Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown

First topic message reminder :

        
Ireland 19 - 9 England

A continuation of the match thread.

Be respectful please. Your mothers would be proud.

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

Don't see how you can compare the current Ireland side to the current England one? You've lost to SA in the Autumn, us last week, got whitewashed in the summer, lost to a poor France side in Paris, lost to NZ, got pumped by Wales a few seasons ago... that's a bit deluded really.  

my how 1 win in 5 can make you forget the previous 4 humpings....

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

Don't see how you can compare the current Ireland side to the current England one? You've lost to SA in the Autumn, us last week, got whitewashed in the summer, lost to a poor France side in Paris, lost to NZ, got pumped by Wales a few seasons ago... that's a bit deluded really.  

my how 1 win in 5 can make you forget the previous 4 humpings....

Yes.  But why forget the three games before the four humpings?  

Remember everything.

Before those three games there was another humping for us.
Before that, we hit you four times that we'll call humpings just to be friendly about it

as long as we go as far back as 2003 then i dont care which other ones you include

All's fair that humps.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

Artful_Dodger wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote: if you lose to Wales then there really is no difference between the teams

Except for the fact that we just beat you :/

Except we beat Wales and then we're left with a Mexican stand off.

The difference would be England would have won away whereas the other two would be home wins ...

I think this ireland side does have a chance in the world cup. Mind you 12 months ago I fancied england for it. Their ball retention and discipline is excellent. Like other's have said, they won't keep getting off to good starts, as that requires a little good fortune as well as good play. England gift wrapped the lead for them on sunday. How well their game plan works playing catch up against a top side remains to be seen. Doesn't mean they can't adapt, just be interesting to see.

quinsforever wrote:

Marshes wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

quinsforever wrote:rory - assume you meant this post after the easter knockon and 36 pass were both ruled incorrectly as forwards?

"aviva's 50,00 refs getting the better of joubert too.

lets hope HQ has a similar impact on refs at RWC"

that seems to me the very definition of home advantage. you can take umbrage all you like, but its clearly part of the game and what goes around comes around. i dont resent the fact that joubert and his touch judge got two important calls plain wrong under pressure from a vociferous passionate home crowd. seems like you resent me hinting that england might benefit at HQ. strangely hypocritical.

Of course there is home advantage but to suggest that the referee tipped in Ireland's favour because of it is unfair. There are some crucial calls that went against us as well, namely the penalties against O'Mahony. They resulted in points for Ireland when they should have been a chance to clear the lines for Ireland - even more crucial to the game therefore than a pass at the half way line.

BTW - I don't resent you at all lad!

i never once hinted or said that the referee tipped the result in irelands favour. england werent good enough on the day, simple. but those were pretty bad calls in the last 5 minutes, one after the other, which is exactly when i made my comment.

Not trolling quins, but what were the bad calls in the final five? The first try call with offside was spot on I thought. Still haven't seen a replay of the Nowell one so can't say! Maybe it's being suppressed    

Were there others? Like I said I think they balanced out. England had two penalties on their try-line in the first 7 minutes that later in the game might have been yellow.

my bbc feed went wonky for the Easter disallowed try. so wasnt talking about that. only saw the Easter knockon (which clearly went backwards) and final try by Nowell (pass wasnt forwards, admittedly his foot may have gone into touch in act of scoring, but that should every time have been a tmo call not same squint eyed tj who though Easter's drop went forwards).

by this stage they didnt affect the result, but they may affect the 6N final standings if they go to points difference again.

just as a matter of interest do we know who the boss-eyed TJ was just so we can keep a (wonky) eye out for him?

quinsforever wrote:

Marshes wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the Irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

That was not on the 22! It was barely over the halfway line! Dead right it was back but it wasn't the chance you make it out to be. It came during a succession of knock-ons from England. See below unless you are talking about a different moment. By and large the ref was fairly even.

cant see if thats the one i remember. maybe it was. given Easter's size it's only a couple of strides to the 22

What's the problem with the disallowed try? The BBC showed conclusively that it was forward after the game. Even the clip shows 36 releasing the ball about 8m out and Nowell taking it on the 5m line.

This away/home business.  It's an overwritten fable.  You'd swear we'd all turned into French men.

I hope the Irish ask for the bloody roof of the Millennium to be closed to stick a finger up to the scourge of the modern day netcoach and journalistic 'mood' opinionators .

milkyboy wrote:I think this ireland side does have a chance in the world cup. Mind you 12 months ago I fancied england for it. Their ball retention and discipline is excellent. Like other's have said, they won't keep getting off to good starts, as that requires a little good fortune as well as good play. England gift wrapped the lead for them on sunday. How well their game plan works playing catch up against a top side remains to be seen. Doesn't mean they can't adapt, just be interesting to see.

I think Wales will probably give them a reasonably tough test - hopefully it will be a great match and will give us a chance to see how they go with a different challenge as unfortunately I don't think England pushed them as hard as they should have.

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Marshes wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/opinion-englands-late-disallowed-try-could-be-the-decisive-moment-in-this-years-six-nations/15911

You DO realise that the game should have been over by then anyway????  Now there's controversy had England scored a 'late' try

so 2 big mistakes makes it all ok?

horrendous call also for the nick easter "knock on" which clearly went backwards when england were on the Irish 22 in the last 10 minutes.

england did not deserve to win at all, but there was some poor officiating at the end that largely went in ireland's favour. that is what is meant by home advantage. it is not a fiction.

That was not on the 22! It was barely over the halfway line! Dead right it was back but it wasn't the chance you make it out to be. It came during a succession of knock-ons from England. See below unless you are talking about a different moment. By and large the ref was fairly even.

cant see if thats the one i remember. maybe it was. given Easter's size it's only a couple of strides to the 22

What's the problem with the disallowed try? The BBC showed conclusively that it was forward after the game. Even the clip shows 36 releasing the ball about 8m out and Nowell taking it on the 5m line.

i'll post the link again for you

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/england-try-ireland-forward-pass-six-nations/15911

Heaf wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think this ireland side does have a chance in the world cup. Mind you 12 months ago I fancied england for it. Their ball retention and discipline is excellent. Like other's have said, they won't keep getting off to good starts, as that requires a little good fortune as well as good play. England gift wrapped the lead for them on sunday. How well their game plan works playing catch up against a top side remains to be seen. Doesn't mean they can't adapt, just be interesting to see.

I think Wales will probably give them a reasonably tough test - hopefully it will be a great match and will give us a chance to see how they go with a different challenge as unfortunately I don't think England pushed them as hard as they should have.

I agree, wouldn't want to pick a winner.

its not about where its released and where its take in a vacuum. it is relative to players moving forwards. the bbc clip shown 20 minutes after the game (why did it take so long?) was misleading as it just looks at ball flight in isolation.

if 36 passes to nowell who is slightly behind him and when nowell catches it, he is still behind 36 at the time he catches it, then relative to his forward momentum, the pass was backward. vectors.

The ball had travelled forward by the time nowell caught it. Did it set off forward? Genuinely, I think you scrub this one off, you're scrubbing most back move tries off. I used to get irate about the amount of tries scored with forward passes, to the point it seemed it needed an american football throw to get pinged. Ping a flat pass like that and you'll be pinging crooked put-ins next! Where would it end?!

Had it been given, it flatters england. Ireland were at least 10 points better on the day.

The ball goes 3 metres forward from point of release.
Twelvetrees' hands aren't going backwards when he releases the ball.
The BBC graphic showed the path of the ball and at no point was it going backward.

The objective scientific view would be that the pass was forward - sure there will always be conspiracy theorists that suggest otherwise, but life's too short to argue against that sort of nonsense.

I'm not arguing about this pass in particular but if you want to bring science into it then it is possible for a pass to be backwards in relation to a player but forwards in relation to the ground (i.e. at no point would it be going backwards) - it depends on how fast the player is running forwards and how fast the ball is passed backwards.

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

Don't see how you can compare the current Ireland side to the current England one? You've lost to SA in the Autumn, us last week, got whitewashed in the summer, lost to a poor France side in Paris, lost to NZ, got pumped by Wales a few seasons ago... that's a bit deluded really.  

my how 1 win in 5 can make you forget the previous 4 humpings....

So when we win by 10 its a win, when you do by 6 it's a humping? Give it up quins, you've been rumbled by the forum neutrality police for crimes against impartiality.

The Great Aukster wrote:The ball goes 3 metres forward from point of release.
Twelvetrees' hands aren't going backwards when he releases the ball.
The BBC graphic showed the path of the ball and at no point was it going backward.

The objective scientific view would be that the pass was forward - sure there will always be conspiracy theorists that suggest otherwise, but life's too short to argue against that sort of nonsense.

its a long pass. of course it travels forwards while in the air. the point is that 36 is ahead of the ball that he passed when Nowell catches it. pretty much the definition or backwards in vector terms.

did you read the article from the irish publication that i have now posted twice for you?

if we really want to get into conspiracies, why dont we try to find out why it took 20 minutes after the final whistle for BBC to get hold of a replay, and why werent they able to edit it themselves?

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
in the last few years i think England havent lost to Australia, and have beaten the ABs once. that seems a fair reflection of where we are at. ie 4th ranked, just ahead of Australia, with ABs and SA some way in front.

based on that it would be very foolish for me to claim England's current team have anything remotely like as good a chance of winning RWC2015 as the 2003 lot.

Don't see how you can compare the current Ireland side to the current England one? You've lost to SA in the Autumn, us last week, got whitewashed in the summer, lost to a poor France side in Paris, lost to NZ, got pumped by Wales a few seasons ago... that's a bit deluded really.  

my how 1 win in 5 can make you forget the previous 4 humpings....

So when we win by 10 its a win, when you do by 6 it's a humping? Give it up quins, you've been rumbled by the forum neutrality police for crimes against impartiality.    

4 in a row makes them humpings.

anyone who claims this ireland side are more dominant than the England side of 2003 has lost all right to appeal to impartiality!

Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

rodders wrote:Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

6-42

england must have had the luck of the irish as well as the rub of the green on that day!

quinsforever wrote:

rodders wrote:Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

6-42

england must have had the luck of the irish as well as the rub of the green on that day!

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The ball goes 3 metres forward from point of release.
Twelvetrees' hands aren't going backwards when he releases the ball.
The BBC graphic showed the path of the ball and at no point was it going backward.

The objective scientific view would be that the pass was forward - sure there will always be conspiracy theorists that suggest otherwise, but life's too short to argue against that sort of nonsense.

its a long pass. of course it travels forwards while in the air. the point is that 36 is ahead of the ball that he passed when Nowell catches it. pretty much the definition or backwards in vector terms.

did you read the article from the irish publication that i have now posted twice for you?

if we really want to get into conspiracies, why dont we try to find out why it took 20 minutes after the final whistle for BBC to get hold of a replay, and why werent they able to edit it themselves?

Not sure where you're getting your definition of vectors from but that is not it, the position of Twelvetrees in relation to Nowell when he catches the ball is irrelevant. Did Twelvetrees release the ball backwards is the only question that matters. At the end of the day it didn't matter to the result of the game, would have given the scoreline a less one sided look but wouldn't have changed the lacklustre performance.

rodders wrote:Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

We didn't get much from andre watson that i remember! Hey, he kept it close for the neutrals i suppose. Not that there's many neutrals when england are playing

Jesus quins, I've never seen a poster attack so much bait with so much vigour! You'd make a fine trout.

milkyboy wrote:

rodders wrote:Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

We didn't get much from andre watson that i remember! Hey, he kept it close for the neutrals i suppose. Not that there's many neutrals when england are playing

Well England neutralized the offside rule with the help of Joubert on Saturday!

rodders wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

rodders wrote:Well personally I'd have given Nowell the try...but given the English 2003 side got the rub of the green so much it was poetic justice I suppose.

We didn't get much from andre watson that i remember! Hey, he kept it close for the neutrals i suppose. Not that there's many neutrals when england are playing

Well England neutralized the offside rule with the help of Joubert on Saturday!

well when in rome err dublin

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The ball goes 3 metres forward from point of release.
Twelvetrees' hands aren't going backwards when he releases the ball.
The BBC graphic showed the path of the ball and at no point was it going backward.

The objective scientific view would be that the pass was forward - sure there will always be conspiracy theorists that suggest otherwise, but life's too short to argue against that sort of nonsense.

its a long pass. of course it travels forwards while in the air. the point is that 36 is ahead of the ball that he passed when Nowell catches it. pretty much the definition or backwards in vector terms.

did you read the article from the irish publication that i have now posted twice for you?

if we really want to get into conspiracies, why dont we try to find out why it took 20 minutes after the final whistle for BBC to get hold of a replay, and why werent they able to edit it themselves?

Not sure where you're getting your definition of vectors from but that is not it, the position of Twelvetrees in relation to Nowell when he catches the ball is irrelevant. Did Twelvetrees release the ball backwards is the only question that matters. At the end of the day it didn't matter to the result of the game, would have given the scoreline a less one sided look but wouldn't have changed the lacklustre performance.

if 36 moves forward at speed x and throws the ball sideways-ish, if the ball lands in nowells hands behind 36s hands, then 36 must have imparted a force BACKWARDS on the ball. 36 kept running and running straight forwards to its pretty easy to see. ordinarily it is harder to see as distributor gets tackled, changed direction or changes speed. In this instance its pretty clear. And this is a much more accurate test that trying to determine the direction of his hands, as that can obviously be influence by he body angle.

Notch wrote:Jesus quins, I've never seen a poster attack so much bait with so much vigour! You'd make a fine trout.

i'm bored and theres nothing on TV

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The ball goes 3 metres forward from point of release.
Twelvetrees' hands aren't going backwards when he releases the ball.
The BBC graphic showed the path of the ball and at no point was it going backward.

The objective scientific view would be that the pass was forward - sure there will always be conspiracy theorists that suggest otherwise, but life's too short to argue against that sort of nonsense.

its a long pass. of course it travels forwards while in the air. the point is that 36 is ahead of the ball that he passed when Nowell catches it. pretty much the definition or backwards in vector terms.

did you read the article from the irish publication that i have now posted twice for you?

if we really want to get into conspiracies, why dont we try to find out why it took 20 minutes after the final whistle for BBC to get hold of a replay, and why werent they able to edit it themselves?

Not entirely true - vectors and all that science jazz only really come into play when you're running straight at the try line, as your momentum is already carrying the ball forward etc. Since 36 is running as much sideways as he is straight when he gets the pass away, his momentum isn't pushing the ball forward so much, the pass is doing that by itself & the vector argument loses steam.

Either way, the linesman was bang in line with it, and a pass that plainly looks forward should be called back - no need to be so precise unless its really marginal.

quinsforever wrote:
if 36 moves forward at speed x and throws the ball sideways-ish, if the ball lands in nowells hands behind 36s hands, then 36 must have imparted a force BACKWARDS on the ball. 36 kept running and running straight forwards to its pretty easy to see. ordinarily it is harder to see as distributor gets tackled, changed direction or changes speed. In this instance its pretty clear. And this is a much more accurate test that trying to determine the direction of his hands, as that can obviously be influence by he body angle.

I'm sure that's making sense in your head but it is all completely wrong.

You're ignoring a fair few things, the relative velocity at which Nowell and Twelvetrees are moving in a straight vector forwards (notice the correct use of the term vector), the force imparted on the ball by Twelvetrees upon release and whether that force was in fact backwards and the length of the pass.

Nowell for instance could be moving forward slower than Twelvetrees at which point he can catch the ball behind the then new position of Twelvetrees, he could also theoretically catch the ball in front of Twelvetrees even if the ball is released from his hands in a backwards motion.

kunu - but this is the same TJ that called a knock on for a ball that clearly went backwards by a yard or more just minutes earlier... wouldn't have hurt to let the TMO have a look ...

You mean the Healy/Easter collision ? You see those sort of calls all the time, sure we all know if you get dispossessed in a tackle, it's likely to be labelled as a knock on regardless of where it goes - especially when its not immediately clear if the ball hit Healy while out of Easter's control or not. You don't have the benefit of replays with knock ons, so you give the benefit of the doubt to the tackler

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

quinsforever wrote:
if 36 moves forward at speed x and throws the ball sideways-ish, if the ball lands in nowells hands behind 36s hands, then 36 must have imparted a force BACKWARDS on the ball. 36 kept running and running straight forwards to its pretty easy to see. ordinarily it is harder to see as distributor gets tackled, changed direction or changes speed. In this instance its pretty clear. And this is a much more accurate test that trying to determine the direction of his hands, as that can obviously be influence by he body angle.

I'm sure that's making sense in your head but it is all completely wrong.

You're ignoring a fair few things, the relative velocity at which Nowell and Twelvetrees are moving in a straight vector forwards (notice the correct use of the term vector), the force imparted on the ball by Twelvetrees upon release and whether that force was in fact backwards and the length of the pass.

Nowell for instance could be moving forward slower than Twelvetrees at which point he can catch the ball behind the then new position of Twelvetrees, he could also theoretically catch the ball in front of Twelvetrees even if the ball is released from his hands in a backwards motion.

nowell's speed is completely irrelevant. he could be standing still. the only thing that matters is where the pass is received relative to where the distributor is given a constant forward speed. if the ball is received BEHIND 36 then it is 100% incontrovertible that backwards force was applied to the ball.

you can flash your terminology all you want but if you dont understand the physics its not going to help you.

a completely lateral pass would be completely lateral at catch given 36 moving at the same speed. anything behind means he applied a backwards force in addition to sideways.

any more stupid comments to add?

kunu wrote:You mean the Healy/Easter collision ? You see those sort of calls all the time, sure we all know if you get dispossessed in a tackle, it's likely to be labelled as a knock on regardless of where it goes - especially when its not immediately clear if the ball hit Healy while out of Easter's control or not. You don't have the benefit of replays with knock ons, so you give the benefit of the doubt to the tackler

yeah but this one was pretty obvious. you dont see them given when it falls that far backwards usually. doesnt matter who it hit on contact, if it goes backwards from easter's perspective its either play on or ball dislodged and knocked on by healy and scrum england.

Its a decent rule of thumb quins... Assuming there's no gale force winds. It's skewed a bit in this instance because billy is running at an angle but does straighten up as he passes.

Ultimately it was a tight call. My beef is that so many forward passes go unpunished that in practical terms it's a given that the benefit of doubt should go to the attacking side. You get the sense that the touch judge was so excited at being up with play, that he couldn't help himself but raise the flag.

agree milky. i saw several far more obvious forward passes in the first half, but just because this pass covered 15m of the pitch and the tj happened to be there, he couldnt help himself. irritates me when tjs miss the very short forward pop passes on crash balls when distributor isnt even moving, yet call these which are the very soul of long flat passing in rugby.

Heaf wrote:I'm not arguing about this pass in particular but if you want to bring science into it then it is possible for a pass to be backwards in relation to a player but forwards in relation to the ground (i.e. at no point would it be going backwards) - it depends on how fast the player is running forwards and how fast the ball is passed backwards.

Agreed.

Speaking about the call in question it wasnt a momentum pass, it was what the Aussies call a flat pass.
ie forwards in both laymans and laws terms but the sort of thing that often gets let go, especially as officials will often not have the angle of view to make the call confidently. You can pretty much bet the TMO wouldve had a look and undone any try had the linesman not made his call. Even giving benefit of the doubt to the attacker its hard to make a case that it was a genuinely poor piece of officiating.

Well you can see Nowell having to stretch forward to catch the ball because he wasn't going at the same relative speed to the 36 factor vector being exerted by the other English player whose horizontal fourth dimension was clearly out of kilter with the remaining kinetic energy left on the pitch that transmitted itself to the touch judge's arm forcing him to involuntarily raise his arm that happened to be holding the flag and this was all captured on the sideline camera that was tracking alongside, but the betamax tape on which it was recorded mysteriously disappeared for 19 minutes and 54 secs, and a VHS copy had to be given to the BBC to splice and dice it for the review afterwards.

Police are now looking for a 6' 8" bearded lady with violet lipstick who was loitering near the touchline at the time, and seen hurriedly heading into he gents loo at the back of stand shortly after the game.

personally i dont think the tmo would have overruled that one given 36 kept running straight after he released the pass and the ball was behind 36 when nowell caught it. makes the analysis of ball flight a lot easier.

wouldnt have changed the result though.

but as the article says, who knows how much a converted try might count for if ireland lost against wales or scotland.

"when its not your day its not your day. you have to say if england had gotten a bit more of the bounce of the ball, it could be a very different picture"

- Phillip Matthews (irish commentator on BBC) comment at 76:30 on the game clock

at least we now know for sure that Phillip Matthews doesnt post here

England got two extra minutes due to a tmo error. The try shouldnt have counted anyway. Matthews was just being nice.

There is no physics involved with what you are saying, you can catch a forward password behind the new position of the passer if he's moving faster than the catcher. It means absolutely nothing and the mechanics of what you are saving do not add up.

Pot Hale wrote:Well you can see Nowell having to stretch forward to catch the ball because he wasn't going at the same relative speed to the 36 factor vector being exerted by the other English player whose horizontal fourth dimension was clearly out of kilter with the remaining kinetic energy left on the pitch that transmitted itself to the touch judge's arm forcing him to involuntarily raise his arm that happened to be holding the flag and this was all captured on the sideline camera that was tracking alongside, but the betamax tape on which it was recorded mysteriously disappeared for 19 minutes and 54 secs, and a VHS copy had to be given to the BBC to splice and dice it for the review afterwards.

Police are now looking for a 6' 8" bearded lady with violet lipstick who was loitering near the touchline at the time, and seen hurriedly heading into he gents loo at the back of stand shortly after the game.  

Not bad, not bad at all.

I think even in terms of modern sports science, 13 pages is one hell of a warm down. It's facinating that some teams don't appear to lose games because the oposition score more points. Spooky.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

That's why the BBC graphic on ball flight, and the tj's reaction, are wrong.

They've apparently got rid of the direction of hands ruling now, sure I heard a ref say that in the November internationals. It's now based purely on where the ball goes. Of course that's absolute rubbish in real terms as you'll see countless examples in every match where a player passed while running forward. Another one of the rules where it can be ignored when you like!

C'mon fellas, let's not get too narky here. Don't forget George Carlin opened this thread by challenging us to be respectful and make our mothers proud

Fact of the matter is that on Saturday 28 Feb 2015 Ireland beat England 19-9, and deservedly so. As ever with this wonderful game of ours, there is any number of 'what ifs' about the players available, the players not available, the officials, the home crowd, the weather and anything else you care to mention.

So hats off to Ireland, but don't think England will forget this one. And if the two teams meet at the latter stages of RWC 2015, even the most one eyed SH rugby fan might grudgingly admit it'll be a game worth watching.

Cheers all, wherever you're from, that's my last contribution to this thread.

quinsforever wrote:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

That's why the BBC graphic on ball flight, and the tj's reaction, are wrong.

Yawn. No doubt the medical professionals who said Heaslip has three broken vertabrae are wrong after your estimation that a knee to the back couldn't do that sort of damage. Now you know better than the touch judge who was in line with the pass and the sophisticated software which backs up his decision that it was forward. Becoming difficult to take your posts seriously at this stage.

Hartley doing what Hartley does best:

https://vine.co/v/O2lpprP6tdi

Still think Cole should have been cited. He knew what he was doing and it was dirty.