All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider
-
@gt12 said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Porter cleared, so fuck who knows. Probably the rule appears to be that the darker your jersey the better your chance of spending some time on sidelines.
Was it the same panel that heard Ta’avu’s case? If not, surely it makes sense that the same panel sit for all the matches of a series so that at least there’s an attempt at consistency.
As an Irish fan I thought Peyper, a ref I have very little time for, had not given enough weight to mitigation when he sent off Ta’avu, and that Barnes decision on Porter was correct after seemingly having had a change of mind about mitigation, but for the disciplinary panels to have such a different view of both incidents is really worrying.
It must be the most difficult spot to referee, with so many things happening at such speed simultaneously, but these panels are only looking at one incident with multiple angles with the laws laid out in front of them, and we still get these hugely inconsistent outcomes. WR needs to take a long hard look at the process.
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
Was it the same panel that heard Ta’avu’s case? If not, surely it makes sense that the same panel sit for all the matches of a series so that at least there’s an attempt at consistency.
I dont believe it was, I dont recall the names, but the Angus one had a female (assumed gender by a name, apologies all) on the panel, I dont think this one did.
But agree, same panel for consistency, but then that would be a bit of common sense, and WR is nothing if not inconsistent.
-
For Ta'avao the committee was:
The independent Judicial Committee, chaired by Wang Shao-Ing (Singapore), former player Leon Lloyd (England) and former coach Frank Hadden (Scotland).
@Bovidae said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
For Ta'avao the committee was:
The independent Judicial Committee, chaired by Wang Shao-Ing (Singapore), former player Leon Lloyd (England) and former coach Frank Hadden (Scotland).
Frank Hadden was on both. And still they came to a different conclusion. So basically, it is a lottery. Joke.
-
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
-
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
-
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
-
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
"Is there cognitive bias at play?"
Does the pope shit in the woods?
-
My issue is consistency or the lack thereof. Show me in their guidelines where “absorbing” is a mitigation? If that’s the case then why wasn’t Ringrose’s change of direction a mitigation?
-
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
I'm missing the absorbing context-to my eyes after the event Retallick clearly "absorbed" the impact on his cheekbone.
-
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
I'm missing the absorbing context-to my eyes after the event Retallick clearly "absorbed" the impact on his cheekbone.
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
I'm missing the absorbing context-to my eyes after the event Retallick clearly "absorbed" the impact on his cheekbone.
Porter started to slow, so that he could get higher and brace harder, thus absorbing. The fact this absorbing movement is actually what mostly led to him breaking Brodie's cheek because he went higher, doesn't seem to register with these numbnuts.
-
where is the IRB's video featuring that Welsh piston wristed gibbon to come on and tell everyone how fucking dumb Barnes was and how there should have been a red and a yellow.
-
i could understand if he only got a 2 weeks ban or something...but there is a hell of a difference between a RC and a 3 week ban and just YC
@Kiwiwomble said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
i could understand if he only got a 2 weeks ban or something...but there is a hell of a difference between a RC and a 3 week ban and just YC
What makes it even stupider to me, is that they cited him! Which means they thought it was RC worthy!
Then once he got to the hearing....haaaaa gotcha Andrew! We were just having a laugh.
-
@nostrildamus said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
There is a lot of hypocrisy over the Porter incident. Many (mainly Irish naturally) are defending Porter and fully understand how the "absorbing" tackle Porter did led to only a yellow, rather than a red.
This would be the same crowd who peddle the myth that the ABs are dirty and get away with murder. I guess that myth just ran away with aura.
I'm missing the absorbing context-to my eyes after the event Retallick clearly "absorbed" the impact on his cheekbone.
Porter started to slow, so that he could get higher and brace harder, thus absorbing. The fact this absorbing movement is actually what mostly led to him breaking Brodie's cheek because he went higher, doesn't seem to register with these numbnuts.
@Bones agree, though I expect it is more a reflex or natural instinct to 'brace' for that impact, which as you say, made him straighten and hit higher.
Last week, I disagreed with the card, and subsequent ban, on this one, I agree with the end result (not red, no ban) but as with most, the inconsistency of it all is a fucking joke; as to the wording, an absorbing tackle, the fuck are you fluffybunnies on!
Clearly his head didnt absorb jack shit, given the other person got broken.
-
@Bones agree, though I expect it is more a reflex or natural instinct to 'brace' for that impact, which as you say, made him straighten and hit higher.
Last week, I disagreed with the card, and subsequent ban, on this one, I agree with the end result (not red, no ban) but as with most, the inconsistency of it all is a fucking joke; as to the wording, an absorbing tackle, the fuck are you fluffybunnies on!
Clearly his head didnt absorb jack shit, given the other person got broken.
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Bones agree, though I expect it is more a reflex or natural instinct to 'brace' for that impact, which as you say, made him straighten and hit higher.
Last week, I disagreed with the card, and subsequent ban, on this one, I agree with the end result (not red, no ban) but as with most, the inconsistency of it all is a fucking joke; as to the wording, an absorbing tackle, the fuck are you fluffybunnies on!
Clearly his head didnt absorb jack shit, given the other person got broken.
Since when has the word absorbing been used to determine mitigation. How are Refs determining what is an absorbing tackle or not?
-
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Bones agree, though I expect it is more a reflex or natural instinct to 'brace' for that impact, which as you say, made him straighten and hit higher.
Last week, I disagreed with the card, and subsequent ban, on this one, I agree with the end result (not red, no ban) but as with most, the inconsistency of it all is a fucking joke; as to the wording, an absorbing tackle, the fuck are you fluffybunnies on!
Clearly his head didnt absorb jack shit, given the other person got broken.
Since when has the word absorbing been used to determine mitigation. How are Refs determining what is an absorbing tackle or not?
@Nevorian said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@taniwharugby said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Bones agree, though I expect it is more a reflex or natural instinct to 'brace' for that impact, which as you say, made him straighten and hit higher.
Last week, I disagreed with the card, and subsequent ban, on this one, I agree with the end result (not red, no ban) but as with most, the inconsistency of it all is a fucking joke; as to the wording, an absorbing tackle, the fuck are you fluffybunnies on!
Clearly his head didnt absorb jack shit, given the other person got broken.
Since when has the word absorbing been used to determine mitigation. How are Refs determining what is an absorbing tackle or not?
I thought Angus may have got a yellow if he was passive. He had a compromised body position, but still went forward. Partly of course because I don't think he really saw Ringrose!
-
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
History of thuggery of course, it must be payback for nearly killing O’Driscoll all those years ago. Trying to think of who was the last All Black thug who got cited for eye gouging or biting or testicle grabbing or whatever
-
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
History of thuggery of course, it must be payback for nearly killing O’Driscoll all those years ago. Trying to think of who was the last All Black thug who got cited for eye gouging or biting or testicle grabbing or whatever
@Nevorian said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@stodders said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
@Halfout said in All Blacks vs Ireland - series decider:
With all due respect, practically all rugby fans are hypocrites. Only last week some guys were on here were giving out about Irelands use of the screen and dummy runners, tactics the ABs have used brilliantly for years. I’m fairly sure that those same posters weren’t ranting then about the ABs cheating.
Most of my rugby mates felt the Ta’avu red was harsh, and were delighted but a bit surprised that Porter didn’t get a red. I’m also surprised the disciplinary panel took the line they did, if only because it doesn’t make for great optics. I would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot, especially if we had lost, but to be honest we all remember the ones where we’ve been on the wrong end of a decision but quickly forget when we’ve got away with one.
There's a difference between whinging about borderline legal play like screening or not entering the breakdown through the gate or not clearly releasing the tackled player before latching onto the ball for a turnover (which are all fair play if you can get away with it)
and whinging about referees and citing committees being inconsistent with red cards. I've seen too many posts in the last couple of days from various nationalities saying that the ABs deserve their cards purely for their history of thuggery. So it doesn't matter whether an AB gets a harsh red, it is entirely warranted because the ABs cheat and are dirty and that's the reason why they are as successful as they are....Yadda Yadda Yadda.
I am intrigued to know if these posters would have been so quick to argue in Porter's defence if it wasn't the ABs that were on the receiving end of the non-decision. Say, if it were Italy. Is there cognitive bias at play?
History of thuggery of course, it must be payback for nearly killing O’Driscoll all those years ago. Trying to think of who was the last All Black thug who got cited for eye gouging or biting or testicle grabbing or whatever
A shoulder to the orbital is far more thuggish and damage inflicting than a balls grab
-
I have said it in the other thread but will say it again. If the outcome of a rugby match is being decided by a super slow motion capture of the weight balance of a 130KG man 1/10th of a second before impact. Then the game is fucked, we will never get consistency.
World Rugby need to give up on red cards and handle rugby related discipline issues with yellows and injury and foul play with the judiciary. At least then we will have fewer matches that are total write offs after an accident 15 minutes into the game.
Ireland were better then us in this series but lets not forget we stuffed them in the first test by playing 15 minutes of rugby. The northern hemisphere want to talk up what a great Irish team this is fine. But they seem to have forgotten that first test. We are not a million miles away here we need to look at that period of play and find a way to bottle that. If we can even play like that for 30 minutes no one will be able to touch us.
-
The video doing the rounds supposedly after Saturday is not a great look for any concerned
