Ireland v New Zealand - Take Two

[Laighin Break]

For all the complaints about the ref (and most of them are absolutely correct), I still can't get over the one for Barrett's try. For the TMO to explicitly say that he saw a grounding is nothing short of scandalous, to the point that I feel World Rugby should investigate and release a statement. I'd go as far as to say that it brings the game into disrepute and can't be ignored.

All that said, Sexton's tackle on Barrett was high. Could have just as easily been a penalty try and yellow card.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

For all the complaints about the ref (and most of them are absolutely correct), I still can't get over the one for Barrett's try. For the TMO to explicitly say that he saw a grounding is nothing short of scandalous, to the point that I feel World Rugby should investigate and release a statement. I'd go as far as to say that it brings the game into disrepute and can't be ignored.

All that said, Sexton's tackle on Barrett was high. Could have just as easily been a penalty try and yellow card.

Yeah but I can accept bad decisions or missing things, my issue is with the TMO's response to the explicit question asked. I've already said that I reckon it was a try anyway.

[blues_fan]

Disappointing reaction from some Irish fans. Criticise a man's performance, challenge his decisions and competence, but it is absolutely appalling to not just question his integrity, but to stridently declare his integrity breached based on nothing more than what he does on the pitch. Peyper gave a massive penalty count, two yellow cards and World Rugby cited two ABs, yet it's still not enough to satisfy the bloodlust of some Irish fans. So if a referee doesn't see the match in exactly the same manner as your one eyed Irish opinion he's obviously on the take? Even some very poor examples in this this thread too, although not as bad as other venues for debate.

Reminds me of Ellie F-Sapolu calling Owens a racist merely because he was tough on Samoa, or the awful overreaction we had to Barnes in '07. A shame really.

Wayne Barnes would agree with you. Exact same situation except he was getting it from the kiwi side... and still is.

?

Two wrongs etc.

[blues_fan]

Tut tut blues_fan, claiming the high moral ground.
A little lesson in morality for you.
An old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
This referee was fooled in the 6Ns game between France and Ireland last season - he failed to protect the Irish players against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
Shame on France. I'm sure you can see where this going.
He was fooled a second time last Saturday, this time he failed to protect Irish players (that's the second time) against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
The referee should be ashamed of himself - all we've done is point ti out to him.
I might add NZ did their homework, their performance was no accident and it's no credit to them. Shame on NZ too.

Like I said legitimate criticism of his performance is fine, but to impute bad intent solely based on how a ref performs is awful. Under your logic if a player has two bad games in a row I'm perfectly entitled to assume he's working for a betting syndicate. Insanity.

[matt]

Tut tut blues_fan, claiming the high moral ground.
A little lesson in morality for you.
An old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
This referee was fooled in the 6Ns game between France and Ireland last season - he failed to protect the Irish players against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
Shame on France. I'm sure you can see where this going.
He was fooled a second time last Saturday, this time he failed to protect Irish players (that's the second time) against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
The referee should be ashamed of himself - all we've done is point ti out to him.
I might add NZ did their homework, their performance was no accident and it's no credit to them. Shame on NZ too.

Like I said legitimate criticism of his performance is fine, but to impute bad intent solely based on how a ref performs is awful. Under your logic if a player has two bad games in a row I'm perfectly entitled to assume he's working for a betting syndicate. Insanity.

Listening to NZ media reaction today and they admit they get refereeing decisions "because we are the best team in the world". I did not like that in football when it was same story with Alex Ferguson's Man Utd

[Oldschool]

Tut tut blues_fan, claiming the high moral ground.
A little lesson in morality for you.
An old saying "Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me"
This referee was fooled in the 6Ns game between France and Ireland last season - he failed to protect the Irish players against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
Shame on France. I'm sure you can see where this going.
He was fooled a second time last Saturday, this time he failed to protect Irish players (that's the second time) against flagrant foul play by the opposition.
The referee should be ashamed of himself - all we've done is point ti out to him.
I might add NZ did their homework, their performance was no accident and it's no credit to them. Shame on NZ too.

Like I said legitimate criticism of his performance is fine, but to impute bad intent solely based on how a ref performs is awful. Under your logic if a player has two bad games in a row I'm perfectly entitled to assume he's working for a betting syndicate. Insanity.

No under my logic a player committing dangerous tackles warranting a YC would get a suspension and if he repeated the offense the length of the second suspension would increase dramatically.
You logic however is NZ logic - badly flawed.

[Lar]

I think you missed the point. Could care less about dirty play accusations thrown at ABs. Water off a ducks back. I'm talking about the invective streamed at Peyper, calling him a cheat/on the take etc etc. Absolutely appalling and indefensible.

Apologies but this is long:

Blues Fan, I am not saying they don't exist but the number of posts suggesting Peyper is a cheat and on the take is small and certainly in the minority on here.

Before I address that more fully I want to say a few things about the game on Saturday. First and foremost it was a privilege to see Beauden Barrett play that game. He deserved his player of the year award and is a wonderful rugby player. New Zealand lost a true great when Dan Carter retired. But one of the reasons you have looked if anything stronger since is Beauden Barrett. Perhaps he has come out of his shell because he is undoubtedly now first choice 10.

And it isn't too much of s stretch to mention Brodie Retallick in a similar breath. Amazing all round ability. He was immense on Saturday.

But equally I want to mention the Irish players. When I have watched what I thought were good or even great Irish sides in the past play against New Zealand I have struggled to come up with Irish players who would have got into the New Zealand side. There may have been matches where an Irish player in one position might have outperformed his NZ counterpart but rarely over the years can Irish fans honestly say that they have had players that might get into the New Zealand side.

After the last two games we could now have several. Coles still gets it over Best for hooker but I think both McGrath and Furlong would now push for places in your side. Second Row you win. Flankers - I think Stander and O'Brien would best Cane and Squire. In his pomp Read was certainly better than Heaslip but on the evidence of Chicago and Dublin Read may be waning and Heaslip is in the form of his life. Ditto at Scrum Half. At his best Smith is more complete than Murray but he has not been there lately and Murray might improve New Zealand they way he is currently playing. You win at Out Half. We saw little of Henshaw in Dublin but a lot of him in Chicago and he would probably get it at 12. Not sure about 13, young Ringrose shows great potential but that is all it is at present, and I think back three is all New Zealand.

I may be wearing green tinted glasses but to even mention seven Irish players in the context of maybe being better than their New Zealand counterparts to me is a great testimony to the strength of where Irish rugby is at just now. And this a New Zealand side that has the record for consecutive test match wins. I am very proud of our side.

My own summary of Saturday - and your side was huge in defence - was that we were never going to win the match once Sexton went off. Jackson was not on the money on Saturday and was a poor replacement. Maybe his mind has not been on the game for off the field reasons but he didn't travel to Chicago and to my mind was on the bench because of the inexperience of Carbury and his evidently poorer record from the tee. That compounded the Henshaw loss and we lacked any real attacking threat to build on our forward's dominance once the two were gone.

So I now want to mention the referee's performance and the New Zealand tactics partly because they have both attracted so much attention post match.

Jaco Peyper made numerous errors on Saturday. I will not say that he was biased or on the take but he was wrong on many many occasions to my mind. Was he always wrong against Ireland and in favour of New Zealand? No - of course not. But some of the mistakes he made against us were probably more material in the context of the game than those he made against NZ. Did his mistakes actually determine the result? I suspect not although it's impossible to know how things would have panned out if for example Cane was sin-binned and Fekitoa was red carded.

Which leads me nicely to the New Zealand tactics. I am not as familiar with the way the game is played in NZ as you would be. I am however of the understanding that becoming an All Black is possibly the greatest individual sporting honour that Kiwis can aspire to. And I know you have a winning mentality when it comes to rugby. All of that is fair. Playing the game with commitment, aggression and physicality is also part of the game.

But even as a staunch Blues Fan, New Zealand Fan and Rugby fan you must be concerned with the way the game is going if head injuries and concussions are as commonplace as they now are. It is for this reason that World Rugby tell us that a tackle above the shoulder is a red card offence. The game we all love will eventually die if players are not protected. And that protection should not be a dictat from World Rugby - I believe it starts with the coaches who tell their teams what is and is not acceptable. Aggression is acceptable within limits. Pushing the rules to the limit when it comes to tackling the opposition is not where a coach's mindset should be. Playing the ref should not be where a coach's mindset should be. This is where I think New Zealand crossed a line on Saturday. If it was an isolated incident or two I can live with players making mistakes etc but when we count several poor tackles that were penalised, some that were missed etc we have to question whether the game is being played hard but fair or hard and unfair. The real issue I have is that your defence was incredible on Saturday and probably didn't need to resort to overly physical tackling.

You say the accusations of dirty play are water off a duck's back but do you not think it is remarkable that the penalty count was 14 to 4 against New Zealand and the yellow card count was 2 to 0 against New Zealand and yet the opposition fans are still saying the referee was poor and got a lot of decisions wrong; and that the card count against NZ should have been even higher. Even Hansen says he will have to look at discipline being an issue for this side but I have to say it comes from the top and my guess is he is privately delighted with the NZ performance on Saturday. He is certainly thrilled that he won't be returning to New Zealand having lost twice to Ireland!

[johng]

The real issue I have is that your defence was incredible on Saturday and probably didn't need to resort to overly physical tackling.

This is the nub of it. They didn't need to go as cynical/dirty. The Fekitoa one Zebo was outnumbered 3 to 1 in defence. He hadn't a hope of getting through. Stupid card by Feckin toah.

Sexton went off due to hamstring not foul play. He was our biggest loss. Henshaw I wouldn't say was targeted or deliberate even though it was a shoulder to the head (no focking idea how Either Peyper or Hansen can claim a clash of heads)

Best team won. (But they may not have with another card. Who knows?) They may have won by more without the 2 cards and sh1tload of penalties. They were very good and had more creativity behind the pack.

[Ruckedtobits]

I think you missed the point. Could care less about dirty play accusations thrown at ABs. Water off a ducks back. I'm talking about the invective streamed at Peyper, calling him a cheat/on the take etc etc. Absolutely appalling and indefensible.

Apologies but this is long:

Blues Fan, I am not saying they don't exist but the number of posts suggesting Peyper is a cheat and on the take is small and certainly in the minority on here.

Before I address that more fully I want to say a few things about the game on Saturday. First and foremost it was a privilege to see Beauden Barrett play that game. He deserved his player of the year award and is a wonderful rugby player. New Zealand lost a true great when Dan Carter retired. But one of the reasons you have looked if anything stronger since is Beauden Barrett. Perhaps he has come out of his shell because he is undoubtedly now first choice 10.

And it isn't too much of s stretch to mention Brodie Retallick in a similar breath. Amazing all round ability. He was immense on Saturday.

But equally I want to mention the Irish players. When I have watched what I thought were good or even great Irish sides in the past play against New Zealand I have struggled to come up with Irish players who would have got into the New Zealand side. There may have been matches where an Irish player in one position might have outperformed his NZ counterpart but rarely over the years can Irish fans honestly say that they have had players that might get into the New Zealand side.

After the last two games we could now have several. Coles still gets it over Best for hooker but I think both McGrath and Furlong would now push for places in your side. Second Row you win. Flankers - I think Stander and O'Brien would best Cane and Squire. In his pomp Read was certainly better than Heaslip but on the evidence of Chicago and Dublin Read may be waning and Heaslip is in the form of his life. Ditto at Scrum Half. At his best Smith is more complete than Murray but he has not been there lately and Murray might improve New Zealand they way he is currently playing. You win at Out Half. We saw little of Henshaw in Dublin but a lot of him in Chicago and he would probably get it at 12. Not sure about 13, young Ringrose shows great potential but that is all it is at present, and I think back three is all New Zealand.

I may be wearing green tinted glasses but to even mention seven Irish players in the context of maybe being better than their New Zealand counterparts to me is a great testimony to the strength of where Irish rugby is at just now. And this a New Zealand side that has the record for consecutive test match wins. I am very proud of our side.

My own summary of Saturday - and your side was huge in defence - was that we were never going to win the match once Sexton went off. Jackson was not on the money on Saturday and was a poor replacement. Maybe his mind has not been on the game for off the field reasons but he didn't travel to Chicago and to my mind was on the bench because of the inexperience of Carbury and his evidently poorer record from the tee. That compounded the Henshaw loss and we lacked any real attacking threat to build on our forward's dominance once the two were gone.

So I now want to mention the referee's performance and the New Zealand tactics partly because they have both attracted so much attention post match.

Jaco Peyper made numerous errors on Saturday. I will not say that he was biased or on the take but he was wrong on many many occasions to my mind. Was he always wrong against Ireland and in favour of New Zealand? No - of course not. But some of the mistakes he made against us were probably more material in the context of the game than those he made against NZ. Did his mistakes actually determine the result? I suspect not although it's impossible to know how things would have panned out if for example Cane was sin-binned and Fekitoa was red carded.

Which leads me nicely to the New Zealand tactics. I am not as familiar with the way the game is played in NZ as you would be. I am however of the understanding that becoming an All Black is possibly the greatest individual sporting honour that Kiwis can aspire to. And I know you have a winning mentality when it comes to rugby. All of that is fair. Playing the game with commitment, aggression and physicality is also part of the game.

But even as a staunch Blues Fan, New Zealand Fan and Rugby fan you must be concerned with the way the game is going if head injuries and concussions are as commonplace as they now are. It is for this reason that World Rugby tell us that a tackle above the shoulder is a red card offence. The game we all love will eventually die if players are not protected. And that protection should not be a dictat from World Rugby - I believe it starts with the coaches who tell their teams what is and is not acceptable. Aggression is acceptable within limits. Pushing the rules to the limit when it comes to tackling the opposition is not where a coach's mindset should be. Playing the ref should not be where a coach's mindset should be. This is where I think New Zealand crossed a line on Saturday. If it was an isolated incident or two I can live with players making mistakes etc but when we count several poor tackles that were penalised, some that were missed etc we have to question whether the game is being played hard but fair or hard and unfair. The real issue I have is that your defence was incredible on Saturday and probably didn't need to resort to overly physical tackling.

You say the accusations of dirty play are water off a duck's back but do you not think it is remarkable that the penalty count was 14 to 4 against New Zealand and the yellow card count was 2 to 0 against New Zealand and yet the opposition fans are still saying the referee was poor and got a lot of decisions wrong; and that the card count against NZ should have been even higher. Even Hansen says he will have to look at discipline being an issue for this side but I have to say it comes from the top and my guess is he is privately delighted with the NZ performance on Saturday. He is certainly thrilled that he won't be returning to New Zealand having lost twice to Ireland!

Very well argued post. Totally agree. Brand leaders must respect their market.

[backrower8]

I think that the All Blacks made a tactical decision pre-game to target Irish players above the line of the shoulders. You'd go an entire six nations before seeing the number of 'tackles' of that nature we saw in one single game yesterday - that kind of thing doesn't happen by accident.

100%

[matt]

I think you missed the point. Could care less about dirty play accusations thrown at ABs. Water off a ducks back. I'm talking about the invective streamed at Peyper, calling him a cheat/on the take etc etc. Absolutely appalling and indefensible.

Apologies but this is long:

Blues Fan, I am not saying they don't exist but the number of posts suggesting Peyper is a cheat and on the take is small and certainly in the minority on here.

Before I address that more fully I want to say a few things about the game on Saturday. First and foremost it was a privilege to see Beauden Barrett play that game. He deserved his player of the year award and is a wonderful rugby player. New Zealand lost a true great when Dan Carter retired. But one of the reasons you have looked if anything stronger since is Beauden Barrett. Perhaps he has come out of his shell because he is undoubtedly now first choice 10.

And it isn't too much of s stretch to mention Brodie Retallick in a similar breath. Amazing all round ability. He was immense on Saturday.

But equally I want to mention the Irish players. When I have watched what I thought were good or even great Irish sides in the past play against New Zealand I have struggled to come up with Irish players who would have got into the New Zealand side. There may have been matches where an Irish player in one position might have outperformed his NZ counterpart but rarely over the years can Irish fans honestly say that they have had players that might get into the New Zealand side.

After the last two games we could now have several. Coles still gets it over Best for hooker but I think both McGrath and Furlong would now push for places in your side. Second Row you win. Flankers - I think Stander and O'Brien would best Cane and Squire. In his pomp Read was certainly better than Heaslip but on the evidence of Chicago and Dublin Read may be waning and Heaslip is in the form of his life. Ditto at Scrum Half. At his best Smith is more complete than Murray but he has not been there lately and Murray might improve New Zealand they way he is currently playing. You win at Out Half. We saw little of Henshaw in Dublin but a lot of him in Chicago and he would probably get it at 12. Not sure about 13, young Ringrose shows great potential but that is all it is at present, and I think back three is all New Zealand.

I may be wearing green tinted glasses but to even mention seven Irish players in the context of maybe being better than their New Zealand counterparts to me is a great testimony to the strength of where Irish rugby is at just now. And this a New Zealand side that has the record for consecutive test match wins. I am very proud of our side.

My own summary of Saturday - and your side was huge in defence - was that we were never going to win the match once Sexton went off. Jackson was not on the money on Saturday and was a poor replacement. Maybe his mind has not been on the game for off the field reasons but he didn't travel to Chicago and to my mind was on the bench because of the inexperience of Carbury and his evidently poorer record from the tee. That compounded the Henshaw loss and we lacked any real attacking threat to build on our forward's dominance once the two were gone.

So I now want to mention the referee's performance and the New Zealand tactics partly because they have both attracted so much attention post match.

Jaco Peyper made numerous errors on Saturday. I will not say that he was biased or on the take but he was wrong on many many occasions to my mind. Was he always wrong against Ireland and in favour of New Zealand? No - of course not. But some of the mistakes he made against us were probably more material in the context of the game than those he made against NZ. Did his mistakes actually determine the result? I suspect not although it's impossible to know how things would have panned out if for example Cane was sin-binned and Fekitoa was red carded.

Which leads me nicely to the New Zealand tactics. I am not as familiar with the way the game is played in NZ as you would be. I am however of the understanding that becoming an All Black is possibly the greatest individual sporting honour that Kiwis can aspire to. And I know you have a winning mentality when it comes to rugby. All of that is fair. Playing the game with commitment, aggression and physicality is also part of the game.

But even as a staunch Blues Fan, New Zealand Fan and Rugby fan you must be concerned with the way the game is going if head injuries and concussions are as commonplace as they now are. It is for this reason that World Rugby tell us that a tackle above the shoulder is a red card offence. The game we all love will eventually die if players are not protected. And that protection should not be a dictat from World Rugby - I believe it starts with the coaches who tell their teams what is and is not acceptable. Aggression is acceptable within limits. Pushing the rules to the limit when it comes to tackling the opposition is not where a coach's mindset should be. Playing the ref should not be where a coach's mindset should be. This is where I think New Zealand crossed a line on Saturday. If it was an isolated incident or two I can live with players making mistakes etc but when we count several poor tackles that were penalised, some that were missed etc we have to question whether the game is being played hard but fair or hard and unfair. The real issue I have is that your defence was incredible on Saturday and probably didn't need to resort to overly physical tackling.

You say the accusations of dirty play are water off a duck's back but do you not think it is remarkable that the penalty count was 14 to 4 against New Zealand and the yellow card count was 2 to 0 against New Zealand and yet the opposition fans are still saying the referee was poor and got a lot of decisions wrong; and that the card count against NZ should have been even higher. Even Hansen says he will have to look at discipline being an issue for this side but I have to say it comes from the top and my guess is he is privately delighted with the NZ performance on Saturday. He is certainly thrilled that he won't be returning to New Zealand having lost twice to Ireland!

Very well written post.

Having watched the match again not only annoyed at Peyper for not protecting players from cheap shots starting with O'Brien being hit in the air by Reid on the kick off at the start but his failure to adequately penalise Squire in first half and Reid in second half when our scrum was advancing toward NZ line was shocking and both could have been yellow carded for professional fouls and/or penalty trys given.

Despite all this almost nobody in Ireland is making the kind of comment Blues _Fan has suggested above.

[awaaf]

Bar the injuries the games this Autumn have gone well. A monkey is off our back and we have stepped up. OK starved of front line players we may lack incisiveness but we have way more than we did in the past. Some great young players have stepped up and the coach is going well. Between last years 6N, the WC and this Series - teams take us seriously enough to want to take our heads off (even if it is of course entirely accidental in the case of NZ). It would be nice to finish on a high on Saturday. Finally, when it comes to excuses for a loss which is more piss poor, "we did a bit too much PR" or " we lost 3 key players to injury during the game".

[El Diablo]

does anyone know what time in the 2nd half was the scrum where Reid infringed in order to stop an Irish scrum advancing over the line. I dont remember it. It was all the talk on the radio this evening.

[simonokeeffe]

does anyone know what time in the 2nd half was the scrum where Reid infringed in order to stop an Irish scrum advancing over the line. I dont remember it. It was all the talk on the radio this evening.

was first half I think, fairly early on, we kicked the points

[backrower8]

2 matches. Ireland concede 8 penalties, New Zealand 26. 24%:76% That is evidence of different riding instructions from the management.

For a rugby-defined, earthquake shaken, Lomu-mourning nation that were also recent losers to Ireland for 1st time in 111 years, Saturday was win at all costs by denying 5-7 pointers at all costs.

They committed so many offences, often several in the same passage of play, consistently from start (SOB upended at K-O) to finish (Retallick lobbing a basketball pass 2 metres forward - neither incident pinged by Peyper) that they knew the referee could not blow them all. Would not card them all and it appears that despite identifying 11 possible citations himself, the New Zealand born citing commissioner feels he can only pick 2 out (letting Dagg's no arms concussive shoulder blow on Stander's head to go by the wayside).

It is akin in effect to the '74 Lions '99 call' whereby if all the players act in unison the referee cannot penalise them all. Or the way teams uniformly stand a metre into a slow ruck situation more often than not during amatch then soon it presents as the norm rather than the attack/match stifling defensive tactic that it is.

When a rugby nation like the ABs defends uniformly recklessly like that and are allowed to do so by the officials, player safety is subjugated to the will of the all powerful must-win AB brand.

"Stand Up and Fight" World Rugby or OUR sport will one day suffer it's own death blow in full view of the viewing public and their sponsors!

Come to think of it...if Lego sponsored the ABs would they tolerate it? Why don't Adidas (more likely) and AIG have a word before they have blood on their balance sheets?

[FLIP]

Would not card them all and it appears that despite identifying 11 possible citations himself, the New Zealand born citing commissioner feels he can only pick 2 out (letting Dagg's no arms concussive shoulder blow on Stander's head to go by the wayside).

Tell me this isn't true? How is this possible?! That's a huge conflict of interest.

[Oldschool]

Anyone remember Canterbury v Lions 1971.
Sandy Carmibrutall and Ray McLaughlin taken out in a brutal game the weekend before the first test.
Their tour ended that day. Just another example of excessive voilence

[blues_fan]

Eddie O'Sullivan chatting with Murray Kinsella made some excellent comments regarding ref's performance and the reaction to it on The42 rugby show. His views pretty much reflect mine. His advice to look at situations with the jerseys reversed and comments about the pace of the game creating unfortunate events were both particularly instructive.

[neiliog93]

Eddie O'Sullivan chatting with Murray Kinsella made some excellent comments regarding ref's performance and the reaction to it on The42 rugby show. His views pretty much reflect mine. His advice to look at situations with the jerseys reversed and comments about the pace of the game creating unfortunate events were both particularly instructive.

Watched it too and I don't disagree but nonetheless he did say the ABs' tackling at times crossed the line, and that Fekitoa deserved a red. He was also wrong about Cane, watching the slow-mo replay it's clearly a shoulder (no arms) to head contact.

[enby]

EOS made the point that the decision on Trimble's "knock-on" of a NZ pass was an astonishing one. Have to say I agree with that. It was a penalty and perhaps a card though not, as EOS suggested, a possible penalty try.