June International Test: South Africa vs. Ireland [3rd Test] (25/06/2016)

[munstermuffin]

I guess here is where we disagree.

that looks pretty near to me.

You have 4 scenarios here but let me split them in two.
Play on and penalty vs yc and rc. The main difference is fair contest. Le Roux is off his feet, his eyes are always on the ball (same as O'Halloran) and he missed the ball by an inch. I have trouble understanding how that is not a fair challenge in your book.

1 image doesn't do justice to what happened but again that your opinion.
Fact as stated by World Rugby.
He went with 1 arm and never realistically was near ball. So therefore he wasn't near in my opinion now lets get back to facts - the bit you won't answer?

1. Did he get touch on ball? - No unless you show otherwise.
2. If he doesn't and then collides with a player he becomes a tackler. That's the fact so does he, as a tackler, take due care? - Fact obviously not

It's simple after that. He lead with 1 arm so it was clumsy and clearly under the laws a pen.

4 scenarios you mention is easy under fact of laws.
Is it a pen in laws - Easy. That's a yes.
On to sanction. Is it under law 10.4 - Again easily identified - yes
On to punishment. Was due care attempted to be taken, regardless of intention? No.
How did player (TOH) land? On neck, shoulder or head. Law clearly states that is a red card.

He missed ball by more than inch and regardless of eyes on ball he didn't get it and timing was wrong therefore it a penalty. Now again I'm stating facts but have yet to hear 1 from you.

- - - Updated - - -


And my opinion is he's not near in that pic as his back is turned, he's only 1 arm and is head and shoulder below TOH

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnuCv7b9kg8

There's the video. Never once went with 2 arms. Never got near same height or jump as is clearly evident when his shoulder hits TOH's hip and while I accept he didn't go to cause an offense. He got his timing wrong and under laws of game it a clear pen. As everyone agreed.
Then if it a pen the laws should be carried out as they are. It's a high/dangerous tackle and laws state way it should be dealt. I've yet to hear a fact against it

 

[WaterboySA]

Way I see it, Ireland player jumped up to get the ball, Willie's moving forward, not up.....the direction of his jump shows he's never going to get the ball.

Also, the way this rule was used the whole season, that was a red all the way. I think Willie's scared to go up after his fall earlier this year.

 

[munstermuffin]

Way I see it, Ireland player jumped up to get the ball, Willie's moving forward, not up.....the direction of his jump shows he's never going to get the ball.

Also, the way this rule was used the whole season, that was a red all the way. I think Willie's scared to go up after his fall earlier this year.

That's probably best description of scenario. As I said I don't think for 1 second Le Roux has went with the intention of hurting anyone etc just poor timing/decision making.
Don't know if Le Roux would still be scarred from earlier in season but he is brave so I don't know

 

[saulan]

That's probably best description of scenario. As I said I don't think for 1 second Le Roux has went with the intention of hurting anyone etc just poor timing/decision making.
Don't know if Le Roux would still be scarred from earlier in season but he is brave so I don't know

I think anyone would be scared to go up after this has happened to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbfgka6XkE

 

[munstermuffin]

I think anyone would be scared to go up after this has happened to you:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbfgka6XkE

Fair comment

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

1 image doesn't do justice to what happened but again that your opinion.

Here is what i do have a problem with. You stated, and i quote

Was he anywhere near ball? No

I later post a picture that shows he was actually very close to the ball and you change your argument. It's as if you are changing the tune to fit the end result. That is simply dishonest.

Did he get touch on ball?

Irrelevant as per the laws of the game. Fair challenge does not mean he touches the ball.

He went with 1 arm

Again, irrelevant.

never realistically was near ball.

You keep presenting your opinions as facts.

4 scenarios you mention is easy under fact of laws.
Is it a pen in laws - Easy. That's a yes.

Actually, no, that's not a clear yes for me. It's a matter of interpretation. Again, he has his eyes on the ball, he is off his feet and he misses the ball by an inch (figure of speech, don't have a rules with me!).

Here are WR's enforcement of current laws link (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8&language=EN)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Bolds are mine.
I'm willing to go as far as admitting wrong timing, but saying no contest when the guy was an inch away from the ball is simply quite a judgement call. Le Roux would have tapped the ball backwards had it not been for O'Halloran outjumping him. In your book, that constitutes no contest. In mine it does not.

And just to be absolutely clear, both for "play on" and "penalty only" the way he lands is not relevant (it is considered an accident).

He missed ball by more than inch and regardless of eyes on ball he didn't get it and timing was wrong therefore it a penalty.

Fair enough. But if he got the timing wrong, as per the link i've just posted, it's a penalty, no yellow nor red.

Now again I'm stating facts but have yet to hear 1 from you.

You keep presenting opinions as facts. They are not. First you claim he was nowhere near the ball and when presented with a picture showing otherwise you derail the subject.
You also keep presenting facts that are irrelevant to the situation, like le Roux going with one hand.

Here are mine.

He went for the ball.
He is off his feet.
He did not pull his opponent down.
I'd say the picture i posted is pretty solid evidence of how close he was to the ball but lets count this last one as an opinion.

Happy to disagree, but at the very least lets do an effort to be consistent.
You can't claim an argument based on how close le Roux was to the ball and then change it when presented evidence of the contrary.
You cannot claim that it was a case of bad timing and then claim it's more than a penalty.

I was arguing two weeks ago for ireland on this forum, so i don't think you can claim a strong anti irish bias from me.

 

[Tony Manx]

Here is what i do have a problem with. You stated, and i quote

[/I][/COLOR]

I later post a picture that shows he was actually very close to the ball and you change your argument. It's as if you are changing the tune to fit the end result. That is simply dishonest.


Irrelevant as per the laws of the game. Fair challenge does not mean he touches the ball.


Again, irrelevant.


You keep presenting your opinions as facts.


Actually, no, that's not a clear yes for me. It's a matter of interpretation. Again, he has his eyes on the ball, he is off his feet and he misses the ball by an inch (figure of speech, don't have a rules with me!).

Here are WR's enforcement of current laws link (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8&language=EN)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Bolds are mine.
I'm willing to go as far as admitting wrong timing, but saying no contest when the guy was an inch away from the ball is simply quite a judgement call. Le Roux would have tapped the ball backwards had it not been for O'Halloran outjumping him. In your book, that constitutes no contest. In mine it does not.

And just to be absolutely clear, both for "play on" and "penalty only" the way he lands is not relevant (it is considered an accident).


Fair enough. But if he got the timing wrong, as per the link i've just posted, it's a penalty, no yellow nor red.


You keep presenting opinions as facts. They are not. First you claim he was nowhere near the ball and when presented with a picture showing otherwise you derail the subject.
You also keep presenting facts that are irrelevant to the situation, like le Roux going with one hand.

Here are mine.

He went for the ball.
He is off his feet.
He did not pull his opponent down.
I'd say the picture i posted is pretty solid evidence of how close he was to the ball but lets count this last one as an opinion.

Happy to disagree, but at the very least lets do an effort to be consistent.
You can't claim an argument based on how close le Roux was to the ball and then change it when presented evidence of the contrary.
You cannot claim that it was a case of bad timing and then claim it's more than a penalty.

I was arguing two weeks ago for ireland on this forum, so i don't think you can claim a strong anti irish bias from me.

He was banned for it!

 

[munstermuffin]

Here is what i do have a problem with. You stated, and i quote

[/I][/COLOR]

I later post a picture that shows he was actually very close to the ball and you change your argument. It's as if you are changing the tune to fit the end result. That is simply dishonest.


Irrelevant as per the laws of the game. Fair challenge does not mean he touches the ball.


Again, irrelevant.


You keep presenting your opinions as facts.


Actually, no, that's not a clear yes for me. It's a matter of interpretation. Again, he has his eyes on the ball, he is off his feet and he misses the ball by an inch (figure of speech, don't have a rules with me!).

Here are WR's enforcement of current laws link (http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8&language=EN)

Play on – Fair challenge with both players in a realistic position to catch the ball. Even if the player(s) land(s) dangerously, play on
Penalty only – Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card – Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player lands on his head, neck or shoulder

Bolds are mine.
I'm willing to go as far as admitting wrong timing, but saying no contest when the guy was an inch away from the ball is simply quite a judgement call. Le Roux would have tapped the ball backwards had it not been for O'Halloran outjumping him. In your book, that constitutes no contest. In mine it does not.

And just to be absolutely clear, both for "play on" and "penalty only" the way he lands is not relevant (it is considered an accident).


Fair enough. But if he got the timing wrong, as per the link i've just posted, it's a penalty, no yellow nor red.


You keep presenting opinions as facts. They are not. First you claim he was nowhere near the ball and when presented with a picture showing otherwise you derail the subject.
You also keep presenting facts that are irrelevant to the situation, like le Roux going with one hand.

Here are mine.

He went for the ball.
He is off his feet.
He did not pull his opponent down.
I'd say the picture i posted is pretty solid evidence of how close he was to the ball but lets count this last one as an opinion.

Happy to disagree, but at the very least lets do an effort to be consistent.
You can't claim an argument based on how close le Roux was to the ball and then change it when presented evidence of the contrary.
You cannot claim that it was a case of bad timing and then claim it's more than a penalty.

I was arguing two weeks ago for ireland on this forum, so i don't think you can claim a strong anti irish bias from me.

Ok well simple question so seeing as you refuse to accept facts and don't seem to get rules.

Why was he banned?
Why did he plead guilty?

And in regulations semt out by World Rugby going with 1 arm in them scenarios is seen as not fully committed so it kind of is relevant.

And bad timing is a penalty but liok I see you dont get rules or understand them in that area. So if you disagree fair enough but seeing as you actually only person I've seen to disagree says enough really.

As for 2 weeks ago I tried to stick up for Stander but in end when all facts were put out (and I thought CJ got near ball) fact was he timed it wrong and if you gamble and get it wrong then under laws you have to be responsible for player your tackling and CJ and Le Roux yesterday didn't.

By way rules are pretty clear you don't have to pull down to be considered tackle. Maybe you should check laws and answer my questions again.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

And in regulations semt out by World Rugby going with 1 arm in them scenarios is seen as not fully committed so it kind of is relevant.

Source for that.

You know what, don't even bother. I already got you in two contradictions and both times you refused to recant.
You appear to be immune to common sense, logic and rational though. I'll drop it.

He was banned for it!

Because they interpreted his actions differently. Just like the ref and TMO did too. It's not that hard. Try to keep up.

 

[profitius]

My view is it was a clear red under the rules. No doubt about that. The reason World Rugby are strict on it is to prevent serious injuries.


Having said that, I wouldn't blame the ref for the loss. Ireland had their chances but failed to take them. The Boks looked fairly comfortable considering all Ireland's possession.

 

[munstermuffin]

Source for that.

You know what, don't even bother. I already got you in two contradictions and both times you refused to recant.
You appear to be immune to common sense, logic and rational though. I'll drop it.


Because they interpreted his actions differently. Just like the ref and TMO did too. It's not that hard. Try to keep up.

Its on link I've sent and yeah you got me because not 1 person seems to agree with you.

If you haven't noticed world rugby aren't using logical approach but the laws.
Again I've answered with facts and you haven't given 1 fact not 1.
You think he was close. An opinion not fact.
You say it was fair challenge. Opinion but not what laws said.
I've given my evidence but again you'll deflect and refuse to show any bit of law to argue it's not red. Your even trying to argue rules and not even know what they are.

Now last bit I will ask and this is part I will enjoy hearing.
Why is not 1 person in agreement with you?
Why did player plead guilty?
The citing commisioner doesn't interpret wring as he has 1000s of viewing and law book in front of him before he even decides if there's a case.
Then the hearing decides so it's went through all that process and they all wrong and your right is what your saying?
Can I ask why you don't go for a top job in World Rugby as youbdo seem to be more qualified than all these guys who combined must be on huge wedge and don't understand rules.

 

[munstermuffin]

My view is it was a clear red under the rules. No doubt about that. The reason World Rugby are strict on it is to prevent serious injuries.


Having said that, I wouldn't blame the ref for the loss. Ireland had their chances but failed to take them. The Boks looked fairly comfortable considering all Ireland's possession.

Agreed. The ref didn't cause the loss just incident was a red.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Phew!

That was a close one. Luckily our little leprechaun saved us twice in the match. First with that intercept on our try line and then that tackle right on the end.

On the Willie Le Roux yellow card. 2 incidents and on both occasions @munstermuffin doesn't provide facts, and even when others provide facts, he's still disillusioned of the matter at hand. Nonetheless, I still think Willie should also have gotten a red card just like Stander did, and Willie even accepted his fate at the hearing and agreed that it should have been a red card, as this same thing happened to him in a SR earlier this year. I think it was Jason Emery who got the red card for that horror collision. What saved him was the comments from the TMO. He said the Irish player "Landed on his shoulder", and not on his spine, neck or head. I don't know how big the big screens are or if Jackson can't see that far, so he took the word of the TMO to which he referred the incident to, and made a call on the TMO's feedback. That's it. I say this makes up for the Paul Honiss incident a few years ago. Let's move on.

As for the game itself, I thought our first phase set pieces were outstanding, we absolutely demolished the Irish at scrumtime, and at lineouts we were solid on hitting our jumpers. I thought Jackson missed 2 penalties though when an Irish player came around to get to the ball in a maul situation when Irish players were also part of the maul already.

Finally our defence is showing what it could do, and as we progress to the RC, that was one area I was most concerned of. It was good to see that we can actually hold the Irish out from scoring. for extended periods.

I think AC is breathing a big sigh of relief.

 

[munstermuffin]

Phew!

That was a close one. Luckily our little leprechaun saved us twice in the match. First with that intercept on our try line and then that tackle right on the end.

On the Willie Le Roux yellow card. 2 incidents and on both occasions @munstermuffin doesn't provide facts, and even when others provide facts, he's still disillusioned of the matter at hand. Nonetheless, I still think Willie should also have gotten a red card just like Stander did, and Willie even accepted his fate at the hearing and agreed that it should have been a red card, as this same thing happened to him in a SR earlier this year. I think it was Jason Emery who got the red card for that horror collision. What saved him was the comments from the TMO. He said the Irish player "Landed on his shoulder", and not on his spine, neck or head. I don't know how big the big screens are or if Jackson can't see that far, so he took the word of the TMO to which he referred the incident to, and made a call on the TMO's feedback. That's it. I say this makes up for the Paul Honiss incident a few years ago. Let's move on.

As for the game itself, I thought our first phase set pieces were outstanding, we absolutely demolished the Irish at scrumtime, and at lineouts we were solid on hitting our jumpers. I thought Jackson missed 2 penalties though when an Irish player came around to get to the ball in a maul situation when Irish players were also part of the maul already.

Finally our defence is showing what it could do, and as we progress to the RC, that was one area I was most concerned of. It was good to see that we can actually hold the Irish out from scoring. for extended periods.

I think AC is breathing a big sigh of relief.

Well you obviously holding a grudge from Stander incident but isnt facts in the laws I've produced and players defense at hearing.
And don't you contradict yourself by saying I'm disillusioned yet you've agreed with what I said?
Don't hold grudges Heineken life too short for it or else kindly say where I disillusioned and what you disagree with as you agreed with me lol

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Well you obviously holding a grudge from Stander incident

You, out of all people, calling someone else biased...

Its on link I've sent

BS. Your intellectual dishonesty is off the charts.

I'm done with you. Let's do the mature thing and just avoid each others posts, shall we?

 

[munstermuffin]

You, out of all people, calling someone else biased...


BS. Your intellectual dishonesty is off the charts.

I'm done with you. Let's do the mature thing and just avoid each others posts, shall we?

Ok not sure English is first language. And you still haven't 1 bit of links to back up anything and call me intellectually dishonest. I'd ask if you have any balls so to answer just few things.

1. Where did I call anyone biased? Just 1 example please because obviously I haven't seen it.

2. How am I intellecually dishonest? And regards ling I will send again here for you.

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10 - This the laws I sent.
http://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=9&guideline=8 - Guidelines on High tackle.
And lastly you can search various outlets on google or see even Heineken said it here Le Roux himself acknowledged it's a red card.

So if your man enough with proof of course please answer.

PS your quote of me saying Heineken holds a grudge wasn't me saying he's biased more we had an argument in past about it but as I say if you make a claim about me personally then have decency to answer.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Adults arguing about the game we love, just not on...