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

[Five Meters Out]

The great try saving tackle by De Klerk, in the final play of the game, should have resulted in a penalty to Ireland. There was no clear release of the tackled player by De Klerk, who immediately started scrapping for the ball. The Refs have been penalising similar "non-releases" all season.

 

[WaterboySA]

Faf - Man of the match.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Close game, well played Ireland at the end of a long season.
Well played Bokke at the start of a new era for South Africa rugby.
Glad we saw nearly all the spectator favorites this series in action.

JP Petersen have secured his contract for the next 3 years ...

4 Nations will tell us how many light years we are behind the formidable All Blacks

 

[WaterboySA]

I can't stop thinking that we would've been on the losing side if Ireland had their best team here. My respect to the coach and his players.

PS: I think Willie le Roux is the luckiest man in the world.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

MM - silence is best you can expect!!

Not really. I was travelling. Apologies for making you wait for a response.
I don't have a problem admitting i am wrong, but i don't think that's the case here.

I'm guessing after slating me I'd at least get an apology or response? You just ran after I gave facts

@munstermuffin. Off topic for a sec: apologies if i offended you. Not my intention. I want to argue your point, not against you.

Back on topic: rules, not only in sports but in pretty much any legal system, are based on what can't be done and what the consequences are for doing so. There are a few exceptions but that's the rule of thumb. Simply put, that means that what is not prohibited by the law is allowed.
That puts the burden of proof on your court, not mine, since you were the one stating that was against the rules. I'm not trying to dodge the argument here, it's just how the rules (and arguments) work.

You cannot, and should not, ask me which rules allow him to do that. What you should do is tell me which rule(s) do not allow him to do that. That's how the burden of proof works.

So to sum it up.

1) You said it was a red all day (#82)
2) I asked what part of the rules support such claim (#93)
3) I haven't seen a post of yours answering point 2)

That's why i found Tony's comment quite funny, since you are the one who did not answer my question yet apparently, i'm the silent one.

 

[munstermuffin]

Not really. I was travelling. Apologies for making you wait for a response.
I don't have a problem admitting i am wrong, but i don't think that's the case here.

@munstermuffin. Off topic for a sec: apologies if i offended you. Not my intention. I want to argue your point, not against you.

Back on topic: rules, not only in sports but in pretty much any legal system, are based on what can't be done and what the consequences are for doing so. There are a few exceptions but that's the rule of thumb. Simply put, that means that what is not prohibited by the law is allowed.
That puts the burden of proof on your court, not mine, since you were the one stating that was against the rules. I'm not trying to dodge the argument here, it's just how the rules (and arguments) work.

You cannot, and should not, ask me which rules allow him to do that. What you should do is tell me which rule(s) do not allow him to do that. That's how the burden of proof works.

So to sum it up.

1) You said it was a red all day (#82)
2) I asked what part of the rules support such claim (#93)
3) I haven't seen a post of yours answering point 2)

That's why i found Tony's comment quite funny, since you are the one who did not answer my question yet apparently, i'm the silent one.

Apologies for basically saying I was making up a rule as I didn't post proof. But as I said I got link to prove. What I said wasn't rule of thumb but direct from World Rugby.

On your asking for proof. I will ask did Le Roux challenge in air? Yes
Was he anywhere near ball? No
So under laws that becomes a challenge in air.
Did Le Roux take duty of TOH? No

So under the laws that comes in to red card territory. As my points again posted. So I will ask you what part of law isn't clear and I haven't proven. Lets not forget I accused noone of any BS and didn't run.
And by way posts 90 94 97 and 108 produced evidence but as I said once it was produced you disappeared.
Can I ask why Le Roux pleaded guilty too? If there was no case and was banned and citing was rapid?

Just to finish you said Facts > Opinions

And I've given facts you've offered none just opinions so again if you got facts too I'd like to hear

 

[munstermuffin]

For what it worth Tony maybe saw I did reply and well guess your only 1 who hasn't seen evidence I produced fairly rapid

 

[George Ford]

Close, but no cigar for Ireland. Still, no mean feat to win one match in SA, especially with the injuries and playing and winning the first test with 14 men.

NZ are gonna run away with the RC based on the showings of Aus and SA this June.

England - the only NH side to win a series v on of the big 3. .

It's fair to say you're only as good as your last outing, but if rivalry in sport has proven anything: statistics, rankings & even form can succumb to the pressure of the greatness of an occasion

You can bet on the Boks and Wallabies to step it up in the RC.

 

[munstermuffin]

It's fair to say you're only as good as your last outing, but if rivalry in sport has proven anything: statistics, rankings & even form can succumb to the pressure of the greatness of an occasion

You can bet on the Boks and Wallabies to step it up in the RC.

Boks will for sure. they will be better off after these test as they'll have learnt a lot in terms of new systems, partnerships and understandings

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Was he anywhere near ball? No

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.

 

[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 â€" 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 â€" Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card â€" Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card â€" Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card â€" 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 â€" 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 â€" Fair challenge with wrong timing - No pulling down
Yellow card â€" Not a fair challenge, there is no contest and the player is pulled down landing on his back or side
Red card â€" 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.