Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown

by **George Carlin** Sun 01 Mar 2015, 5:03 pm

First topic message reminder :

Ireland v England - Post-match warmdown - Page 15 Irelan13

Ireland 19 - 9 England

A continuation of the match thread.

Be respectful please. Your mothers would be proud.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 10:54 am

SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him

i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

by MissBlennerhassett Wed 04 Mar 2015, 10:55 am

SecretFly wrote:
MissBlennerhassett wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
MissBlennerhassett wrote:The Cole/Healy incident was I'm afraid the best bit of the match from an English perspective. Revenge is a dish best served cold and served it was. He wasn't going to back away from that one and Healy got his just deserts for his previous cowardly action. Shame England couldn't play a bit more rugby on the day as well.

Healy took his deserts and tumbleweed.... wryly humoured them on Twitter and marked Cole's card. That dish ain't cold, it's just warming in the mind of a guy with an elephant memory.

Surprised he's got any memory left after that Fly, Cole's a harder nut to crack particularly when he's not trapped at the bottom of a ruck

I'm just hoping that if Cole miraculously comes out of something in a pile with a bloody lip and Healy is seen walking away whistling, that you're going to be big about it and not call for a citing and look back with fondness on the old saying about porrid................. I mean, fruit cocktai................... I mean the desert being a dish and all?
I'll keep an eye out for you, MissBlenner, if anything happens

I suspect that next time the only whistling will be coming from the birds flying around Healy's head Very Happy

by Blanko Wed 04 Mar 2015, 10:57 am

Twelvetrees threw that forward pass when everyone should have been in the shower

Not his fault the timekeeper didn't use new batteries.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:09 am

quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him
i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

Yes, and you've repeatedly said had little things gone the other way, had officials not been tied to the home advantage syndrome it could have gone the other way. That's not really 'deserve' is it? That's more an insinuation of 'luck'. That by-the-way, can be defined as Wumming.

Anyway, I'm only toying with you on a nice sunny morning in Spring, quins. I realise you root for your boys and always want to see them win - it's natural. I root for mine. And luck isn't involved in their winning at the moment.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:13 am

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

I suspect that next time the only whistling will be coming from the birds flying around Healy's head

Oh looking forward to that! That'll be a revelation to see a Devil dancing with a host of little cute birds. The Wonderful World of Disney. It's a show stopper Wink

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:14 am

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him
i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

Yes, and you've repeatedly said had little things gone the other way, had officials not been tied to the home advantage syndrome it could have gone the other way. That's not really 'deserve' is it? That's more an insinuation of 'luck'. That by-the-way, can be defined as Wumming.

Anyway, I'm only toying with you on a nice sunny morning in Spring, quins. I realise you root for your boys and always want to see them win - it's natural. I root for mine. And luck isn't involved in their winning at the moment.

i have absolutely not said that. england cannot concede the stupid penalties they conceded and expect to win. didnt matter what the refs did. the home advantage discussion was related to how playing England at HQ might have a different outcome. Not that it in any way determinated Sunday's result.

you're just upset that i blame the loss more on england's penalty count and some key poor decisions, rather than praise ireland's kicking game and schmidt's genius.

by GunsGerms Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:16 am

Thought Robshaw had a bad game. he knocked on a few times, seemed to arrive late to the breakdown at key moments and made one or two bad decisions. Not his best game. Haskell was anonymous.

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:18 am

quinsforever wrote:
you're just upset that i blame the loss more on england's penalty count and some key poor decisions, rather than praise ireland's kicking game and schmidt's genius.

Well I just hope SL and AF see things the same way when they are doing the video analysis, it will make our route to the RWC final a lot more straighforward Wink

.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:18 am

quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him
i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

Yes, and you've repeatedly said had little things gone the other way, had officials not been tied to the home advantage syndrome it could have gone the other way. That's not really 'deserve' is it? That's more an insinuation of 'luck'. That by-the-way, can be defined as Wumming.

Anyway, I'm only toying with you on a nice sunny morning in Spring, quins. I realise you root for your boys and always want to see them win - it's natural. I root for mine. And luck isn't involved in their winning at the moment.
i have absolutely not said that. england cannot concede the stupid penalties they conceded and expect to win. didnt matter what the refs did. the home advantage discussion was related to how playing England at HQ might have a different outcome. Not that it in any way determinated Sunday's result.

you're just upset that i blame the loss more on england's penalty count and some key poor decisions, rather than praise ireland's kicking game and schmidt's genius.

I happy. You're not. That's the difference.
You're upset. I'm not. That's the difference.
MissBlennet takes it in his/her stride. Has the long range temperament to take the hit and move on in a smart and funny way...wumming sweetly as it were.
I'm not upset. Couldn't care less how you rate us, quins. But I know how you rated us before the game.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:20 am

GunsGerms wrote:Thought Robshaw had a bad game. he knocked on a few times, seemed to arrive late to the breakdown at key moments and made one or two bad decisions. Not his best game. Haskell was anonymous.

agree with that. it was never going to be a day for individual brilliance in the back rows, although i thought billy v had his best game for ages.

plus robshaw really should have taken the 3 points

unfortunately haskell wasnt anonymous when he conceded the 3 penalties...

by GunsGerms Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:25 am

When was the last time England failed to score a try?

Apart from on Sunday in the last 20 England games they have only failed to score a try once v NZ in Auckland last year.

by GunsGerms Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:27 am

quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:Thought Robshaw had a bad game. he knocked on a few times, seemed to arrive late to the breakdown at key moments and made one or two bad decisions. Not his best game. Haskell was anonymous.
agree with that. it was never going to be a day for individual brilliance in the back rows, although i thought billy v had his best game for ages.

plus robshaw really should have taken the 3 points

unfortunately haskell wasnt anonymous when he conceded the 3 penalties...

Joseph conceded a silly pen too when Ford got smashed then tried to offload to Watson(?) who knocked on and then Joseph picked it up in an offside position. Bad penalty to give away.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:28 am

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him
i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

Yes, and you've repeatedly said had little things gone the other way, had officials not been tied to the home advantage syndrome it could have gone the other way. That's not really 'deserve' is it? That's more an insinuation of 'luck'. That by-the-way, can be defined as Wumming.

Anyway, I'm only toying with you on a nice sunny morning in Spring, quins. I realise you root for your boys and always want to see them win - it's natural. I root for mine. And luck isn't involved in their winning at the moment.
i have absolutely not said that. england cannot concede the stupid penalties they conceded and expect to win. didnt matter what the refs did. the home advantage discussion was related to how playing England at HQ might have a different outcome. Not that it in any way determinated Sunday's result.

you're just upset that i blame the loss more on england's penalty count and some key poor decisions, rather than praise ireland's kicking game and schmidt's genius.

I happy. You're not. That's the difference.
You're upset. I'm not. That's the difference.
MissBlennet takes it in his/her stride. Has the long range temperament to take the hit and move on in a smart and funny way...wumming sweetly as it were.
I'm not upset. Couldn't care less how you rate us, quins. But I know how you rated us before the game.

i'm not upset either. disappointed we didnt play better. but given we sneaked it by 3 at HQ last year, and we are missing 1st choice players lawes, launchbury, brown, care (when on form!), morgan it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone that we lost.

in fact i am very happy about england's rugby prospects. we now have an attacking back line that i have been clamouring for for the last year. SL only picked it through injuries but he cant really change it now, so i'm very happy.

they are also really young players so will learn massively from the loss against ireland on sunday.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:28 am

GunsGerms wrote:When was the last time England failed to score a try?

Apart from on Sunday in the last 20 England games they have only failed to score a try once v NZ in Auckland last year.

we scored 2 on sunday

by GunsGerms Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:29 am

quinsforever wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:When was the last time England failed to score a try?

Apart from on Sunday in the last 20 England games they have only failed to score a try once v NZ in Auckland last year.

we scored 2 on sunday

Haha you wish.

by Gooseberry Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:30 am

Saying players who had tackle counts in the high teens were anonymous is a touch harsh.

by GunsGerms Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:37 am

Gooseberry wrote:Saying players who had tackle counts in the high teens were anonymous is a touch harsh.

Everyone in the backrow and the second row for England had high tackle counts. That's the way England play.

Haskell is in the team for his carries is he not? He made 1 meter all game and he conceded three penalties. He had a bad game IMO.

POM conceded almost half of all Ireland's penalties/frees so he didnt have his best day either.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:42 am

question for you all. only saw it once on sunday, but tons of times when England played Wales for example.

is it legal for the first guy to the breakdown to wrap his arms around the tackled player and hang on when he's trying to make it look like he is competing for the ball? Because it does my head in. How can a player be trying to take the ball when he has one or two arms wrapped completely around the tackled player? I understand the reason for it is to make it very hard to be dislodged while at the same time trying to get the pen for the tackled player hanging onto the ball.

anyone know?

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:44 am

quinsforever wrote:i'm not upset either. disappointed we didnt play better. but given we sneaked it by 3 at HQ last year, and we are missing 1st choice players lawes, launchbury, brown, care (when on form!), morgan it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone that we lost.

in fact i am very happy about england's rugby prospects. we now have an attacking back line that i have been clamouring for for the last year. SL only picked it through injuries but he cant really change it now, so i'm very happy.

So you expected to lose because you were missing key players, but are happy because through the injuries you have a better side than last year?

So if you take the +3 points for home advantage out - last years game was a draw and this years 7 points to Ireland.

That's a a decent improvement by us so we should win by 17 in the Autumn if things keep on the current trajectory.

by MissBlennerhassett Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:47 am

SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
SecretFly wrote:Anyway, enough of this nonsense about Twitterese. I didn't read all the thread stuff of this morning. The important point is did we unearth enough Irish dark arts and official falsehood to give the win back to quin's team? That's what he's waiting for and yis are very slow in making it happen for him
i have repeatedly said ireland deserved the win. as you know. stop wumming.

Yes, and you've repeatedly said had little things gone the other way, had officials not been tied to the home advantage syndrome it could have gone the other way. That's not really 'deserve' is it? That's more an insinuation of 'luck'. That by-the-way, can be defined as Wumming.

Anyway, I'm only toying with you on a nice sunny morning in Spring, quins. I realise you root for your boys and always want to see them win - it's natural. I root for mine. And luck isn't involved in their winning at the moment.
i have absolutely not said that. england cannot concede the stupid penalties they conceded and expect to win. didnt matter what the refs did. the home advantage discussion was related to how playing England at HQ might have a different outcome. Not that it in any way determinated Sunday's result.

you're just upset that i blame the loss more on england's penalty count and some key poor decisions, rather than praise ireland's kicking game and schmidt's genius.

I happy. You're not. That's the difference.
You're upset. I'm not. That's the difference.
MissBlennet takes it in his/her stride. Has the long range temperament to take the hit and move on in a smart and funny way...wumming sweetly as it were.
I'm not upset. Couldn't care less how you rate us, quins. But I know how you rated us before the game.

His, please Fly. Now stop wumming!
"The police, Miss Blennerhassett. Just say there are a couple of drunks in the Penrith tearooms and we want them removed."

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:50 am

rodders wrote:
quinsforever wrote:i'm not upset either. disappointed we didnt play better. but given we sneaked it by 3 at HQ last year, and we are missing 1st choice players lawes, launchbury, brown, care (when on form!), morgan it shouldnt be a surprise to anyone that we lost.

in fact i am very happy about england's rugby prospects. we now have an attacking back line that i have been clamouring for for the last year. SL only picked it through injuries but he cant really change it now, so i'm very happy.

So you expected to lose because you were missing key players, but are happy because through the injuries you have a better side than last year?

So if you take the +3 points for home advantage out - last years game was a draw and this years 7 points to Ireland.

That's a a decent improvement by us so we should win by 17 in the Autumn if things keep on the current trajectory.

LOL. i never expect to lose, but acknowledge its always a possibility with varying degrees of probability.

no, its the other injuries that i am happy about in selection terms...farrell, tuilagi, 36, barritt, yarde, roko, wade which gave us the chance to see ford, jj and watson play together. lawes and launchbury are huge losses, especially in the lineout (tall and light-ish and good jumpers so easily get great height). brown was a huge loss returning broken field airbombs. morgan, care not huge losses but i would like to see them back in the side if they hit top form

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:57 am

quinsforever wrote:question for you all. only saw it once on sunday, but tons of times when England played Wales for example.

is it legal for the first guy to the breakdown to wrap his arms around the tackled player and hang on when he's trying to make it look like he is competing for the ball? Because it does my head in. How can a player be trying to take the ball when he has one or two arms wrapped completely around the tackled player? I understand the reason for it is to make it very hard to be dislodged while at the same time trying to get the pen for the tackled player hanging onto the ball.

anyone know?

If he's holding his own weight and has his hands around the player - and the ball! - in possession, then it doesn't matter what his game is, the player in possession must not hold onto the ball. Now, I know your point - he's wrapped so tightly that he can't do anything - either push the ball back or release it? Well that's not the other guys problem. He's legally on his feet and has contact with the ball. A cry of: "I couldn't release it" falls on deaf ears, as does sometimes the cry of: "I couldn't get out of the way" from a player on the wrong side of a ruck and slowing down ball.

All tricks of the trade. Hand the ball to the opposition is the easiest way out of it Wink

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:58 am

Serious question - how many points do Ireland need to win by to be better than England?

How many points are needed to take home advantage, the referee and injuries out of the debate?

Last year Ireland lost by 3 at twickenham and won the title on points - concensus = England the better side/unlucky, unfair points system to determine title.

This year Ireland beat England by 10 at the Aviva and top the table. Result = England the better side/unlucky, Ireland better on the day due to home advantage, England not showing up.

It would seem that the system is only fair and England only turn up when they win.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 11:59 am

MissBlennerhassett wrote:

His, please Fly. Now stop wumming!
"The police, Miss Blennerhassett. Just say there are a couple of drunks in the Penrith tearooms and we want them removed."

Oh my profoundest of apologies MissBlennerhassett. But you see, I've encountered more than one transgender 'name' in 606 over the years. You just never know who you might be speaking to in these parts unless you turn a guy over and look under his petticoats.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:00 pm

Strictly speaking I think you need to allow the player to place the ball. I've seen a few pens against this type of thing when going 'beyond the ball' but not too often. The worst at the moment is let's knell on the tackler so he hasn't got a chance of rolling away even when he's trying to.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:01 pm

rodders wrote:Serious question - how many points do Ireland need to win by to be better than England?

How many points are needed to take home advantage, the referee and injuries out of the debate?

Last year Ireland lost by 3 at twickenham and won the title on points - concensus = England the better side/unlucky, unfair points system to determine title.

This year Ireland beat England by 10 at the Aviva and top the table. Result = England the better side/unlucky, Ireland better on the day due to home advantage, England not showing up.

It would seem that the system is only fair and England only turn up when they win.

Who's said that England were the better side? Come on be fair.

by RubyGuby Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:04 pm

If Wales didn't turn up against England and England didn't turn up against Ireland - What's the most probable outcome of these 2 scenarios (I) Ireland not turning up in Cardiff (II) Scotland actually turning up anywhere? - Discuss.

For what its worth I thought the Ireland v England game was over after 10 minutes which is a bit strange but it just seemed to be that way. Enjoy. thumbsup

by Gooseberry Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:05 pm

GunsGerms wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Saying players who had tackle counts in the high teens were anonymous is a touch harsh.

Everyone in the backrow and the second row for England had high tackle counts. That's the way England play.

Haskell is in the team for his carries is he not? He made 1 meter all game and he conceded three penalties. He had a bad game IMO.

POM conceded almost half of all Ireland's penalties/frees so he didnt have his best day either.

Theres a difference between anonymous which suggests he didnt do anything and poor which means he did a lot of bad things.
In terms of his carries yep you could say anonymous, he barely got a touch of the ball. Haskell in in the side as an all rounder, mobile forward who gets involved in all aspects of play (like Robshaw). They were both sub par but generally had high work rates again.
But then youd also have to look at guys like JJ whi is 100% in the side solely on his carrying ability/magic feet/game breaking and did what all game, despite seeing a fair bit of ball? Watson too was largely anonymous, but did at least make a couple of big impact runs on the odd occasion he was actually involved in the game.
The backs collectively were a revolving door and Ireland ran through them (on the rare occasions they didnt kick possession) with relative ease. That put even more workload on the back row in particular to scramble and cover. Something should be said for the fitness England showed in this game, the Irish chaps may have bossed them for extended periods but looked spent toward the end whereas England were able to up a gear. I do believe they need to start coming out crazy for the first 10 minutes though rather than pacing themselves and chasing games after shipping early points as keeps happening.

Im not trying to cast Haskell as a super man here, but its bit rum for him to cop quite so much flak every time he doesnt put in a MOM performance. I think some of the criticism of Haskell in particular gets a bit tedious, whereas Robshaw and similar players are constantly lauded for their workmanlike performances and unseen contributions Haskell is expected to singlehandedly circumnavigate the globe and avoid the uprights before anyone will cut him some slack.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:06 pm

rodders wrote:Serious question - how many points do Ireland need to win by to be better than England?

How many points are needed to take home advantage, the referee and injuries out of the debate?

Last year Ireland lost by 3 at twickenham and won the title on points - concensus = England the better side/unlucky, unfair points system to determine title.

This year Ireland beat England by 10 at the Aviva and top the table. Result = England the better side/unlucky, Ireland better on the day due to home advantage, England not showing up.

It would seem that the system is only fair and England only turn up when they win.

Don't be naughty, rodders. You know full well the controversy about Ireland not fully filling in their "Can We Win Please?" forms the week before the game.
That's what caused all the confusion on the field.
You heard Lancaster and how mad he was post-game. "They didn't go through processes. They didn't do it. I don't want to appear like a sore loser, but you have to fill in those "Can We Win Please" forms fully and have them in a full two days before the game. We were confused out there. We didn't know whether we were meant to win or lose"

by Gooseberry Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:09 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Strictly speaking I think you need to allow the player to place the ball. I've seen a few pens against this type of thing when going 'beyond the ball' but not too often. The worst at the moment is let's knell on the tackler so he hasn't got a chance of rolling away even when he's trying to.

15.7 Forbidden practices
(a)
No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b)
No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it
Sanction: Penalty kick

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:15 pm

It's a fine line between those and not releasing though which is what the players are going for. I also can't spell kneel.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:17 pm

Gooseberry wrote:

15.7 Forbidden practices
(a)
No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b)
No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it
Sanction: Penalty kick

??? It's true so. Rugby is about to ban itself because that's the objective of many of the tactics these days.... example pushing a player and ball out of play, choke hold etc. Wink

The problem with rugby is that many of its rules contradict each other. Too many book men and subsections are muddying the waters.

by Gooseberry Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:20 pm

SecretFly wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:

15.7 Forbidden practices
(a)
No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b)
No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it
Sanction: Penalty kick

??? It's true so. Rugby is about to ban itself because that's the objective of many of the tactics these days.... example pushing a player and ball out of play, choke hold etc.

The problem with rugby is that many of its rules contradict each other. Too many book men and subsections are muddying the waters.

That only applies once the tackle is complete, ie the palyer is down. During the tackle they are not tackled, they are being tackled.

by SecretFly Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:26 pm

But again, players often pretend they're trying to pass - just as players pretend they're trying to take it from them Wink

Cute hoors the lot of them

by Gooseberry Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:33 pm

Yeah refs are expected to apply some level of common sense, the laws are deliberately generalised and expected to be applied with additional guidance and context. The inconsistency in definition of "immediate" for release is a good example of that where for the tackler it really does mean immediate but for the tackled player it seems to mean as long as they like so long as an opposition player doesnt have clean hands on it legally.
The point is that as a principle the actions described of a defender arriving after the tackle then wrapping up the tackled player to prevent them releasing the ball (to win a penalty or just to slow it) is illegal and one of the million things at every ruck that could be penalised.

by Hood83 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:36 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
GunsGerms wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Saying players who had tackle counts in the high teens were anonymous is a touch harsh.

Everyone in the backrow and the second row for England had high tackle counts. That's the way England play.

Haskell is in the team for his carries is he not? He made 1 meter all game and he conceded three penalties. He had a bad game IMO.

POM conceded almost half of all Ireland's penalties/frees so he didnt have his best day either.

Theres a difference between anonymous which suggests he didnt do anything and poor which means he did a lot of bad things.
In terms of his carries yep you could say anonymous, he barely got a touch of the ball. Haskell in in the side as an all rounder, mobile forward who gets involved in all aspects of play (like Robshaw). They were both sub par but generally had high work rates again.
But then youd also have to look at guys like JJ whi is 100% in the side solely on his carrying ability/magic feet/game breaking and did what all game, despite seeing a fair bit of ball? Watson too was largely anonymous, but did at least make a couple of big impact runs on the odd occasion he was actually involved in the game.
The backs collectively were a revolving door and Ireland ran through them (on the rare occasions they didnt kick possession) with relative ease. That put even more workload on the back row in particular to scramble and cover. Something should be said for the fitness England showed in this game, the Irish chaps may have bossed them for extended periods but looked spent toward the end whereas England were able to up a gear. I do believe they need to start coming out crazy for the first 10 minutes though rather than pacing themselves and chasing games after shipping early points as keeps happening.

Im not trying to cast Haskell as a super man here, but its bit rum for him to cop quite so much flak every time he doesnt put in a MOM performance. I think some of the criticism of Haskell in particular gets a bit tedious, whereas Robshaw and similar players are constantly lauded for their workmanlike performances and unseen contributions Haskell is expected to singlehandedly circumnavigate the globe and avoid the uprights before anyone will cut him some slack.

100% agree. He seems to be answerable to higher standards and I'm not sure why. He was v good against wales, decent against Italy and not very good against Ireland, that still puts him ahead of of a lot of others in terms of overall performance.

by Hood83 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:43 pm

Do posters accept that people can think Ireland were much better on the day, but not a huge amount better overall? It's fine to disagree with this but I think at worst it's a point of debate. There weren't many England fans who thought we were better than the ABs in 2012, but most thought better on the day.

I'd venture there is exactly as many English saying we were worse on the day, not much in it in general though, as there were Irish saying exactly the same for Ireland last year.

Personally I'd say Ireland were clearly far better on the day and have moved a little ahead in general, but not that much. Perhaps we forgot to fill in the post-match 'We Lost So Are Obviously Vastly Inferior' forms.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:51 pm

Re Haskell, it always happens. He's a had 2 pretty poor games and now we're on to the next one!

by Hood83 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 12:57 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Re Haskell, it always happens. He's a had 2 pretty poor games and now we're on to the next one!

I thought he was fine against Italy, certainly not one of our poorer performers in the pack

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:03 pm

I'm struggling to think of a poorer performer. Hartley possibly.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:05 pm

rodders wrote:Serious question - how many points do Ireland need to win by to be better than England?

How many points are needed to take home advantage, the referee and injuries out of the debate?

Last year Ireland lost by 3 at twickenham and won the title on points - concensus = England the better side/unlucky, unfair points system to determine title.

This year Ireland beat England by 10 at the Aviva and top the table. Result = England the better side/unlucky, Ireland better on the day due to home advantage, England not showing up.

It would seem that the system is only fair and England only turn up when they win.

on the day, a single point will suffice. better is not subjective where the scoreboard is concerned.

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:08 pm

RubyGuby wrote:If Wales didn't turn up against England and England didn't turn up against Ireland - What's the most probable outcome of these 2 scenarios (I) Ireland not turning up in Cardiff (II) Scotland actually turning up anywhere? - Discuss.

For what its worth I thought the Ireland v England game was over after 10 minutes which is a bit strange but it just seemed to be that way. Enjoy.

Wales did turn up against England, they just never left the dressing room thumbsup

.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:10 pm

Gooseberry wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Strictly speaking I think you need to allow the player to place the ball. I've seen a few pens against this type of thing when going 'beyond the ball' but not too often. The worst at the moment is let's knell on the tackler so he hasn't got a chance of rolling away even when he's trying to.

15.7 Forbidden practices
(a)
No player may prevent the tackled player from passing the ball.
Sanction: Penalty kick

(b)
No player may prevent the tackled player from releasing the ball and getting up or moving away from it
Sanction: Penalty kick

thanks. that's what i guessed/hoped. so if they wrap their arms around the tackled player and the ball, effectively preventing him from releasing it, while pretending to be attempting to pry it loose, the ref would be well within his rights to give a penalty against the standing player who is on his feet, but preventing the ball from being played.

by bedfordwelsh Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:12 pm

rodders wrote:
RubyGuby wrote:If Wales didn't turn up against England and England didn't turn up against Ireland - What's the most probable outcome of these 2 scenarios (I) Ireland not turning up in Cardiff (II) Scotland actually turning up anywhere? - Discuss.

For what its worth I thought the Ireland v England game was over after 10 minutes which is a bit strange but it just seemed to be that way. Enjoy.

Wales did turn up against England, they just never left the dressing room .

Well we did but we just went back in after 20 minutes lol

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:17 pm

Hood83 wrote:Do posters accept that people can think Ireland were much better on the day, but not a huge amount better overall?

I accept people can think what they want. But also think that repeated back handed compliments and excuses post defeat does not make one a gracious loser, nor endear them to the victor.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:20 pm

The problem with a discussion forum is that we can acknowledge Ireland were the better team but then discuss why that was. (Potential) Reasons doesn't always mean excuses.

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:22 pm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0550zw2/six-nations-rugby-2015-ireland-v-england

game clock time 30:30

robshaw isolated, but geordie murphy wraps an arm completely around robshaw so he cant be dislodged, and sort of attempts to get the ball with the other arm while wrapping around robshaw.

to be clear this was the only instance i remember in sunday's game so i am making no commenta about it in that respect. it is a favourite tactic of welsh and scots backrowers so i wonder where the line gets drawn between tackled player not releasing the ball, and non-tackler entrant to the ruck wrapping up tackled player on the floor?

am purely interested in terms of how the ruck is being policed, not on sundays game, ok fly? Smile

by quinsforever Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:30 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:The problem with a discussion forum is that we can acknowledge Ireland were the better team but then discuss why that was. (Potential) Reasons doesn't always mean excuses.

apparently any "reason" that doesnt begin and end with ireland were and are the better team means those having the discussion are ungracious losers.

ireland were 19-9 better, in dublin, on a cold windy day in march. thats all.

by Hood83 Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:32 pm

rodders wrote:
Hood83 wrote:Do posters accept that people can think Ireland were much better on the day, but not a huge amount better overall?

I accept people can think what they want. But also think that repeated back handed compliments and excuses post defeat does not make one a gracious loser, nor endear them to the victor.

OK, perhaps I've seen want I want to see, but post game I saw a LOT of people saying 'well done Ireland' and a fair few others saying 'well done Ireland, god we were rubbish'. If the latter part of that is taken to mean 'we only lost because WE played badly' i don't really know what to say to that. Perhaps we needed to add 'God we were rubbish...because Ireland made us look rubbish', maybe that would have done it.

I've seen us be bad losers, I'm sure I'm as guilty as anyone. But I honestly feel like you've wilfully missed a lot of goodwill in this case. MOST posters initial reaction was to say well done, I think.

We're now trying to work out why we lost. If you want us to say it was because you're better than us, that's the end of it, then I think that leaves us in a pretty defeatist position. Most of us are naturally keen to avoid that and look at constructive ways to improve. Fair enough?

by **rodders** Wed 04 Mar 2015, 1:37 pm

quinsforever wrote:http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0550zw2/six-nations-rugby-2015-ireland-v-england

game clock time 30:30

robshaw isolated, but geordie murphy wraps an arm completely around robshaw so he cant be dislodged, and sort of attempts to get the ball with the other arm while wrapping around robshaw.

to be clear this was the only instance i remember in sunday's game so i am making no commenta about it in that respect. it is a favourite tactic of welsh and scots backrowers so i wonder where the line gets drawn between tackled player not releasing the ball, and non-tackler entrant to the ruck wrapping up tackled player on the floor?

am purely interested in terms of how the ruck is being policed, not on sundays game, ok fly?

You've answered the question. If the player gets isolated then he has himself to blame, and his support. If Murphy is onside, on his feet and over the ball, and tehre is no support then there are only 2 outcomes - a penalty defence or turnover, so the referee has to decide who is holding the ball - if Robshaw's hands are still on it then its not rocket science as to how it will be judged.

Conversly if Robshaw has support, it becomes a ruck and Murphy needs to release otherwise risk a penalty even if he's legitemetly won the ball - therefore there is an incentive for Robshaw to try and hang on in the hope his support arrives and thankfully Joubert was wise to this nonsence.

by Sponsored content