All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider

[Tim]

@nostrildamus When has Blackadder played half as well as Ioane did on Saturday at 6? Last year his impact was mediocre in tests, even if he appeared busy.

[Tim]

Time and again there is quibbling and speculating about loose trios, but it's invariably about trying to compensate for our lousy tight five. You can't cure the disease by trying to address one symptom.

[Bones]

@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Cane looks battle weary

It's a strange one eh - did he even get in a decent amount of super rugby?

My brother swears by Blackadder on the blind, reckons he hurts people - but I just think he's a slightly smaller version of Grace - another 7.5 with a big motor. Just off the eye test anyway.

[nostrildamus]

@Tim said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@nostrildamus When has Blackadder played half as well as Ioane did on Saturday at 6? Last year his impact was mediocre in tests, even if he appeared busy.

I think mediocre is a little harsh but I grant you sometimes he doesn't look very efficient.

[Billy Tell]

Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)

[Bones]

@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)

As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.

[Billy Tell]

@Bones said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)

As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.

He's a miles better ref than in 2007, although I find he tends to be fairly vigilant in the first half then fairly laissez-faire in the 2nd.

I really didn't get this call though - it was a carbon copy of the week before, and this notion of Porter "absorbing" the tackle was absurd.

I would have been annoyed if the ABs required 15 vs 14 to win though, you can't be building a team around that.

[stodders]

@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@Bones said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@Billy-Tell said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Another BS call by Barnes I see (Porter cited)

As good as he's now become, it seems to still be a thing that he will fairly regularly come up with a "crunch" call.

He's a miles better ref than in 2007, although I find he tends to be fairly vigilant in the first half then fairly laissez-faire in the 2nd.

I really didn't get this call though - it was a carbon copy of the week before, and this notion of Porter "absorbing" the tackle was absurd.

I would have been annoyed if the ABs required 15 vs 14 to win though, you can't be building a team around that.

He has a history of these non-calls. Didn't he do something similar in the Premiership final by not sending off the Saracens scrumhalf for a shoulder to the head?

[MiketheSnow]

Which is if fellas?

Cards or no cards?

You can’t have both, and moan when it suits you

[nzzp]

@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Which is if fellas?

Cards or no cards?

You can’t have both, and moan when it suits you

We want cards or no cards and clarity.

Right now we get cards one week, and no cards the next week. That's the complaint

[reprobate]

@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Which is if fellas?

Cards or no cards?

You can’t have both, and moan when it suits you

Yellows, not reds except for genuine nasty filth.
dish out further punishment later on when there isn't time pressure and you can have the same people making every decision, and therefore consistency is more likely to be achievable (and you're not slowing the game down).

[Machpants]

@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Which is if fellas?

Cards or no cards?

You can’t have both, and moan when it suits you

Yeah that's a shit call, what most want is the systems changed, with less cards and more post match punishment. But until that case we want it applied evenly. Porter's hit was a obvious red under the current shit system, in fact it was worse than Ofa. Yet he gets yellow for breaking Brodie's cheek.

It's a shit process and is unevenly applied

[stodders]

@MiketheSnow said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

Which is if fellas?

Cards or no cards?

You can’t have both, and moan when it suits you

Just the laws applied consistently will be fine. So if a challenge is a red one week, it should be a red the next week if a similar situation arises.

No mitigation for "soaking" the tackle to get out of giving the red

Personally, I'd prefer obvious filth and clear stiff arm tackles or shoulders directly to the head to be red cards. Any doubt from the ref, yellow card and leave it to the citing process. To do otherwise means the in-game process is ultimately decided by the individual ref, which means their own biases get in the way. Not good for them, not good for the game.

[Crucial]

Barnes was effectively saying that he disagreed with the call the week before even though it had been ratified by the judiciary.
The 'passive' thing was given much more weight and that was the difference in colour.
To answer your question @MiketheSnow it's consistency that we want first and foremost.

Ideally (and it is an impractical ideal) I would like to see reciprocity in foul play. eg if your act of foul play makes the recipient leave the field you have to leave the field for the same duration. If they fail an HIA or are broken then you stay off but are replaced just as they are.
In Porter's case he is replaced for the rest of the game and a post game review decides if there is further punishment.

[Rancid Schnitzel]

While piling in on Foster (who is also very fat) I realise I didn't even mention the Irish. Regardless of our issues, Farrell has done a great job with that side. Schmidt drilled them well but that ridiculously attritional gameplan did them in the end. Now they're playing with enterprise and creativity and aren't just a battering ram that recycles possession for hours. They are an excellent team now and deservedly won the series.

[stodders]

BBC News - Eddie O'Sullivan: Ireland 'now better than All Blacks - but a long way to World Cup'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/62207583

[taniwharugby]

@Crucial I know it is only the words used, but I hate those accidental collisions being described as 'foul play'

@stodders shock of a headline, Ireland beaten us 3 out of last 4, and they are better than us, colour me surprised

[nzzp]

@Rancid-Schnitzel spot on. The backline moves they ran were the sort of way I'd like the ABs to play. The way they thundered into rucks and tackles and made great decisions on attacking the ball was the way I'd like ABs to play.

[canefan]

@nzzp said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@Rancid-Schnitzel spot on. The backline moves they ran were the sort of way I'd like the ABs to play. The way they thundered into rucks and tackles and made great decisions on attacking the ball was the way I'd like ABs to play.

That's the way we used to play

[Crucial]

@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:

@Crucial I know it is only the words used, but I hate those accidental collisions being described as 'foul play'

I agree. It is the part of the framework that is either most understood or redundant.

The framework has two separate questions at the start. 'Has head contact occurred?' then, if so, 'Is there foul play?'. Foul Play considerations are Intentional, Avoidable, Reckless.

Too often refs going through the process say 'head contact has occurred so it is foul play' then move on to degree, mitigations etc.

I know you have a clear idea what constitutes reckless from insurance work but here is a dictionary definition.

-heedless of danger or the consequences of one's actions; rash or impetuous.

This is why the AT card didn't pass the second question in most eyes and I can't understand why the legal bunch conceded that there was foul play.

-it obviously wasn't intentional (he even came off worse
-the players themselves said it was unavoidable

That leaves reckless. Did he act recklessly? Given that it wasn't intentional or avoidable it is pretty difficult to class as reckless by definition.

In Porters case 'avoidable' doesn't figure as he had clear sight of the charging Retallick from 5 metres away.
Barnes call of 'absorbing' was absolute nonsense unless you only watch the last 0.001 of a second as this shows. Porter ran forward into contact.