6N Ireland v England
-
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
And the effects of those decisions can’t be understated. The Ta’avao/Porter inequity could have lead to a series reversal . That could have given Fozzie a decent start to 2022. Instead he was on the back foot from the get go and the year unravelled from there. It also lead us to the current situation of him being reticent to reapply for his own job and having razor hanging over him like a spectre for the World Cup year.
Similarly , when Steward got sent off it was a 4 point game and Ireland were not their normal efficient machine. It was cagey.
Long story short they easily could have failed in NZ and “bottled” the grand slam. That changes the narrative massively in a World Cup year . Butterfly effect of these cards etc.
We need consistency in these refereeing decisions. It bloody matters.
-
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step
the protocol should prevent individual referees
a) going rogue, and
b) make it apparent when an inconsistent decision is madePeyper's head is filled with 'head contact must have consequences', and the TMO and AR aren't empowered to say 'rugby incident, carry on'. Hell, I challenge anyone to be able to confidently predict the outcome of any incident, both on the field and at the judiciary. Remember the bloody Irish series last year; Ta'avo Red, Porter Yellow, and Jordie in Game 3 goes in upright, has plenty of head contact, and it's ignored. The inconsistency is insane.
Maybe if they really want to drive behaviour/coaching changes then all head contact should be identified post match and dealt with. They say that the citing commissioner does that but we have seen plenty of examples where nothing happens so you really wonder (Aki clear shoulder to the head at a ruck with a tucked arm and enough force to smash a front rower back - zero, zilch, nothing). We all noticed it in real time. I can understand the ref not seeing it in the moment but the reviewing official post game?
Jordie Barrett was absolutely mullered in the face against the force two weeks ago. A lock came over a ruck like a missile while he was defending his own try line. So you’re sitting there going to yourself . “well that try will be disallowed and they will be down a man for the rest of the game”.
Not a sausage from the ref or his colleagues.
We can’t have a sport that’s a lottery like this . It’s terrible fare being served up.
-
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
-
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
-
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
@MajorRage said in 6N Ireland v England:
It’s one thing for dickheads on a web forum to fight over rules …. But world rugby to over rule the ref?
Fuct.
Isn't that why there is a judiciary though? If they weren't there to correct a decision made in the heat of a game then they just become an expensive way to dish out the prescribed punishment by formula.
You can’t correct the decison.
England played with 14 men for most of the match.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Fern Rule #6 - Posters retain the right to be proven wrong and not know shit.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
if you knew what the judiciary would do, you should be buying lotto tickets. There was zero consensus on whether that was the right decision or not.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Sounds like you have a bones to pick…
-
Colour me surprised.
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
TBF, they weren't arguing the current rules/guidelines are crap, but that the Ref applied the rules correctly.
We now have the worst of both worlds: Crap rules and Refs hung out to dry for following them
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Whilst I agree the correct decision has been arrived at, I would not be basing my argument on “I was right, World Rugby Judiciary’ decision proves this”.
This one is a case in point. They may have come to the right outcome but how they got there is farcical. They deemed Steward’s actions as reckless, leading with the shoulder and in an upright position. By their own rules that constitutes foul play (whether we agree with that terminology is irrelevant here). They then go on to cite mitigating factors, however my understanding is that, by their own rules, if it is deemed foul play then mitigation does not come into it.
It may be a professional game but it is still being run by amateurs.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in 6N Ireland v England:
players being told cards are a lottery
if it's a lottery, people will roll the dice.
IF there are clear, achievable frameworks about what people need to do, wiht consistent enforcement, behaviour changes quickly. The randomness is super frustrating.
@nzzp said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Victor-Meldrew said in 6N Ireland v England:
players being told cards are a lottery
if it's a lottery, people will roll the dice.
IF there are clear, achievable frameworks about what people need to do, wiht consistent enforcement, behaviour changes quickly. The randomness is super frustrating.
This is the crux
Penalise and hard censure
Rolling the dice will soon stop
-
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.Watch it again
'Doubled over and out of control'
Keenan was home and hosed if Steward hadn't hip checked him
-
Read a stat today that NZ had 14 yellows and 3 reds in 27 games.
Australia have 23 yellows and 3 reds in 28 games.
What sort of fucking sport is this?
In the same time frame as the above , Ireland had 3 yellows.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
Read a stat today that NZ had 14 yellows and 3 reds in 27 games.
Australia have 23 yellows and 3 reds in 28 games.
What sort of fucking sport is this?
In the same time frame as the above , Ireland had 3 yellows.
It's called learnings
-
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
@Steve said in 6N Ireland v England:
A few posters are conspicuous in their respective absences from posting since the card was rescinded…….
Not so bombastic now are we.
Peyper was correct, the judiciary were wrong
Thought it was so obvious it didn't need posting
-
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.Watch it again
'Doubled over and out of control'
Keenan was home and hosed if Steward hadn't hip checked him
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.Watch it again
'Doubled over and out of control'
Keenan was home and hosed if Steward hadn't hip checked him
Home and hosed off a spilled forward ball that he bent to retrieve. If the pass was good he would have probably stepped or pushed off Steward.
-
@Crucial said in 6N Ireland v England:
Take away the over analysis and ideas of what should have been done in Matrix style slow downs and what you have is an accident. Poor split second decisions that wouldn't have happened had there not been a munted pass.
The next point is the tools and processes available to the reffing team and how they used them. Peyper's use of the 'foul play' step to the protocol was the key. Like some posters here he decided that Steward didn't 'take care' (ie Careless, therefore foul play). Once he started down that road the only way out of a red was mitigation. The fact that Keenean was nearly doubled over and out of control should have provided that but to me Peyper made his mind up first then went through the protocol to justify rather than the other way around. Peyper's whole demeanour and body language was very defensive. He put up walls to reasonable thought and leaned on the protocols as an excuse for his decision.Watch it again
'Doubled over and out of control'
Keenan was home and hosed if Steward hadn't hip checked him
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
Watch it again
'Doubled over and out of control'
Keenan was home and hosed if Steward hadn't hip checked him
You said above that one of the things Steward should have done was avoid him completely. Add on to that your view that there was no forward pass beforehand, then your effectively saying Steward should have let him through to score ...
Ok, have to whack a few things together there to form that!
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
It's called learnings
Plenty of videos about showing inconsistencies where Ireland didn't get penalised / cards for incidents. So lady luck, or a better disciplined team? Combo of both I think.
@MiketheSnow said in 6N Ireland v England:
Peyper was correct, the judiciary were wrong
Thought it was so obvious it didn't need posting
A view only. Not fact.
I don't even know what I think anymore. I grudgingly agreed that Peyper's actions were a correct application of the laws. But now the judiciary say they weren't.
Not sure how the game can move forward with this. They've basically said England were incorrectly plaing with lesser men for 60 mins. It's beyond a joke. How on earth can we go into a World Cup whereby a referee could change the course of a match by a decison which seems right, but then for WR to say it isn't. Imagined losing a knockout game by less than a score afer losing a player in the first half, only for WR to then say it was the wrong decison.
