June International Test: South Africa vs. Ireland [1st Test] (11/06/2016)

[munstermuffin]

Read through the thread, many disagree with you who aren't Irish. The argument of bias is useless, especially considering I said the guy should have a red in my opinion, otherwise your on the block list and I'm not replying.

Brown was pushed back while already in motion, his standing foot regains balance and his kicking foot continues on it's original plane. You're argument on Brown has gone from "he didn't kick Murray's head" to "he was pushed" one is wrong, the other irrelevant to the incident. Again, these incidents are one in the same and both should be punished or not depending on WR's stance.

"Brown \ murray discusion not a good comparision" is where I came into this argument so that's where Brown comes into it.

CJ doesn't need to be touched, Brown's uncontrolled, swinging boot is equal to CJ's uncontrolled and aggressive jump.

- - - Updated - - -


No such luxury here, mind explaining?

2 who shall remain nameless but I'll admit 1 is my favourite French man explained to ignore as he's done it through 6 Nations and Champios Cup final.

And well as you've portrayed a good argument yet he/she puts it completely in their own way.
Anyways think it on to next week and leave this fabulous victory in history books and try secure historic series win.

CJ has a week and it's a closed case we move on.

 

[munstermuffin]

Sorry mustermuffin, having two different conversations so its probably hard for you to know....

i watched 7 of Leinster home games this year live (Season ticket).....10 of the world cup games.....all six nations....8 Leinster games on TV and around 20 other games on tv between Heineken cup, english premier,and french league so i guess thats a yes

I didnt say what CJ was bad...just deserved a red card, reckless and endangered a fellow game player...he got timing wrong and next time he is in front of someone trying to charge down a kick, the red card will act as a deterrent to do something similar, I think thats a good thing, dont you? You shouldnt be jumping into people kicking , do you agree with that as well?

Ok enjoy I'll move on. But end with no it won't act as deterrent and shouldn't but on advise I'll just leave it at agree to disagree and move on. You've lots that agree with you elsewhere as you say so we will leave it at that

 

[jackass11]

Lets just have a debate on this issue guys than start this school kid private PM stuff...he said this in the past etc etc thats crap!

- - - Updated - - -

OK master muffin, glad you finally gave up! only joking

I will be support ireland again in the second game (rightly without CJ)


Come on you boys on green

 

[Jimbo87]

It did seem a little harsh at first but bottom line is it was slightly late and he knocked the guy out, that has to be sanctioned, brining up the whole Brown incident is utterly ridiculous, brown was entitled to compete for the ball in the ruck, if Murray wasn't cheating messing with the ball on the floor it would probably wouldn't have happened anyway.

You can argue until the cows come home about who agrees/disagrees bottom line is both incidents have been reviewed and reached different outcomes apparently some on here are more qualified than the refs and review panels.... quite laughable really

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

It did seem a little harsh at first but bottom line is it was slightly late and he knocked the guy out, that has to be sanctioned, brining up the whole Brown incident is utterly ridiculous, brown was entitled to compete for the ball in the ruck, if Murray wasn't cheating messing with the ball on the floor it would probably wouldn't have happened anyway.

You can argue until the cows come home about who agrees/disagrees bottom line is both incidents have been reviewed and reached different outcomes apparently some on here are more qualified than the refs and review panels.... quite laughable really

Stander was allowed to charge down a kick too.
Let's say Murray loses an eye, would your argument be that he deserved it for committing the most common offence in rugby? Awful argument.
That more qualified men argument? Fallacious Ad Verecundiam mate, been caught out on that myself would ya believe!

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

On the issue of the CJ Stander red card....


For mine, due the way that referees are currently told to deal with this, I agree that the referee had little choice but to give a red card to Stander

However, I am less than happy with the process. IMO, this is yet another example of outcome-driven decision making, and I don't like it (I have previously expressed my disdain for this type of decision both here and on other forums and in other discussions).

Think back for a moment to the Dan Biggar/Finn Russell incident in the Scotland v Wales 6N match in 2015. For those who haven't seen it...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whN_jd2gh44

I find something deliciously ironic, inconsistent (and just plain wrong) about the fact that when the jumper is jumping to catch the ball (Dan Biggar), and he collides with the player whose feet are on the ground (Finn Russell) the player in the air is protected, but if the player jumps to block the ball (CJ Stander) and collides with the player whose feet are on the ground (Patrick Lambie), its the player on the ground who is protected.

If this decision had been consistent with Joel Jutge's ludicrous memo last year, and with the Finn Russell yellow card, citing and subsequent suspension, then Patrick Lambie ought to have been red carded for endangering the player in the air (and I'm not suggesting for one moment that he ought to have been, I am just making a point about the stupidity of the way the Laws are currently being enforced in this regard). I can easily imagine a situation where Lambie's kick was a little flatter, Stander charged the ball and by a fluke of luck he gets hands to it, and it sticks, and then he clatters into Lambie knocking him out. Stander has challenged for the ball in their air so the Law affords him protection. Is that still a red card for Stander? If so, why would it not be a red card for Biggar?

IMO, if the jumping charger collides with the kicker recklessly, then whether that is a penalty, a yellow card or a red card, it should always be that regardless of consequences. The fact that the kicker was injured ought to be completely irrelevant.

I think the only way this can be completely resolved is to change the legality of jumping to catch a ball or block a kick

1. make jumping to charge down a kick illegal.
2. make it so that only the non-kicking team is allowed to jump to catch the ball, and
3. make it so that a mark can only be taken if the ball is caught with the both the catcher's feet on the ground.

except the laws state that the kicker is protected after they kick the ball and that the receiver has protection from players chasing the ball

idk how the hell you can compare the situation of a player tackling the man in the air and a charge down... by that logic if i attempt to jump over a player in a tackle and they make contact with me they should get a penalty, and we know that is not the case

 

[Peat]

The Brown incident is a very fair comparison - player makes challenge for the ball that is within the rules, due to reckless action they hit opposition player in the head. They should be reffed the same.

But they weren't, because in one the player was injured and in the other he wasn't. Which I think we can all agree is bullcrap.

 

[pagliaccio_euforico]

that brown-murray play was so poorly managed, brown possibly comes in from the side trying to kick the ball out, then murray holds onto the ball.
at this point poite should make a decision to avoid further foul play which brown most definitely commits, tbh the first time i saw it i thought it was fair rucking but i watched it a second time and it's a definite red, he just keeps bashing the head over and over again... doesn't matter that murray is holding on
that's the refs fault but brown shouldn't be doing that and should have been red carded

Stander should have been red carded because he jumped into contact with an opponent and made contact with their head... even though it was a charge down he was still in control of his body

- - - Updated - - -

The Brown incident is a very fair comparison - player makes challenge for the ball that is within the rules, due to reckless action they hit opposition player in the head. They should be reffed the same.

But they weren't, because in one the player was injured and in the other he wasn't. Which I think we can all agree is bullcrap.

yep, i think if brown only makes two attempts at ball and stops he's fine but that is a definite red... i still think that breakdown was officiated terribly

 

[TRF_heineken]

As I said there is an angle I'm convinced it looked like he got hands. Been honest though I'll admit that picture does prove me wrong it seems.
Heineken the red was issued after Lambie was confirmed but regardless of if he played on I think the fact his injury looked serious at time played a part.
And I equally think if it was other way around South Africa fans would argue the exact same point. The ref got it totally wrong and his inexperience showed. Its an opinion you may not agree with but well I believe it wasn't a red card and I'd say a harsh yellow. Again like South African try for Henshaw yellow the ref refused to listen to Best over a clear offense from South Africa. My point is I thought he touched ball and an angle I seen seemed to suggest it. If I'm totally wrong fair enough but I still strongly believe it wasn't a red

Hmmm...

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/stander-suspended-for-lambie-late-challenge-20160613

[TEXTAREA]After hearing the evidence and submissions made by Gerrie Swart, representative of the player, the Judicial Officer was not satisfied on the balance of probability that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, was wrong when he issued the red card to the player.[/TEXTAREA]

How about you just apologise and let's all move on.

 

[munstermuffin]

The Brown incident is a very fair comparison - player makes challenge for the ball that is within the rules, due to reckless action they hit opposition player in the head. They should be reffed the same.

But they weren't, because in one the player was injured and in the other he wasn't. Which I think we can all agree is bullcrap.

This is my only big gripe where punishment is dealt with how the injured party is. Now I don't think either is ban but overall if I punch you in face regardless of if you are out cold or walk away fine the punishment should be the same.

And again, and many will disagree hugely, I think 1 week ban is simply saving face without admitting they were wrong. But look we will probably never agree so will just move on as it's decided and closed.

 

[munstermuffin]

Hmmm...

http://www.sport24.co.za/Rugby/Springboks/stander-suspended-for-lambie-late-challenge-20160613

[TEXTAREA]After hearing the evidence and submissions made by Gerrie Swart, representative of the player, the Judicial Officer was not satisfied on the balance of probability that the referee, Mathieu Raynal of France, was wrong when he issued the red card to the player.[/TEXTAREA]

How about you just apologise and let's all move on.

Not sure what for???? I still don't agree but it's decided so I guess I'll just disagree and get on with it.
And again, and many will disagree hugely, I think 1 week ban is simply saving face without admitting they were wrong. But look we will probably never agree so will just move on as it's decided and closed

 

[saulan]

This was a terrible weekend for me, started suffering from food poisoning halfway through the Bok match and then all South African teams proceeded to lose (Boks, U20s and the cricket side, preceded by the SA A side).

Poor performance from us. Up until the 60th minute I felt that we would stop stuffing around and finish off the game, but it never happened. Very disappointing, especially against 14 men. Well played to the Irish, to pull that win off away from home and down to 14 men for most of the match is a huge achievement. I really hope we will turn it around this weekend, but a part of me is glad that I will be in the bush over the weekend and will most likely miss most if not all of the game.

I liked that you could see that we were at least trying to play a different game plan, even if we failed at it miserably. I get the feeling that the late announcement of the SA coach has meant that players haven't really gotten used to him yet, or used to playing with the different group of players. We usually have player camps from about March for potential Boks but this year its just been this two week period. That gives me hope that we can turn this around for the Rugby Championship but I am unsure that we can turn it around in time to take this series.

I think bringing Morne Steyn back in was a good call. He likes the highveld, was in town and has loads of Bok experience which is what we currently lack in the backline (even if he is just on the bench).

 

[Tony Manx]

Not sure what for???? I still don't agree but it's decided so I guess I'll just disagree and get on with it.
And again, and many will disagree hugely, I think 1 week ban is simply saving face without admitting they were wrong. But look we will probably never agree so will just move on as it's decided and closed

With you MM......that statement and one week ban were a mere face saver for the ref who, maybe following crazy dictats, surely over reacted!

However, unlike many who like hammering a point to the absolute death and deem it a "win" when the other side loses patience and stops posting, I think he was wrong and that is that!!

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

People should remember the referees have been asked by WR to come down hard in these situations.



No malice from Zas and he slips at the moment he wants to jump. But he made the challenge so he has to take the responsibility and the reciever in this case and the kicker in Lambie's case doesn't have the onus on them to move, the onus and risk of sanction is firmly on the challenger as it should be. Its ony called controversial or unlucky because we don't see consistent implementation but it is correct according to current rules and directives.

 

[munstermuffin]

People should remember the referees have been asked by WR to come down hard in these situations.



No malice from Zas and he slips at the moment he wants to jump. But he made the challenge so he has to take the responsibility and the reciever in this case and the kicker in Lambie's case doesn't have the onus on them to move, the onus and risk of sanction is firmly on the challenger as it should be. Its ony called controversial or unlucky because we don't see consistent implementation but it is correct according to current rules and directives.

Trust me I understand that as I remember the case of Jared Payne too but I still think that it wrong but more importantly isn't consistent either.

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Trust me I understand that as I remember the case of Jared Payne too but I still think that it wrong but more importantly isn't consistent either.

Well right or wrong is a judgment call but I can certainly agree there is anything but consistency wherefore I can certainly understand any frustration.

 

[munstermuffin]

Well right or wrong is a judgment call but I can certainly agree there is anything but consistency wherefore I can certainly understand any frustration.

Yeah like I think it is a big issue. Like I know it's going off topic now but Northern Hemisphere teams vs Southern Hemisphere team there is a massive issue creeping in. The styles of a Super Rugby vs Champions Cup also comes from a refs views and this causes confusion. For example the breakdown. Take Joubert vs Owens. 2 very good refs but 2 completely different views at breakdown influenced by their environment. But back on topic I do think it is a very muddy area of game that will cause many a dispute as precedents are set.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

I still don't agree

What don't you agree with? The decision or the rules?

After a bit of reading, i've come to realize the ref's hands were kinda tied here so i can't really blame him.
I do think some the rules (or the way WR enforces them) are just ridiculous.

 

[WaterboySA]

Guilty or not, I think even one game without CJ will rob the fans in SA and Ireland. Do NOT think the ban was necessary, except if a red card means automatic ban(I don't know). Personally I'm ashamed of the way we played. At least give Ireland a go, it's not just 20 km from Ireland to SA you know......pathetic scrums, pathetic line outs, pathetic handling.

 

[munstermuffin]

What don't you agree with? The decision or the rules?

After a bit of reading, i've come to realize the ref's hands were kinda tied here so i can't really blame him.
I do think some the rules (or the way WR enforces them) are just ridiculous.

The decision and the rules. As I say I think the week ban is a way of saving face as they know it was a joke. I accept many here disagree but I think it was WR way of trying to accept it was wrong but not admit it.