Tue 22 Nov 2016 | 01:24

Are the All Blacks a dirty team? Fans divided after battle in Dublin

55 Comments

• drg

  1:03 PM 26/11/2016

  Interpretation is the problem when it comes to the money in the game. All of a sudden someone like Callum Clark is getting a weak ban for breaking someone's arm when an average player would or should be looking at a lifetime ban!
  
  The lawyers they have will twist and turn every loop hole until it literally becomes a case of "your honour, I'm aware that my clients actions of striking a prone player in the face with their genitalia doesnt look good, but there is no law against this" when we all know that certain actions just deserve punishment but the legal eagles know how to work the system!
• drg

  12:56 PM 26/11/2016

  Dear lord that is a clutch at straws! Imagine studying all 15 starters plus the bench bunch all the day or two before the match when the teams are actually finalised so that you know what each and every player does!
  
  I can't even comprehend how ridiculous it'd be!
• 9:32 PM 25/11/2016

  Directives like the laws of the game as I stated above are never clear cut. For that same reason lawyers exist. As clear and precise as you want a law or directive to be it is often open to interpretation and more to the point in this case extenuating circumstances.
  
  Take the example I gave of the car hitting a pedestrian where he had no time to stop. It is obviously illegal to kill people. But to determine fault/responsibilty one has to check if the driver was speeding, test skid marks to see when they started to break etc. If they are found to have done nothing wrong. Then it is an accident and therefore no crime has taken place.
  
  In the Sam Cane case I believe this is closely related. As I stated before the control of the tackle was taken away of him. They've decided there is no foul play. That it was an accident. Regardless of what you make of their statement/directive on the issue. Or what team you support. I don't think anybody wants to see people innocent of any wrong doing being punished even if someone ends up hurt as the outcome. It shouldn't end in a witch hunt.
  
  I'm not saying they should be lax on high tackles either BTW. It's just that we will never know where he would have tackled him had Henshaw not spun as impressively as he did towards him. It's like the situation where one side says its a late tackle and the other side says he was committed to the tackle. Except in this case the "Tackle" wasn't completed as it would have been as it was forced earlier by Henshaws brilliance.
  
  People often have black and white views on these sort of issues in rugby. Rugby just like life is full of grey areas though.
• denis

  10:05 AM 25/11/2016

  In a year when Britain voted to leave the EU and Donald is President to be of the USA, a far more important event occurred; Ireland actually managed a convincing win against the mighty All Blacks. Always remembering the ABs have a winning record unlike any other team in any other sport.
  This re-match in Dublin was a terrifically robust encounter, but absolutely riveting. I'm not sure about foul play, but this fixture has become the one to watch.
• drg

  4:00 PM 24/11/2016

  Err two?? -_-
• drg

  3:57 PM 24/11/2016

  Two all above, the problem is the directive issued....
  
  I'm happy that Cane got off without punishment, I don't like accidents, but out of the many we see that genuinely did look like one...
  
  However it is sort of contradictory to the directive...
  
  The problem lies in where we draw the lines?
• stroudos

  8:07 AM 24/11/2016

  Last sentence is brilliant!
• jeri

  11:01 PM 23/11/2016

  I do agree with your opinion on the need for clarification. While I believe the outcome of the citing was fair, I feel Cane was lucky not to get a yellow on the field - others have been carded before due to referee discretion
• 7:18 PM 23/11/2016

  Hehe, that is nowone of my favourite responses on any forum. Well done.
• 6:53 PM 23/11/2016

  Nice comment. I guess it comes down to the sense of anonymity the web provides. People would curb their more extreme views & their first emotional reactions in person but don't feel they have to online. You see something baseless and reactionary and you write the extreme opposite yet equally baseless, reactionary and pointless. It does help let off steam though... :)
• 6:40 PM 23/11/2016

  I believe justice was served in Sam Canes case. It looked accidental in real time. It looked accidental slowed down. Its like someone driving 100 on the motorway and someone suddenly runs out in front of them. Sam Cane was committed to his tackle on where Henshaw WAS. Henshaw spun and turned into Cane changing the timing, trajectory and posture of the tackle. Whats more Henshaw had no time to brace himself as he spun his face away from one contact he couldn't possibly see what was coming. It's terrible to see head clashes. It's terrible to see any player leave the field on a stretcher. I remember when McCaw had copped what seemed like one head knock after another, and having to sit out considerable rugby time as a result. While a lot of Kiwis thought he was targeted I never did. I don't truly believe any player or fan wants to see the career's of the best laid low or cut short. However we are talking about responsibility and in this situation I don't see how Cane could be responsible when a lot of his choices in the tackle were taking away from him by the ultra quick spin of Henshaw. In terms of idiocy it would be like penalising two players who run into each other while trying to catch a box kick. I know it's not the same thing. However the ideas you are talking about regarding responsibility need to be looked at a bit more in depth. Like the law in general it is seldom clear cut. I totally agree with you in terms of consistency. There is no consistency with bans, citing(I feel there were a number from Ireland that were not cited), or penalties awarded (by a certain Jaco Peyper). BTW here are two examples (photos) of head high Irish tackles that the players could have been penalised, cited and or banned for.
  
  http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rugby/news/article.cfm?c_id=80&objectid=11752065
  
  One of which is leading with the shoulder into the jaw. It just so happens it's Brodie Retallicks jaw so there's no way any harm could be done.
• stalhandske

  4:17 PM 23/11/2016

  I agree totally. Knock out hits is something the game could really do without. Changing the culture seems to need someone to have his pro career cut short with one of these big hits.
• danknapp

  3:42 PM 23/11/2016

  KiG, I'm going to give you this one. To exhaustively go through the entire match and find evidence to support your argument is pretty spot on. *applauds*
  
  I'm happy to be corrected.
• danknapp

  3:40 PM 23/11/2016

  Pretty happy to be given a nickname which doesn't include the word 'wanker'.
• dancarter

  2:28 PM 23/11/2016

  I saw someone suggest that if the ABs had studied Henshaw, they should be aware of the fact he likes to spin out of tackles and they could have prepared for this and avoided tackles like Cane's. Talk about clutching at straws.
• dancarter

  2:27 PM 23/11/2016

  Also, as KiG mentioned, I regularly see the number 8 put his hands into the scrum to get the ball when he is being put under pressure to avoid losing the ball or his side being penalised. I saw it in the England-Fiji game and Webb scored for Wales in the 2015 6N after Faletau put his hands in the scrum to retrieve the ball and offloading to Webb for the try. Not sure why it's not being penalised, a bit like the permanently crooked feed in the scrum.
• dancarter

  2:19 PM 23/11/2016

  Isn't the point being made in his posts that in the aftermath of the game only NZ's foul play is being discussed? I don't think KiG is suggesting that only Ireland committed foul play, just trying to offer some balance when the media coverage hasn't. I have read several articles talking about the foul play in the game and not a single one mentions Sexton's hit on Barrett.
• drg

  2:13 PM 23/11/2016

  Hahaha Fekitoa takes an Irishman's head off.... Random French player receives 12 week ban as a result!
• drg

  2:12 PM 23/11/2016

  Says the one eyed Frenchman! ;)
• pablito

  1:51 PM 23/11/2016

  More from World Rugby:
  
  "The tackle must not be dangerous. Dangerous tackles are ones that make contact with their opponent around their neck or head, with a locked elbow and extended arm ("stiff arm"), without using their arms ("shoulder charge")..."
  
  Which almost perfectly describes Cane's hit on 'Henshaw.
  
  As for previous, somehow Cane was not banned for the below having been cited as being worthy of a red card
  
  http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/78072185/will-chiefs-flanker-sam-cane-be-in-trouble-for-his-cleanout-in-win-over-jaguares
  
  So he seems to have form both on leading with the shoulder and escaping punishment for it.
• heavyhooker

  12:50 PM 23/11/2016

  I am getting tired of all the "it was a mistake" and "no harm was intended" with the high hits on both sides. Face it, you go in upright and aim for the chest of an upright ball carrier, you WILL more times than not hit high as the carrier ducks to protect himself and the ball. The players now are so big and strong they can go in high whereas 20 - 30+ years ago you went in low because that was the only way to take down the bigger blokes. The ABs are not dirty, rugby has morphed into a whole new game and the number of halfwit drooling ex-professionals in the next 20 years is going to be astronomical unless WR and professional teams get their royal act together and change the approach to the game where the only thing that counts is the excitement of big hits. How do you change the culture? TMO the game afterwards and fine the clubs for all the sort of hits that Kiwi in Germany pointed out. Money will change everything.
• stroudos

  12:45 PM 23/11/2016

  Sound logic, but to work through one example, this was Joe Launchbury's first time ever before the beak. For this reason, (plus admission of guilt, being polite to the officials, declining their offer a biscuit, etc), he was given the minimum sanction which was then halved at the panel's discretion. That is the correct way to deal with it; not just ignoring the incident altogether as seems to be the case with Cane.
• heavyhooker

  12:43 PM 23/11/2016

  Wow Kiwi in Germany, the ABs were absolute saints during the game, with only 3 or 4 penalties. Please, if you are going to be so juvenile with this sort of thing, do it in a balanced manner.
• pete

  11:39 AM 23/11/2016

  Fair argument, the one thing I would say it's missing is a players good behaviour/playing record.
  
  When adjudicating a punishment, a players previous record is taken into account. Someone like Cane who from memory has a good record will receive a more favourable account than repeat offenders.
  
  So if that was Cane/Fekitoa's first time infront of the judiciary but Luamanu's 3rd time (for example). Then of course the outcome will be different. So you're not always comparing apples with apples.
  
  Now I don't know everyone's disciplinary record but worth understanding the same incident could have different outcomes depending on the individual.
• pablito

  10:47 AM 23/11/2016

  Juist seen Cane has been cleared. Utter idiocy. World Rugby had literally just clarified the situation regarding this -
  
  "The laws of the game clearly state that the necks and heads of players are sacrosanct. When it comes to foul play, the game is cleaner now than ever before but referees must constantly be alert to head-high hits. By taking this strong approach, we are saying to players that tackling an opponent above the shoulder line will not go unpunished."
  
  Only for it to be utterly disregarded in the case of Cane
  
  Irrespective of what you think of Cane's tackle, it cannot be denied that it was both shoulder first and high, as evidenced by the below.
  
  https://gfycat.com/ThreadbareGoodnaturedHanumanmonkey
  
  https://gfycat.com/SplendidUntidyAgama
  
  There is no consistency. Either players are responsible for their actions or they are not.
  
  Joe Launchbury did not mean to kick someone in the head but accidentally made contact and was banned for two weeks for being reckless.
  
  Mat Luamanu puts in what would have been a crunching but perfectly legal tackle had Will Hooley not ducked at the last moment.
  
  http://www.rugbydump.com/2016/11/5440/mat-luamanus-brutal-tackle-gets-him-a-five-week-ban?page=all
  
  Despite having no way of avoiding the contact once Hooley ducks, Luamanu is banned for 5 weeks with the disciplinary panel citing the tackle as' reckless'
  
  (BTW both of these bans also make Fekitoa's 1 week look absurdly light)
  
  I don't think NZ are a dirty team although I do think that they went out to teach the Irish a lesson and to physically dominate them and that may have lead them to go somewqhat over the top. However, this area is far too confused and urgently needs clarity. Without that clarity it is easy to see why people claim that NZ receive preferential treatment and that players from lesser teams are more harshly treated - see Dan Leo's recent comments.
• drg

  10:32 AM 23/11/2016

  Kiwi in Germany, you've summed up 90% of the rugby populations opinions.... The AB's are good at cynical play. It's nothing to be ashamed of, some players use steroids, others are just dicks and others don't get their dues because they're too nice... "The ABs are good at adjusting to the referee" PRECISELY! it's been highlighted on a lot of occasions that the AB's rarely commit the same penalty in a row... Are you telling me the best team in the world just randimly give away more penalties than other teams due to indiscipline??
  
  They are the best team in the world, probably the best drilled and probably the deepest player depth out there and they just happen to commit more penalties out of accident or clumsiness or just shit happens?
  
  They are an awesome team and they steal and use the ball at any chance and that is what makes them great, they play along a dangerous line and it works wonders for them. And of course they don't score tries through 'cheating'... Their running is sublime, but you have to be one eyed with very dark glasses on to miss the obvious.
  
  Are they dirty? No more than any other team?
  Are they cynical? Yes, just like every team, but they're better at it!
• drg

  10:23 AM 23/11/2016

  To be fair mate, no self respecting forward would want their theoretical kids to play.... that being said, we're all but mad and it'd probably toughen them up... So lace up!
• drg

  10:21 AM 23/11/2016

  Oh nice! I wasn't so much talking about the sigh. But more when people mentioned fekitoa and cane you replied with the hit on Barrett, that's the tit for tat thing. Having looked at the tackles, I'd say Fekitoas was at least a yellow, Canes (imo) was an accident and I'm not even sure I'd penalise him for it.... Perhaps a penalty for what happened but nothing marked against Cane.. I know that sounds odd, but there was (again imo) zero intent and I think it was a collision based on the Irish players actions, rather than Canes.... As for the Barrett incident, similar to Fekitoas where I'd say at least a yellow.... I'm not sure if Fekitoas was worse... It looked worse on outcome base, but intent base I'm not so sure...
  
  All I mean really is if we highlight Fekitoas, throwing another incident into the mix instead of seems like an attempt to justify why one is ok, because of other actions... Either way, imo, neither were within the laws....
• oliver

  9:52 AM 23/11/2016

  yes damn those filthy frogs! even when they're not on the field, they should be held accountable!!
• im1

  9:26 AM 23/11/2016

  If I hadn't known otherwise I would have thought it was France playing Ireland based on how dirty they were!
• oliver

  8:24 AM 23/11/2016

  Having not seen the game, I won't comment on it.
  
  What I will say is that the kiwi and Irish media/fans are the most one-eyed and biased I've ever seen in the rugby world. So well, watching them have a go at each other is quite enjoyable from a French point of view.
  
  *grabs popcorn*
• stroudos

  8:02 AM 23/11/2016

  Kiwi in Germany, just want to say well done for so comprehensively refuting these accusations. Loving your approach to using actual evidence and facts to support your argument - rather original it must be said.
  
  This whole furore, in my opinion, is embarrassing. I was struck repeatedly by how gracious NZ players, coaches, media and fans were after the Chicago defeat. By contrast, the reaction to this game just looks childish and frankly pathetic.
  
  BUT, here is an important point: most of the whingeing, as far as I'm aware, has been in the British press. Two things here: the UK has nothing to do with this game and unfortunately heir vicarious petulance reflects unfairly on the Irish, and sports journalists in the UK, particularly those writing on Rugby, are almost without exception, jealous scumbags with an enormous collective inferiority complex.
• breakaway

  6:43 AM 23/11/2016

  "I don't think we're whinging at all. I think the facts speak for themselves. He (the citing officer) actually picked out 12 different incidents, of which 11 of them involved New Zealand, and one involved Ireland, which we've subsequently been cleared of."
  
  Yes, that is commonly known as whinging. Nobody disputes the unacceptability of the Fekitoa tackle, however nine of the reviews were cleared and the Cane incident was eventually and rightly considered dealt with. If Kearney is happy to accept the clearance of the single Irish incident (an surprisingly meagre total to say the least) then he has to accept the clearance of the other reviews from the same UK panel.
  So we are left with the Fekitoa red card and an already punished clash called 'accidental'. On that basis Kearney seems to be admitting that despite being deemed within the laws of the game, all those other instances of NZ vigour in this top tier international rugby test match, are just not acceptable for his Irish boys to have to face. Is that what he's saying? I hope not, but then why did he go on about it?. I'm pretty sure his players don't feel that way, and I'm pleased to see that they appear to be disowning this nonsense.
  There's a fairly lively strain of Irish blood in my family and like a lot of Antipodeans I favour the green among the 6N sides. Apart from a brief period of grumpiness, I was fine with the Chicago result. In Dublin the ABs won a tough and enthralling "test" in the full sense of the word, and deserved it on the day. I like to think that Irishmen who know their rugby will recognise the respect for the Irish game that the NZ intensity represented.
• pete

  4:47 AM 23/11/2016

  *indiscretions
• pete

  4:44 AM 23/11/2016

  "...and be more gracious about it"??
  
  When Ireland won in Chicago, no excuses, no moaning. AB's, coaches and fans (including myself) all said - Well played Ireland, you were the better team.
  
  AB's win the return game in a fierce battle and have been lambasted by the Irish media as a dirty team - while conveniently glazing over any of their own insurrections.
  
  You tell me who's not being gracious, because some of the rubbish I've been reading is beyond believable!
• 3:14 AM 23/11/2016

  I am actually English living in NZ so have seen both worlds.
  Not tit for tat but see that above type of remark repeated again and again without base and feel that a breathe and sighing at the view as the simplest response. I have discussed why on other areas so didn't see the need to go over it all again. I know some people are out for reactions and others just have a blinkered view of certain teams, but the constant remarks even after official reviews can grate a little
• drg

  12:51 AM 23/11/2016

  Rabbit, I noticed in a couple replies of yours you've answered a question or a statement with another question... I assume you're a kiwi fan... we're not all out to get you guys, but tit for tat isn't particularly constructive... most will admit when their team is in the wrong...
• 45678

  11:10 PM 22/11/2016

  You can watch any game with blinkers on and cry foul. Especially if you want to isolate stats to your benefit. I support neither side and thought Ireland were hard done by if not limited in approach once key players went off.
  
  You have to appreciate that most people want the underdog to win, so kiwis have to accept their status as number 1 and be more gracious about it
  
  The abs do get away with many things on the rugby field on a frequent basis. this can be attributed to many factors such as being the dominant side, playing smarter rugby and I hate to admit it but there is an aura that teams and officials get sucked in to.
  
  However does the old adage conveniently apply to kiwis I.e. Is it cheating if you don't get caught?
• jeri

  10:56 PM 22/11/2016

  Poor discipline, but not dirty. In fact common for any test team in the world.
  
  It's like the majority of the complaints are made by people who's not seen a rugby match before - and I suspect that's the case, they probably didn't know or care the All Blacks were going to play the Irish in Dublin if it weren't for their win in Chicago.
• 10:29 PM 22/11/2016

  Also on the penalty vs yellow card front. Your logic doesn't really check out. There are multiple ways to interpret data like this. (I haven't checked it out on google, just basing this on your say so.)
  
  One would be to say that the All Blacks are good at adjusting to the ref and making sure to be disciplined there after. Each ref interprets the game a little differently SH & NH is quite different in terms of the subtleties of the breakdown, rolling away etc. Perhaps these other SH teams struggle to do this? And perhaps it is easier not to go over the line so often when you're winning as often as they do?
  
  Another thing to mention on the penalty count in general, is that the ABs often end up scoring a try under advantage(no penalty would be recorded) so this would also skew the data in favour of less attacking, perhaps not as good defence wise (as the ABs) team.
  
  But hey if its easier to just bag the other team and belittle their achievements by making them into the big bad wolf so that loses become easier to manage by all means...
• pete

  10:29 PM 22/11/2016

  I'm with 'Kiwi in Germany' on this!
  
  Well played, too many people throw outrageous calls of cheating, bias and arrogance on the AB's and when you defend there baseless statements - your precious of your team.
  
  It's the perfect click bate and always lacks any factual substance but glad someone put some time in to respond.
• rdump0

  9:22 PM 22/11/2016

  Fully agree with this. I'm completely neutral here, and when watching the game live was amazed at what the irish got away with during the game. It looked to me as Peyper was doing his best to make the game tighter than it should have been. Having merely 4 penalties being called against a team is rare enough. At this level even more. And when it happens, it's when one team has been utterly dominating the other one, not losing quite clearly.
• mackinaw

  9:21 PM 22/11/2016

  Fekitoa banned for one match, Cane cleared.
• weejockmcplop

  8:26 PM 22/11/2016

  ...but Jaco Peyper is a useless ref. and has a history of not making the big calls or referring decisions to the TMO when he should.
  
  As for the AB's are the dirty, no. Should Sam Cane have beed red carded, on the evidence of the picture at the top of this article, there can be no doubt that he should have been given a straight Red. He clearly has hit Robbie Henshaw on the jaw with the shoulder and there can be no place in rugby for that. The IRB had already issued a directive for referees to clamp down on high tackles.l
• 8:22 PM 22/11/2016

  It's funny how perception changes some facts.
  
  - New Zealand won the game on the scoreboard FACT.
  - Ireland were awarded 14 penalties to NZ 4 (my "findings" show there were cases for another 45 penalties against Ireland)
  - NZ Yellow Cards 2(1 deserved) IRL 0(1 deserved)
  - 12 incidents referred to citing commissioner (11 NZ vs 1 IRL)
  - 1 Red Card could have been awarded against NZ but was more like justified as a yellow(Malakai Fekitoa 1 week ban)
  - [Still waiting Sam Cane to be cleared of any wrong doing atm]
• dotser88

  7:45 PM 22/11/2016

  I don't think the Irish players/staff made a big deal of it at all. Both sets of media are obviously partisan on this issue. However these are the facts below.
  
  - New Zealand won the game on the scoreboard (imo better team too). FACT.
  - NZ committed 14 penalties to IRL 4
  - NZ Yellow Cards 2 IRL 0
  - 12 incidents referred to citing commissioner (11 NZ vs 1 IRL)
  - 1 Red Card that should have been awarded against NZ (Malakai Fekitoa 1 week ban)
  - [Still waiting Sam Cane verdict atm]
  
  So are they a "dirty team"? Probably not the right question if you ask me. Are they judged differrently by officials?
  
  To answer that you could say yes because one player was mistakenly not shown a red card (possibly two depending on Sam Cane decision). On average they commit 43 penalties before receiving a yellow card versus average 12 of other SH teams (google it!). The TMO in this game was 'certain' about the NZ 2nd try and felt that Same Cane challenge on Henshaw just about warranted a penalty when put to him. And finally, Ref decides not to use the TMO for final NZ try....that's just bizarre, is that not what a TMO is there for?
• 7:34 PM 22/11/2016

  I don't think it was cynical either. I've never watched a match where the ref was more bias against the ABs. Or any team for that matter. I was happy we came away with the win as I felt it was deserved. We took our chances. The hit, because it surely wasn't a tackle that Fekitoa did, was unacceptable and should be eradicated from the game. He is not an evil guy out for blood though, it was a mistake we paid for it on the day, and he will pay for it with a ban. I was frustrated by the refereeing on the day but wouldn't have thought any more on it. However after seeing so much complaining and lamenting of the ref from Irish and British sources it got on my proverbial goat. So I painstakingly went through the whole game(Which I'd never really waste my time doing in normal circumstances.) I know we weren't cynical. I know the ref was bias against us. I've sited you the proof. Kindly do the same rather than state blandly "there could have been more..." The problem is, I feel it's a bit of a witch hunt. We are held to a higher standard because we are the best. Fine. But don't start saying we were the cynical ones when the penalty count clearly flatters the hell out of Ireland, and think about how much this affected the scoreline. You beat us fair and square in Chicago and how great of a game was that. You played out of your skins and deservedly won, and we found out how much Brodie Retallick and Sam Whitlock are worth to us.(All those lost line outs.) No one begrudged you your win mate. Our was equally earned fair and square.
• 7:29 PM 22/11/2016

  sigh.....
• mastersa

  6:05 PM 22/11/2016

  Im Irish and I would not call their performance dirty, cynical certainly. You just dont give away that many penalties in your own 22 and expect to be called anything else and with respect to Kiwi in Germany there could have been many more offsides, not releasing after tackles that the Ref missed that should have led to more yellows for repeated cynical play.
• drg

  5:40 PM 22/11/2016

  I would actually like to retract an ill informed comment on the Cane 'tackle' I made... I had read that Cane should have been yellowed and thinking it was a shoulder to the head sort of thing, I went along with it without seeing the incident, however now since seeing it, it genuinely looks completely accidental!!!
  
  It was mistimed? I'm not sure, I think it was going to be perfectly timed until Henshaw spun into Cane.
  
  As for the the tackle on Barrett, what was that??? And the arm movement after the try was scored?? The whole thing looked wrong and strange.
  
  Are the all blacks dirty? No, not as much as any other team. They play right up to the line and occasionally beyond, but out right dirty, no...
• 5:22 PM 22/11/2016

  and......
  0:34:59- GREEN 20 head high round the neck
  0:37:23 - GREEN 13 running interference
  0:40:15 - GREEN 15 not releasing - no penalty awarded
  0:40:47 - GREEN 7 not releasing - no penalty awarded
  0:41:47 - GREEN 2 knock on - called gone backwards
  0:43:37 - GREEN 13 tackling the man without the ball - no penalty
  0:43:42 - GREEN 14 high tackle round the neck - no penalty
  0:43:48 - BLACK ruled to have knocked on - off the feet?
  0:52:22 - GREEN 11 round the neck - no penalty awarded
  0:58:02 - GREEN 3 high tackle round the neck - no penalty
  0:59:28 - GREEN not releasing - no penalty awarded
  0:61:06 - GREEN 19 entering ruck from the side, offside at ruck - no penalty awarded
  0:61:16 - GREEN offside - no penalty awarded
  0:61:22 - GREEN 2 round the neck - no penalty awarded
  0:62:47 - GREEN 11 head high tackle - no penalty awarded
  0:70:10 - GREEN 9 offside - no penalty awarded
  0:77:38 - GREEN off his feet crawling with ball in hand - no penalty awarded
  0:78:57 - GREEN kicking the ball away cynical play
  - GREEN 14 tackles BLACK without the ball and high - no penalty awarded
  0:80:43 - GREEN off his feet playing ball on the ground, slowing ball down
  
  So Irish fans should quit moaning It's us who should be worried if this trend of holding the ABs to a higher standard continues....
  
  The main reason the Irish lost was that they were not clinical enough... They kept dropping the ball when they had chances to score.... The ABs didn't. And yes Beauden did ground that ball!
• jonnyenglish

  4:32 PM 22/11/2016

  I agree with the Knappster, in this performance, from what I've seen, they were out of control and really brought the game into disrepute. I hate seeing this on the pitch because, while it's a contact sport, going out there to hurt your opponent to the point of knocking them out is an utter disgrace.
  
  They wanted to prove something when they lost - they did. They proved they can be rattled and their supporters can't take the slightest bit of criticism.
  
  If you think this was ok, riddle me this:
  
  Assuming they've never seen much Rugby: What parent, after seeing that shoulder-barge, is going to say "Rugby is the sport for my child". I love Rugby, hell I'm actually from Rugby, watching that makes me think twice about whether would be good for my (theoretical) kids health.
• colombes

  4:19 PM 22/11/2016

  It seems the All Blacks had something to prove during this match, and maybe some of the payers didn't control their emotions. But to be fair, we've seen much worse during midlands derby, stades derby in the top14 or france-england crunchs.
  Move on.
• danknapp

  2:52 PM 22/11/2016

  In this performance, absolutely. They weren't in control and knew it. They were flying into rucks without control, hitting people high, neck rolls left, right and centre.
• 45678

  2:52 PM 22/11/2016

  I don't really think any team is outwardly dirty. The Irish were unlucky with a few calls, but the aggression levels were very high on both sides
  
  What these two games prove is that the abs are beatable and have a degree petulance and arrogance about them from being number one for so long. The Irish clearly rattled them, but didn't have the game plan to beat them twice. The injuries to key players didn't help, but they showed little imagination and the kiwis defended comfortably for the most part.
  
  The abs have put themselves on a pedestal and don't appear to take any form of criticism well. a good proportion of kiwi supporters have developed a very big chip on their shoulders and don't do the "brand" many favours.