6N England v Ireland
-
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I'd say clumsy on both parts.
The thing for me which needs to be fixed is the penalty for clumsy play is the same as for malicious, dirty stuff.
Punish careless, clumsy play for safety's sake by all means, but there has to be a different in-match penalty from the dirty, malicious stuff like kicking a blokes head.
But if a transgression whether deliberate or clumsy results in the innocent player leaving the field due to injury then that should be straight red.
That’ll take care of the targeting
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
@crucial said in 6N England v Ireland:
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I'd say clumsy on both parts.
The thing for me which needs to be fixed is the penalty for clumsy play is the same as for malicious, dirty stuff.
Punish careless, clumsy play for safety's sake by all means, but there has to be a different in-match penalty from the dirty, malicious stuff like kicking a blokes head.
The theory is to get better technique coached into players. To an extent that has worked but you could also have a strong argument that it hasn't.
Take someone like Ofa (please). Was a shocker at not lowering or driving up if he did. I don't see a lot of improvement tbh. He's still at risk of being 'clumsy'But yes, accidents and the like being punished the same as grub acts doesn't have the correct balance. You can stop yourself throwing a roundhouse easier than getting out the way of an unintended head clash.
But that is why the 20minute RC was suggested. It was England (and other NH teams) that shot that down.As we know from history though, when England get shafted due to Laws the Laws (or interpretations) change quickly.
Really?
Yup
England were foxed and frustrated by Italy's creative use of a legal loophole | Andy Bull
Italy’s plan of avoiding rucks by not committing to the breakdown after tackles frustrated England and annoyed their coach Eddie Jones
-
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
The rule that allowed it, that the ABs had used for years to be able to get closer to the attack, was changed within months.
Ruck-less law change was an 'over-reaction' says Italy coach Conor O'Shea
Conor O’Shea has criticised World Rugby for an “over-reaction” to his team’s infamous ruck-less tactics against England a year ago, […]
-
@mikethesnow but a legal tackle can end up injuring someone, or an illegal tackle/contact doesnt injure someone and then next week almost identically it does, that creates a massive grey area.
For me, dirty play, like kicking, punching etc is always a RC.
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
It's high time that coaches and captains in their post-match interviews stopped blaming the officials and started acknowledging that one of their player's indiscretions - regardless of intent - gave the match officials, including the TMO, no other option but to send the player from the field.
James Ryan is 2.03m tall
Ewels had a legal target area of approx. 1.6m
This is a coaching issue.
What's forgotten in incidents like this is James Ryan's match was over after 82 secs.
Quite possibly he'll be out next weekend too.
Plenty of these types of vids floating around YouTube this morning
Sexton, who has form for being a cheap bastard, gets away scot-free based on this footage. Would like to have seen a close-up.
Could easily have been two reds in the same passage of play.
The thing about the red is was Ewels actually trying to effect a tackle?
Ryan had already passed and was continuing his run as a blocker.
For me it looked as though Ewels was trying to absorb the momentum of Ryan running into him, rather than trying to take Ryan down.
Flip side Ryan running into Ewels to take him out of defensive line.
I'd say clumsy on both parts.
Interesting thought but as clumsy as Ryan may have been, Ewels went into contact high. Under the current protocols that’s a red.
Watching some more, Ewels is looking at Sexton when contact is made. That is because Ryan had passed to him more than a yard before the contact.
So IMO Ewels wasn't trying to tackle Ryan and was aware that he wasn't in possession.
Which begs the question of what IS the 'correct' technique for dealing with someone not in possession running into you? Tackling a player not in possession round the hips is a penalty, isn't it?
I think if it were me I'd be bracing myself not to get knocked over, and then trying to get to the player in possession.
The more I look at this , the more I'm unconvinced it was even a penalty.
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
But if a transgression whether deliberate or clumsy results in the innocent player leaving the field due to injury then that should be straight red.
Take your point, but I think there needs to be a distinction between clumsiness and thuggery.
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
Google the 2-3-2 scrum and an English bloke called Baxter.
-
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I think if it were me I'd be bracing myself not to get knocked over, and then trying to get to the player in possession.
have been plenty of other examples where you could argue the player is bracing themselves for contact over the past few years but more often still results in a card...
-
@taniwharugby said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I think if it were me I'd be bracing myself not to get knocked over, and then trying to get to the player in possession.
have been plenty of other examples where you could argue the player is bracing themselves for contact over the past few years but more often still results in a card...
If the contact is with player in possession then onus is to 'tackle' below the armpits.
Contact with someone not in possession running a blocking line seems rather different to me. Is there even a law which covers it?
-
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I'd say clumsy on both parts.
The thing for me which needs to be fixed is the penalty for clumsy play is the same as for malicious, dirty stuff.
Punish careless, clumsy play for safety's sake by all means, but there has to be a different in-match penalty from the dirty, malicious stuff like kicking a blokes head.
The argument being that if you're being clumsy, it's just laziness and so why isn't that malicious?
Players have to learn to work harder, at the moment 99% of fans absolve the players of any responsibility and we see this "game ruined by red/ref" everywhere, almost zero mention of Ewels despite the on air pundits saying it was fair. So players move on, why should they work harder at changing technique when it's the refs fault for them being clumsy?
-
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
I'd say clumsy on both parts.
The thing for me which needs to be fixed is the penalty for clumsy play is the same as for malicious, dirty stuff.
Punish careless, clumsy play for safety's sake by all means, but there has to be a different in-match penalty from the dirty, malicious stuff like kicking a blokes head.
The argument being that if you're being clumsy, it's just laziness and so why isn't that malicious?
Players have to learn to work harder, at the moment 99% of fans absolve the players of any responsibility and we see this "game ruined by red/ref" everywhere, almost zero mention of Ewels despite the on air pundits saying it was fair. So players move on, why should they work harder at changing technique when it's the refs fault for them being clumsy?
Don't disagree with any of that and not blaming the Refs who have to work withing the guidelines - and the players know the consequences. Just think there should be a distinction between a Ewels-type incident or a Grewcock finger-bite.
-
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
Google the 2-3-2 scrum and an English bloke called Baxter.
Ah you mean the issue of NZ playing a different system to the rest of the world?
-
@machpants said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
The rule that allowed it, that the ABs had used for years to be able to get closer to the attack, was changed within months.
Ruck-less law change was an 'over-reaction' says Italy coach Conor O'Shea
Conor O’Shea has criticised World Rugby for an “over-reaction” to his team’s infamous ruck-less tactics against England a year ago, […]
Yes it was addressed quickly, but ask yourself if it was more likely because of England’s all pervading power over World Rugby, brushing aside all other arguments in a mere three months or because the tactic had been used at every occasion possible and had ruined a high profile match in front of 83,000 paying spectators and God knows how many as a TV audience.
Always remember, don’t let common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. And Deans did score!
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
Ah you mean the issue of NZ playing a different system to the rest of the world?
It's called scoring more points than the other side....
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
@machpants said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
That’s really only an article telling us that England were rubbish at working out how to counter a tactic and that Jones didn’t like it. You’ll need a bit more than that to shore up the conspiracy theory
The rule that allowed it, that the ABs had used for years to be able to get closer to the attack, was changed within months.
Ruck-less law change was an 'over-reaction' says Italy coach Conor O'Shea
Conor O’Shea has criticised World Rugby for an “over-reaction” to his team’s infamous ruck-less tactics against England a year ago, […]
Yes it was addressed quickly, but ask yourself if it was more likely because of England’s all pervading power over World Rugby, brushing aside all other arguments in a mere three months or because the tactic had been used at every occasion possible and had ruined a high profile match in front of 83,000 paying spectators and God knows how many as a TV audience.
Always remember, don’t let common sense get in the way of a good conspiracy theory. And Deans did score!
Actually on a serious note, it can be a positive thing. I like the way the caterpillar ruck - which was starting to ruin the game - was handled by the RFU
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
had ruined a high profile match in front of 83,000 paying spectators and God knows how many as a TV audience.
I think I see the problem here...was it only English fans watching?
-
@victor-meldrew said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
Ah you mean the issue of NZ playing a different system to the rest of the world?
It's called scoring more points than the other side....
And you’re still bloody doing it. Cheats. Cheats I tell you. Why hasn’t the RFU outlawed this?
Rugby Betting Guide: How to Bet on Rugby Like a Pro