern game given you can replace so much of your pack in the 2nd 40. If we'd built a lead during that period you could say that it had a big impact, but as it stands it was them that went ahead, so I don't think the impact of that card was as bad as it could have been for Ireland.
Yeah sorry to bring you down bro.
It's less impactful, but I think it's still a pretty big deal: 20 minutes with 14 you may do well to limit the damage, but still have the fatigue from that effort affect you late in the game.
Think I'm right in saying that Beirne is one of their 80 minute guys too? (and he's certainly a workhorse).We had 20 minutes with 14 in 2023 against a much better Irish side and still won.
Not sure that's a great example. We started really well, and had to make a mountain of tackles and hang on for grim death late in the game to scrape the win because of those cards. Sam Whitelock with the turnover after 30+ phases, and I think Jordie also held someone up over the line? Replay that game 100 x and I think most times we lose it because of the cards.
So an example of a match where a team won is not a good example of a team winning with 14 players for 20 minutes? Good lord. Ireland didn't just lose on Sunday, they got hammered 4 tries to 1 and the final score flattered them.
Ireland also should have had a yellow card in 2023 for a high tackle that was never reviewed after we kicked a 50-22. And in that last play there were 2 forward passes, neck roll on Ioane and a clear penalty won by Ardie. So not only did we win with 14 players for 20 mins, we won against the tide of terrible decisions.
It can be done, and obviously happens sometimes - but, "good lord", that doesn't mean the card doesn't matter.
We took the lead in about the 60th minute. They were poor, sure. But if we aren't in front for 3/4 of the game, I don't really think it's a hammering. -
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
-
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
I thought that initially but on some angles it looks like he's driving up and into it.
Look at about 9s here on the second angle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1olyafz/tadhg_beirne_yellow_upgraded_to_red_card/
In the second angle his leading leg goes from bent to fully extended upwards on contact which is not a good look because his full bodyweight is leading into it when he connects.
-
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate I am TRYING to be positive here!!
To try to counter that point, I think the impact of their forwards tiring is less in the modern game given you can replace so much of your pack in the 2nd 40. If we'd built a lead during that period you could say that it had a big impact, but as it stands it was them that went ahead, so I don't think the impact of that card was as bad as it could have been for Ireland.
Yeah sorry to bring you down bro.
It's less impactful, but I think it's still a pretty big deal: 20 minutes with 14 you may do well to limit the damage, but still have the fatigue from that effort affect you late in the game.
Think I'm right in saying that Beirne is one of their 80 minute guys too? (and he's certainly a workhorse).We had 20 minutes with 14 in 2023 against a much better Irish side and still won.
Not sure that's a great example. We started really well, and had to make a mountain of tackles and hang on for grim death late in the game to scrape the win because of those cards. Sam Whitelock with the turnover after 30+ phases, and I think Jordie also held someone up over the line? Replay that game 100 x and I think most times we lose it because of the cards.
So an example of a match where a team won is not a good example of a team winning with 14 players for 20 minutes? Good lord. Ireland didn't just lose on Sunday, they got hammered 4 tries to 1 and the final score flattered them.
Ireland also should have had a yellow card in 2023 for a high tackle that was never reviewed after we kicked a 50-22. And in that last play there were 2 forward passes, neck roll on Ioane and a clear penalty won by Ardie. So not only did we win with 14 players for 20 mins, we won against the tide of terrible decisions.
It can be done, and obviously happens sometimes - but, "good lord", that doesn't mean the card doesn't matter.
We took the lead in about the 60th minute. They were poor, sure. But if we aren't in front for 3/4 of the game, I don't really think it's a hammering.The card does matter of course, which is why you shouldn't make a no arms tackle with a shoulder to the head. I was saying it is still possible to win.
And yes, it is a hammering. It's an 80 minute game, not 60. 33-13 would have been a fair reflection. If the score at 60 minutes had any relevance there wouldn't be so much angst about the Springboks match in Wellington.
-
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
Must be watching different angles.
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
I thought that initially but on some angles it looks like he's driving up and into it.
Look at about 9s here on the second angle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1olyafz/tadhg_beirne_yellow_upgraded_to_red_card/
In the second angle his leading leg goes from bent to fully extended upwards on contact which is not a good look because his full bodyweight is leading into it when he connects.
To me, he's just taken a step, which I guess means his trajectory is marginally upwards? The 2nd angle is from below which makes it look worse, just as the first angle is from above and it doesn't look like that at all.
I don't think you can watch it at full speed and tell me that he's deliberately driving up - he's genuinely surprised by the ball being thrown forward to BB in a ridiculous position. -
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate I am TRYING to be positive here!!
To try to counter that point, I think the impact of their forwards tiring is less in the modern game given you can replace so much of your pack in the 2nd 40. If we'd built a lead during that period you could say that it had a big impact, but as it stands it was them that went ahead, so I don't think the impact of that card was as bad as it could have been for Ireland.
Yeah sorry to bring you down bro.
It's less impactful, but I think it's still a pretty big deal: 20 minutes with 14 you may do well to limit the damage, but still have the fatigue from that effort affect you late in the game.
Think I'm right in saying that Beirne is one of their 80 minute guys too? (and he's certainly a workhorse).We had 20 minutes with 14 in 2023 against a much better Irish side and still won.
Not sure that's a great example. We started really well, and had to make a mountain of tackles and hang on for grim death late in the game to scrape the win because of those cards. Sam Whitelock with the turnover after 30+ phases, and I think Jordie also held someone up over the line? Replay that game 100 x and I think most times we lose it because of the cards.
So an example of a match where a team won is not a good example of a team winning with 14 players for 20 minutes? Good lord. Ireland didn't just lose on Sunday, they got hammered 4 tries to 1 and the final score flattered them.
Ireland also should have had a yellow card in 2023 for a high tackle that was never reviewed after we kicked a 50-22. And in that last play there were 2 forward passes, neck roll on Ioane and a clear penalty won by Ardie. So not only did we win with 14 players for 20 mins, we won against the tide of terrible decisions.
It can be done, and obviously happens sometimes - but, "good lord", that doesn't mean the card doesn't matter.
We took the lead in about the 60th minute. They were poor, sure. But if we aren't in front for 3/4 of the game, I don't really think it's a hammering.The card does matter of course, which is why you shouldn't make a no arms tackle with a shoulder to the head. I was saying it is still possible to win.
And yes, it is a hammering. It's an 80 minute game, not 60. 33-13 would have been a fair reflection. If the score at 60 minutes had any relevance there wouldn't be so much angst about the Springboks match in Wellington.
Fair point.
The Boks didn't take a lead this year v ABs until after 2 entire hours of rugby yet it's the last 20 minutes in Wellington that is afforded all the attention.
If we hyper focus on that the same thing has to apply in reverse. Otherwise we are unfairly critiquing the ABs.
For me the Irish played 60 mins with even numbers and didn't create a lot of try scoring opportunities so I don't feel like anyone should be overly generous to them. They can feel hard done by but I don't think it's why they lost.
-
@nonpartizan said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate I am TRYING to be positive here!!
To try to counter that point, I think the impact of their forwards tiring is less in the modern game given you can replace so much of your pack in the 2nd 40. If we'd built a lead during that period you could say that it had a big impact, but as it stands it was them that went ahead, so I don't think the impact of that card was as bad as it could have been for Ireland.
Yeah sorry to bring you down bro.
It's less impactful, but I think it's still a pretty big deal: 20 minutes with 14 you may do well to limit the damage, but still have the fatigue from that effort affect you late in the game.
Think I'm right in saying that Beirne is one of their 80 minute guys too? (and he's certainly a workhorse).We had 20 minutes with 14 in 2023 against a much better Irish side and still won.
Not sure that's a great example. We started really well, and had to make a mountain of tackles and hang on for grim death late in the game to scrape the win because of those cards. Sam Whitelock with the turnover after 30+ phases, and I think Jordie also held someone up over the line? Replay that game 100 x and I think most times we lose it because of the cards.
So an example of a match where a team won is not a good example of a team winning with 14 players for 20 minutes? Good lord. Ireland didn't just lose on Sunday, they got hammered 4 tries to 1 and the final score flattered them.
Ireland also should have had a yellow card in 2023 for a high tackle that was never reviewed after we kicked a 50-22. And in that last play there were 2 forward passes, neck roll on Ioane and a clear penalty won by Ardie. So not only did we win with 14 players for 20 mins, we won against the tide of terrible decisions.
It can be done, and obviously happens sometimes - but, "good lord", that doesn't mean the card doesn't matter.
We took the lead in about the 60th minute. They were poor, sure. But if we aren't in front for 3/4 of the game, I don't really think it's a hammering.The card does matter of course, which is why you shouldn't make a no arms tackle with a shoulder to the head. I was saying it is still possible to win.
And yes, it is a hammering. It's an 80 minute game, not 60. 33-13 would have been a fair reflection. If the score at 60 minutes had any relevance there wouldn't be so much angst about the Springboks match in Wellington.
Fair point.
The Boks didn't take a lead this year v ABs until after 2 entire hours of rugby yet it's the last 20 minutes in Wellington that is afforded all the attention.
If we hyper focus on that the same thing has to apply in reverse. Otherwise we are unfairly critiquing the ABs.
For me the Irish played 60 mins with even numbers and didn't create a lot of try scoring opportunities so I don't feel like anyone should be overly generous to them. They can feel hard done by but I don't think it's why they lost.
I'm certainly not saying that is why they lost, they were poor: error-prone and couldn't even control their own set-piece.
What I am saying is that we were pretty bloody mediocre too for most of that game - and our win should be taken with their poor performance and the card as context. -
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@nonpartizan said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Richie8-7 said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@No-Quarter said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate I am TRYING to be positive here!!
To try to counter that point, I think the impact of their forwards tiring is less in the modern game given you can replace so much of your pack in the 2nd 40. If we'd built a lead during that period you could say that it had a big impact, but as it stands it was them that went ahead, so I don't think the impact of that card was as bad as it could have been for Ireland.
Yeah sorry to bring you down bro.
It's less impactful, but I think it's still a pretty big deal: 20 minutes with 14 you may do well to limit the damage, but still have the fatigue from that effort affect you late in the game.
Think I'm right in saying that Beirne is one of their 80 minute guys too? (and he's certainly a workhorse).We had 20 minutes with 14 in 2023 against a much better Irish side and still won.
Not sure that's a great example. We started really well, and had to make a mountain of tackles and hang on for grim death late in the game to scrape the win because of those cards. Sam Whitelock with the turnover after 30+ phases, and I think Jordie also held someone up over the line? Replay that game 100 x and I think most times we lose it because of the cards.
So an example of a match where a team won is not a good example of a team winning with 14 players for 20 minutes? Good lord. Ireland didn't just lose on Sunday, they got hammered 4 tries to 1 and the final score flattered them.
Ireland also should have had a yellow card in 2023 for a high tackle that was never reviewed after we kicked a 50-22. And in that last play there were 2 forward passes, neck roll on Ioane and a clear penalty won by Ardie. So not only did we win with 14 players for 20 mins, we won against the tide of terrible decisions.
It can be done, and obviously happens sometimes - but, "good lord", that doesn't mean the card doesn't matter.
We took the lead in about the 60th minute. They were poor, sure. But if we aren't in front for 3/4 of the game, I don't really think it's a hammering.The card does matter of course, which is why you shouldn't make a no arms tackle with a shoulder to the head. I was saying it is still possible to win.
And yes, it is a hammering. It's an 80 minute game, not 60. 33-13 would have been a fair reflection. If the score at 60 minutes had any relevance there wouldn't be so much angst about the Springboks match in Wellington.
Fair point.
The Boks didn't take a lead this year v ABs until after 2 entire hours of rugby yet it's the last 20 minutes in Wellington that is afforded all the attention.
If we hyper focus on that the same thing has to apply in reverse. Otherwise we are unfairly critiquing the ABs.
For me the Irish played 60 mins with even numbers and didn't create a lot of try scoring opportunities so I don't feel like anyone should be overly generous to them. They can feel hard done by but I don't think it's why they lost.
I'm certainly not saying that is why they lost, they were poor: error-prone and couldn't even control their own set-piece.
What I am saying is that we were pretty bloody mediocre too for most of that game - and our win should be taken with their poor performance and the card as context.Fair enough, can't disagree with you there.
I will admit my opinion is slightly coloured by listening to a few of the Irish journalists/podcasters whinging about the card when they had been talking up their chances in the week leading to the test. Came across as poor losers because for me, card or not they didn't do enough to feel they should have won that match.
But yeah I agree with you - context is important. The first half was appalling and it wasnt untill the hour mark that they hit their stride.
-
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow Gareth really is struggling desparately to find any sort of angle on this one.
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
I thought that initially but on some angles it looks like he's driving up and into it.
Look at about 9s here on the second angle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1olyafz/tadhg_beirne_yellow_upgraded_to_red_card/
In the second angle his leading leg goes from bent to fully extended upwards on contact which is not a good look because his full bodyweight is leading into it when he connects.
He's certainly moving forwards and in anticipation of having to make a tackle doesn't look to be preparing to grasp. Quite the opposite.
I don't understand the argument that he didn't expect to have to make one either. Being in the defensive line must have confused him.
Outside of acts of filth, this is as clear as a red card gets. And while Beaudy is being the bigger man - a stoic, magnanimous Kiwi - the demented are trotting that out as proof it shouldn't have been a card.
-
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
I thought that initially but on some angles it looks like he's driving up and into it.
Look at about 9s here on the second angle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1olyafz/tadhg_beirne_yellow_upgraded_to_red_card/
In the second angle his leading leg goes from bent to fully extended upwards on contact which is not a good look because his full bodyweight is leading into it when he connects.
To me, he's just taken a step, which I guess means his trajectory is marginally upwards? The 2nd angle is from below which makes it look worse, just as the first angle is from above and it doesn't look like that at all.
I don't think you can watch it at full speed and tell me that he's deliberately driving up - he's genuinely surprised by the ball being thrown forward to BB in a ridiculous position.Angus Ta'avao was probably genuinely surprised too when he got smashed in the face and knocked out followed by a red card.
-
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@brodean said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@reprobate said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
So again, upright and driving up? Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
He wasn't driving up at all.
I thought that initially but on some angles it looks like he's driving up and into it.
Look at about 9s here on the second angle.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1olyafz/tadhg_beirne_yellow_upgraded_to_red_card/
In the second angle his leading leg goes from bent to fully extended upwards on contact which is not a good look because his full bodyweight is leading into it when he connects.
To me, he's just taken a step, which I guess means his trajectory is marginally upwards? The 2nd angle is from below which makes it look worse, just as the first angle is from above and it doesn't look like that at all.
I don't think you can watch it at full speed and tell me that he's deliberately driving up - he's genuinely surprised by the ball being thrown forward to BB in a ridiculous position.Angus Ta'avao was probably genuinely surprised too when he got smashed in the face and knocked out followed by a red card.
Absolutely, and again in that instance I think the game is worse for that being a red card.
-
@Jet said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Tim said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
The mitigation was it was a forward pass
That is a unique excuse. No one else saw it, nor did would it have impacted the tackle situation.
Come on ...
Kelleher asked the ref to look at the pass. Ref didn't.
Beirne wasn't set up to tackle. He was set up to brace for impact from a dummy runner.
Then it changed in an instant and he made head contact in the collision.
It certainly wasn't a tackle.
Sheehan asked.
My bad, yes Sheehan
-
@Jet said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Im already fucking disgusted with next Saturdays performance against Scotland.
Well at least you are consistent Dr Gloom.
And to think we actually won the last game! -
Leicester needs to be starting every game in the midfield through to 2027.
The opposition spam the blitz D with huge success against us since Fozzie took over. Think it's because we moved to more playmakers in the midfield instead of proper ball-carriers. It's much harder to use blitz D when you have a tank charging at you instead of a lanky Jordie B, ALB, Rieko, Proctor coming at you.
Big ball-carrying backs with skill are part of NZs DNA... and we've moved from it to our own detriment. It'll straighten our attack, hesitate the defensive line, give our forwards extra time to clean, and take a ton of pressure off the playmakers.
-
@mohikamo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@MiketheSnow Gareth really is struggling desparately to find any sort of angle on this one.
I feel misquoted.
-
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
This! I go against the grain on the "accidental so ok" bollocks.
As Joey Swoll says, you need to do better.
9 times out of 10, foul play is simply players putting themselves in a poor position and/or trying to do something they shouldn't, being reckless and sometimes wilfully ignorant. This is the same argument that gives players a free pass to wipe out players in the air with "but sir, he was only watching the ball the whole time". Yeah numpty, that's the fucking issue.
Be aware, act consciously, take responsibility. These are well paid professional players and coaches.
-
@Bones said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
@booboo said in Ireland v All Blacks - Chicago2:
Ball or no ball he put himself into that position.
This! I go against the grain on the "accidental so ok" bollocks.
As Joey Swoll says, you need to do better.
9 times out of 10, foul play is simply players putting themselves in a poor position and/or trying to do something they shouldn't, being reckless and sometimes wilfully ignorant. This is the same argument that gives players a free pass to wipe out players in the air with "but sir, he was only watching the ball the whole time". Yeah numpty, that's the fucking issue.
Be aware, act consciously, take responsibility. These are well paid professional players and coaches.
I agree with this sentiment most of the time when a tackler doesn't get low (and all the time when the tackler has time to get low), but in this instance he had no time and wasn't even looking to tackle - I get you don't think that makes a difference, but to me it kinda does. It's not realistic for the game to be played by 15 blokes crouching, and he's being penalised for a dangerous tackle when he hasn't actually even attempted a tackle. Yes I see the argument that he's part of the defensive line so of course he's there to make a tackle - but in practical terms I think he's just taking the space to prevent anyone trying to go through there - which is why neither he or BB expected the pass.
That's why the argument from the Irish about the pass being forward - because at that point BB wasn't a realistic recipient, so the tackler wasn't prepared. It's a shit argument of course, because it's immaterial to the current interpretations, but personally I do see it as mitigating and I'd expect it to get him off any further sanctions -
@reprobate you can't see the fault in that argument I take it?
Right, so he's lined up in defence, advanced then had time to note the pass would be forward so adjusted in that very short amount of time to not attempt a tackle, but brace himself to a shoulder charge with decent force and a tucked elbow.
So he was either prepared to make a tackle and readjusted in the time we're saying people can't make decisions, or he was reckless and wasn't prepared to make a legal tackle.
