[RWC2023] South Africa vs Ireland (23/09/2023)

[Lé Ddanno]

View attachment 17883

So cruel. So Welsh.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

So I used to bring this up back in the day… but it was only ever in banter tbh. Ireland are Ireland, regardless of the religious and political beefs that have festered for various reasons. I spent quite a lot of time in Belfast, speaking to people from various backgrounds (class and religion) and they just wanted Ireland to be Ireland (for the most part at least). It's one country divided by what is ultimately unnecessary shite.

What do this poster and Johnny Sexton have in common?

After a long break they are still ed

 

[Lé Ddanno]

What do this poster and Johnny Sexton have in common?

After a long break they are still ed

Hey don't let him cocktease you

 

[bushytop]

Hey don't let him cocktease you

Dude, this was never a thruple…

 

[Lé Ddanno]

Dude, this was never a thruple…

Get back here you sillybollocks

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Still don't have much to say about this game but I'll watch it again later. In getting carried away in the moment I don't think I was overly gracious but that game was awesome, a shame one team had to lose. If we meet again it'll be a worthy final Bokke.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Get back here you sillybollocks

Go on

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I used to think the "don't play your final before the final" thing was bullshit until I heard some of the smarter athletes talk about what it was like. It's not they players are purposely choosing to not try in certain games but rather it's just really hard to get into that zone on a frequent basis.



England faced a similar criticism for the 2019 New Zealand semi final (I wasn't a believer in emotional energy at the time) but that was a one week turn around so Ireland do have more time. I do think that South Africa did reveal an outpouring of emotion as well after the game so I would express similar doubts about their knockout hopes. They are essentially guaranteed a spot in the knockouts though.



France and New Zealand seemed to treat that first game as a prologue rather than a clash of the ***ans.

@die_mole - Moving this as we're getting more Ireland specific.

Don't get me wrong, I think it's definitely a thing. Look at us v France in 2015, hugely physical effort, very emotional post game and both teams fell totally flat a week later. I just don't see it here for a few reasons.

1. I don't think they over celebrated, it was a fairly brisk lap of the pitch and back into the dressing rooms, they got in quicker than SA did.

2. Two weeks is plenty of time to ground the team.

3. They're not facing a challenge remotely as big as Saturday in two weeks.

4. The team have gone back to back a few times now, not on the same scale but there is no bigger scale than a RWC.

 

[PersonInUniverse]

In relation to the contentious maul decision at the end match. I researched the World Rugby laws and it says, if a player goes off their feet and takes the ball from the maul, they are guilty of illegal handling and will be penalised.

The player was clearly off of his feet when taking the ball from the maul. Therefore the time it took to come out was irrelevant in this case because it was taken out illegally in the first place.

 

[AngloScotsHybrid]

As we are discussing the laws of the game I have a query which arose from this match. There was a lineout near Ireland's goal line where South Africa had the throw in. The commentator mentioned that Ireland had to decide whether to compete for the ball or keep their players on the ground to defend the maul. Ireland made the decision to compete and then the ref called against South Africa for a not straight throw. The commentator praised Ireland and indicated that had Ireland not competed for the ball the referee wouldn't have made that call about the throw. Is that the law? Can a throw only be not straight if both sides are competing for the ball? Surely if its not straight then the ref should blow his whistle regardless of whether the defending side is jumping for the ball.

 

[Which Tyler]

As we are discussing the laws of the game I have a query which arose from this match. There was a lineout near Ireland's goal line where South Africa had the throw in. The commentator mentioned that Ireland had to decide whether to compete for the ball or keep their players on the ground to defend the maul. Ireland made the decision to compete and then the ref called against South Africa for a not straight throw. The commentator praised Ireland and indicated that had Ireland not competed for the ball the referee wouldn't have made that call about the throw. Is that the law? Can a throw only be not straight if both sides are competing for the ball? Surely if its not straight then the ref should blow his whistle regardless of whether the defending side is jumping for the ball.

From memory, that changed a few years ago.
Basically, if you throw not straight, but no defenders go up, then it's immaterial, and now allowed.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

From memory, that changed a few years ago.
Basically, if you throw not straight, but no defenders go up, then it's immaterial, and now allowed.

The law hasn't changed, but refs are instructed to consider materiality. If you don't jump, it doesn't matter if the throw is a little crooked. As with many of the laws, it's open to interpretation and in reality it's a bit of a fudge to make the game work a little more smoothly.
If every infringement was blown up, we'd be lucky to get 5 minutes of ball in play time. It's this subjectivity that means some refs can be fussier than others and still be working within the laws and guidance. On a reffing workshop a few years ago, it was explained that Loughborough had done a study, and including materiality, elite refs make up to 800 decisions in a top level professional game.

 

[O’Doyle Rules]

Ah I was at the game on Saturday and I can't stop thinking about it. Felt like a bit of an out of body experience at times.

Was that a one off occasion or is this going to be expected for Scotland and, maybe, NZ?

Can't help but feel Ireland are turning this into a home word cup and we know what that record is like.

 

[PersonInUniverse]

In relation to the contentious maul decision at the end match. I researched the World Rugby laws and it says, if a player goes off their feet and takes the ball from the maul, they are guilty of illegal handling and will be penalised.

The player was clearly off of his feet when taking the ball from the maul. Therefore the time it took to come out was irrelevant in this case because it was taken out illegally in the first place

In relation to the contentious maul decision at the end match. I researched the World Rugby laws and it says, if a player goes off their feet and takes the ball from the maul, they are guilty of illegal handling and will be penalised.

The player was clearly off of his feet when taking the ball from the maul. Therefore the time it took to come out was irrelevant in this case because it was taken out illegally in the first place.

Anyone confident enough to confirm if this is correct? The ball coming out of this maul is a huge discussion across social media and absolutely no one has identified that he was off his feet, including rugby pundits on tv and radio. It seems to be there in black and white in the rulebook, yet no-one mentions it. Any rugby forum rulebook expert here that knows about this?

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

Anyone confident enough to confirm if this is correct? The ball coming out of this maul is a huge discussion across social media and absolutely no one has identified that he was off his feet, including rugby pundits on tv and radio. It seems to be there in black and white in the rulebook, yet no-one mentions it. Any rugby forum rulebook expert here that knows about this?

Law 13 opens with the statement that the game is played only by players on their feet.
Law 13.3(b) states that a player off their feet on the field of play must not play the ball.

 

[duncanb]

Law 13 opens with the statement that the game is played only by players on their feet.
Law 13.3(b) states that a player off their feet on the field of play must not play the ball.

Maul laws are from 17.
Various apply.
Law 13 refers to open play.
At a tackle the ball can be played by a player on floor for example.
Each law needs to be taken in context to the position of the game.
So this instance we look at laws 17 and 18.
I'm personally guessing that the ref decided the maul had become unplayable ( without foul play)
Interestingly if a maul goes to ground again the ball carrier can play the ball as with a tackle immediately.
Personally think play perhaps could have rolled for a second or two longer as looked slight momentum.
But have no real issues being called unplayable either.
(Retired ref from the weeds rugby)

 

[PersonInUniverse]

Cubus wasn't the ball carrier though. He grabbed and delivered the ball from the maul, but he was laying on the maul off of his feet when he grabbed it out. Seems like an illegal handling of the ball in this case?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Cubus wasn't the ball carrier though. He grabbed and delivered the ball from the maul, but he was laying on the maul off of his feet when he grabbed it out. Seems like an illegal handling of the ball in this case?

Could just as easily argue he only went off his feet due to the Irish player pulling him in which wouldn't be allowed as the maul had already collapsed and he was the halve. Argue, mind you. Not stating that as fact. The margins are very fine and I'm glad it wasn't me having to make the calls.

That said its not the reason why we lost and my personal opinion is Ireland were good value for the win. We only have ourselves to blame on numerous fronts. Both teams have even more in them which is why my 2c is still that despite massive QFs on the cards I wouldn't be surprised if this was a dress rehearsal for the eventual final but that is getting massively ahead of myself.

 

[ShropshireAllBlack]

Maul laws are from 17.
Various apply.
Law 13 refers to open play.
At a tackle the ball can be played by a player on floor for example.
Each law needs to be taken in context to the position of the game.
So this instance we look at laws 17 and 18.
I'm personally guessing that the ref decided the maul had become unplayable ( without foul play)
Interestingly if a maul goes to ground again the ball carrier can play the ball as with a tackle immediately.
Personally think play perhaps could have rolled for a second or two longer as looked slight momentum.
But have no real issues being called unplayable either.
(Retired ref from the weeds rugby)

Law 16 is the maul, 17 & 18 are the Mark & Ball in Touch & Quick Throws.

16.8 The ball carrier can go to ground as long as the ball is presented immediately.
16.9 All other players in a maul must endeavour to stay on their feet.

There's no other reference to players off their feet in law 16.
As Cobus wasn't bound to the maul, he was in open play, so 13 applies.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I think we got a bit lucky on that maul to be honest, it was one of those where play on, penalty SA and scrum Ireland could probably all be correct calls depending on how you see Bundee's drive and what you consider ball available to be. I think we probably only get that call about 20% of the time.

Not game defining really though and I think it was a very balanced referee performance, one of the best I've seen at that scale. Watching the game again has only really built my confidence going into the next set of (hopefully) four big games. We didn't play our game very well but fronted up and picked our moments and won a lot of the small but game building moments*, there's room to get an extra bit on top of that performance which is huge at this level. I don't think Scotland are much of a factor at all, I think I said it before the 6n that they'll eventually beat us and I'll look stupid in the moment for underestimating them but when that happens it'll be a huge upset, they've scored 5 and 7 points in the last two meetings and last kept us below 20 in 2020 (19 points and still a loss), they'll have to do way better both sides of the ball in two weeks.

*I think that was what was game defining to be honest, talk about kicks and lineouts til the cows come home but SA win that on another day when they're the ones making big tackles and big turnovers in pivotal moments, they certainly have the individuals to do it. It was Ireland on Saturday getting most of them and that's what makes the difference.