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.

Notch wrote:I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like their under instructions to give the other team a head start

Well that was a tactic we used regularly under Deccie...guess it takes a kiwi coach to point out that this isn't always the best approach!

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like their under instructions to give the other team a head start

Well that was a tactic we used regularly under Deccie...guess it takes a kiwi coach to point out that this isn't always the best approach!

Amazingly it got us a grand slam...something still missing here but I guess we will win the world cup so no worries there then.

quinsforever wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

quinsforever wrote:1. struggling to visualise how that one works, especially after the collision between player and on-rushing defender as the ball flies over both their heads

see min1.30 on this video

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

2. if the pass wasnt forward (motion of hands not towards opposition deadball area)then it wouldnt be a knock-on either, as knock-ons and passes are mutually exclusive. also it's only a knock-on once it hits the ground. if original player regathers it its not a knock on.

3. no. forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line, not which direction the player is facing.

1. The clip shows a player lofting the ball and the ball going forwards. Is it that hard to visualise him catching it again? Is that OK in your interpretation? AS THEY MAKE CLEAR, THE BALL WAS NOT "THROWN" FORWARDS, HENCE ITS FINE. IN PRACTICE PRETTY HARD TO THROW IT BACKWARDS OVER YOUR OWN HEAD, SOMEHOW AVOID YOUR ONRUSHING DEFENDER AND ALSO SOMEHOW LEAP BACKWARDS TO THEN CATCH IT. IF ANYONE CAN DO IT I SAY FAIR PLAY YOU'VE EARNED THE RIGHT TO PLAY ON!

2. If the ball goes forward on the ground from a player that is generally deemed to be a knock-on irrespective of the direction of his hands, chest, head or whatever it came off and also irrespective of whether the player ends up ahead of where he lost contact. So if the receiver doesn't catch the ball and it goes to ground is that a knock-on? NO. IT'S A PASS. THAT DIDNT GO TO HAND. IF IT WAS A KNOCK-ON (NOT A PASS, BUT DID GO FORWARDS) AND A PLAYER ON YOUR OWN TEAM CAUGHT IT THAT WOULD BE A PENALTY FOR ACCIDENTAL OFFSIDE. IF ITS NOT TOUCHED THEN ITS JUST A KNOCK ON. ARE YOU TROUBLED BY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PASS (WHETHER FORWARD OR NOT) AND A KNOCK-ON?

3. This point could require a retreating player to pass the ball backwards in relation to his direction of travel (i.e. forwards in reference to the opposing team's goal line) in order for it to overcome the momentum that would otherwise take it behind the fullback he is attempting to pass to. It's the same scenario as in an attacking situation, same shape of pass and everything - it's the receiver who just happens to be running the other way. So should that be called a forward pass?

NO, HE WOULD JUST HAVE TO RELEASE THE BALL A LONG TIME BEFORE HIS TEAMMATE GOT TO HIM. THESE ARE THE MOST COMMON FORWARD PASSES ACTUALLY, WHERE SOMEONE CRABS SIDEWAYS AND SLIGHTLY BACK, AND THEIR TEAMMATE CRASHING THROUGH NEEDS THE BALL OFFLOADED IN FRONT OF THEM IN ORDER TO BREAK THE LINE. IS ALWAYS A FORWARD PASS, BUT OCCASIONALLY MISSED AS THE BALL OFTEN ONLY TRAVELS A METER OR LESS.

1. All the player has to do to regather is slow down slightly, which will happen anyway to avoid the defender - a fairly easy skill to learn. I'll look forward to all the professional coaches exploiting this now that it's been cleared as it's a very easy way to beat the defender. It's a bit surprising they haven't already.

2. I've seen a few passes that went to ground that ended up beyond the point of release and some were given as forward and some as kos - I don't recall any that were waved play on except for an advantage call. This doesn't trouble me at all as it is exactly as I would expect it to be.

3. So in this instance when the ball has to be passed forward (in reference to the opposing teams goal line) it is ok not to call it a forward pass. That might seem contradictory to some who like their Laws to be cut and dried but I agree it would be daft for the spectators to see a ball going territorially backwards that the officials would then have to call forwards because of vector analysis.

It really would be a lot simpler if referees just called it how it appears without further complications.

1. as soon as a team tries it i am sure they will realise that you dont want to be catching the ball going backwards, looking backwards or you are going to get pulverized. ask cian healy whether he plans on tackling with his face again. its one of those things you do once and never again

"2. I've seen a few passes that went to ground that ended up beyond the point of release and some were given as forward and some as kos - I don't recall any that were waved play on except for an advantage call. This doesn't trouble me at all as it is exactly as I would expect it to be."

both lead to scrums so how would you tell the difference? passes that arent forwards dont become knock ons. i honestly dont know what you are doing on this one.

3. i cant really help you if you dont understand the law. if the ball is thrown forwards towards the opposing teams dead ball area it is a forward pass. thats what the law says, thats what the video (irb video by the way) shows. if i am running towards my own line do you think its impossible to pass the ball backwards? ever participated in an old fashioned scissor move?

"It really would be a lot simpler if referees just called it how it appears without further complications" - thats funny. lets get rid of tmos, and reintroduce as much human fallibilty as possible. hell, lets stop live tv with replays, that way no-one can complain about anything until they read about it in the newspaper. laws are laws. technology has forced IRb to issue guidance on the laws, which is the video link i posted. but sure, hell yes why not lets the referees just call it the way they see it and who gives a stuff about whether its correct or not.

Quins - you'll be glad to know that I've come around to your line of thinking that the kicking strategy adopted by Ireland did not help them to win the game at all.

Having reviewed the game and each of the 58 kicks in total made by Ireland - about a dozen of them were useful.

Ultimately, England's indiscipline was what did them in.

never can tell when you're wumming or not.

in case you're not, cheers always good to know there are people out there prepared to challenge the received wisdom from the lazy self-congratulating media that we consume on a daily basis.

quinsforever wrote:never can tell when you're wumming or not.

in case you're not, cheers always good to know there are people out there prepared to challenge the received wisdom from the lazy self-congratulating media that we consume on a daily basis.

I'm not wumming - genuinely.

I have in front of me details of each of the 58 kicks and how useful they were. Not many is the short summary. And as for accurate and clinical/pinpoint kicks - that seems a bit of a stretch too for a lot of them from Kearney, Murray, and Madigan.

I'd go so far as to say that it was really the breakdown work that won Ireland the game since that was the area where most of the mistakes were made/extracted and duly penalised.

The critical useful kicks by Ireland were at 50:56 from a Murray box-kick that leads to Ireland attack, followed by at 51.10 with Sexton's crossfield kick to Zebo that Watson actually takes but is judo tackled to the ground, then play continues onto 52.23 where Murray sees Henshaw waving and knows that a penalty is coming and chips. Sexton's conversion after was pretty impressive too.

Was all kicks designed to achieve anything but simply to do what they were meant to do in the first place, pin England back and keep them from forming any cohesive attacking strategy?

I fail to believe Schmidt would allow so much trash to take place in a game without working out what he wanted from it.  Kicking is a tactic that must be responded to in a defensive way.  You can't ignore those balls.  So job done on the deluge.

But I agree with Pot.  The real damage was the breakdown aggression.

SecretFly wrote:Was all kicks designed to achieve anything but simply to do what they were meant to do in the first place, pin England back and keep them from forming any cohesive attacking strategy?

I fail to believe Schmidt would allow so much trash to take place in a game without working out what he wanted from it.  Kicking is a tactic that must be responded to in a defensive way.  You can't ignore those balls.  So job done on the deluge.

But I agree with Pot.  The real damage was the breakdown aggression.

That's a fair comment if one argues that the approach was simply a deluge of kicks. But if you look at the pattern and the timing of when these were used, particularly Murray's box kicks, then I think there was greater design behind them than that. A good few of them went too far, and allowed England to either mark, or counter attack. On the other-hand, the re-starts by Sexton or Ford were very particular and responded to very well on each and every occasion. Some of the in-play bombs, crossfield kicks, and box-kicks were too far, and somewhat aimless. The time when a tiring kicking strategy would have worked best would have been best executed in the last 15-20 minutes.

i actually thought Goode had a really excellent game and should give Brown a run for his money in selection.

Pot Hale wrote:

i actually thought Goode had a really excellent game and should give Brown a run for his money in selection.

Are you for real, Pot?  Brown has much more vinegar in his spit.  Goode was zipping around but his head didn't look in any way up to the intensity at times.  There was a lot of panic keeping him busy. Implosion might have happened had we been able to sustain pressure for longer.  
Brown isn't kept busy by panic but by the thoughts of getting even.  He's a full blooded International standard battler

goode will never (hopefully) be selected when brown is fit. and i would prefer nowell or goode at FB for the counter-attacking threat they offer if brown is crocked. goode didnt drop too many, but he offered nothing counter attacking. he is the most upright runner i've ever seen and hence easily knocked off his stride if he meets an obstacle. and he seems as unlikely as Kearney to offload.

SecretFly wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

i actually thought Goode had a really excellent game and should give Brown a run for his money in selection.

Are you for real, Pot?  Brown has much more vinegar in his spit.  Goode was zipping around but his head didn't look in any way up to the intensity at times.  There was a lot of panic keeping him busy.  Implosion might have happened had we been able to sustain pressure for longer.  
Brown isn't kept busy by panic but by the thoughts of getting even.  He's a full blooded International standard battler

Shhhh!

ME-109 wrote:

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like their under instructions to give the other team a head start

Well that was a tactic we used regularly under Deccie...guess it takes a kiwi coach to point out that this isn't always the best approach!

Amazingly it got us a grand slam...something still missing here but I guess we will win the world cup so no worries there then.

We're also missing a 2nd from bottom finish in the 6 Nations,3 defeats to Scotland (or was it 4),a 60-0 defeat to NZ,a loss to Italy,I think that's the total list of embarrassments but there were plenty more disappointments.Funny how you never mention them when you come on here to whinge.

Can you finally admit that Kidney was obviously the problem and our players were good enough they were just poorly prepared and coached?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Can you finally admit that Kidney was obviously the problem and our players were good enough they were just poorly prepared and coached?

I still blame Kiss for a portion of that.  He doesn't get off the hook fully either.  Yet he got to cling in there, whilst the other fall guys fell.

Yes, Kidney was an issue.  But the world knew - and Munster folk kept reminding us - that he wasn't really a coach but a motivator.  So he wasn't fully involved in the coaching aspect of what went down on the field.  At least that's the story going round from his supporters - so I've always given it the value they place on it.

Therefore who was the most influencial coaching coach there?  Kiss?

The interesting thing about Kiss is what he was saying when Schmidt retained him on his team after Kiss had that little stint of full-time coach until Schmidt took over.  

Kiss sat calmly and directly said to the media that it wasn't going to be a One Boss situation.  It wasn't going to be Schmidt just calling orders to the fellow coaches and the rest just following them.  He said there would be genuine discussion and genuine disagreements.  And he said it in a tone that was designed to let people know he was no 'Yes' man.

That's why I think he got off a little lightly when others had to fall on their swords.  If he was no 'Yes' man then it seems he never quite said 'No' enough to Kidney when the schit was hitting the fan.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Can you finally admit that Kidney was obviously the problem and our players were good enough they were just poorly prepared and coached?

I think that's harsh actually - every coach has his day, Kidney did a great job picking up moral after Eddie... who did a great job himself for a number of years but never recovered from the 07 RWC mess.

The game evolved in 2010 with the ELVs and Kidney got left behind. That shouldn't tarnish the great things he did for 12 months, but really he is a coach suited to underdogs and getting a big performance here or there, than someone show going get a team playing well consistantly and improving over time.

Even Munster barely turned up in the league but could turn it on on the big stage, with the backs to the wall.

Joe will have his day too...but hopefully not for some time.

rodders wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:
Can you finally admit that Kidney was obviously the problem and our players were good enough they were just poorly prepared and coached?

I think that's harsh actually - every coach has his day, Kidney did a great job picking up moral after Eddie... who did a great job himself for a number of years but never recovered from the 07 RWC mess.

The game evolved in 2010 with the ELVs and Kidney got left behind. That shouldn't tarnish the great things he did for 12 months, but really he is a coach suited to underdogs and getting a big performance here or there, than someone show going get a team playing well consistantly and improving over time.

Even Munster barely turned up in the league but could turn it on on the big stage, with the backs to the wall.

Joe will have his day too...but hopefully not for some time.

I totally agree that in his first year he did a lot of very good things and deserves great credit for getting us over the line for the Slam.However my point is a general one in reference to ME-109 and I suppose Sín é as well.These two were massive defenders of Kidney and both claimed that the players just weren't good enough no matter who the coach was.This has been shown up as complete rubbish and while Kidney had a huge injury crisis in his last season that doesn't excuse what went before it (and Schmidt has shown in the AI's that even a huge injury crisis isn't a barrier to success).

I just wonder if ME is able to recognise his own hypocrisy when he attacks the posters who are happy enough to be winning without playing exciting rugby.I personally am a little disappointed in the style we've been playing but I feel totally vindicated in my calls for Kidney to be let go after the 2011 World Cup.Frankly every year he was in charge of Ireland the team became worse which is the opposite of what's happening now,we are improving game on game and while it won't always be sunshines and lollipops I feel confident we'll never suffer the embarrassments we did under Kidneys stewardship.

quinsforever wrote:"It really would be a lot simpler if referees just called it how it appears without further complications" - thats funny. lets get rid of tmos, and reintroduce as much human fallibilty as possible. hell, lets stop live tv with replays, that way no-one can complain about anything until they read about it in the newspaper. laws are laws. technology has forced IRb to issue guidance on the laws, which is the video link i posted. but sure, hell yes why not lets the referees just call it the way they see it and who gives a stuff about whether its correct or not.

Not sure who you’re ranting at because I haven’t seen anyone suggest getting rid of technology? In fact I thought you were complaining that the officials got the Nowell decision wrong despite having all the technology available to them. It took the BBC 20 minutes to prove the referee was right, and a further day for an obscure website to ‘prove’ they were wrong. Perhaps you don’t mind the extended use of technology to get the ‘correct’ decision even if it adds a day onto the match time?

The three anomalies were pointed out to show how ridiculous the current guidelines are. I don’t believe that a player should be able to legally pass the ball over a defender to himself. Neither do I think it is a consistent spectacle to allow the ball to go several metres forwards in a pass but not 1mm in a knock-on, or technically call a forward pass when the ball has travelled backwards.

Maybe I don’t understand the Law and perhaps the lawmakers should endeavour to make their laws understandable for average rugby fans like myself? You have helpfully provided your definition as:

forwards in the laws is by reference to the opposing teams goal line

The goal line is a fixed point of reference marked in chalk on the ground. Yet you contradict this definition yourself by referring to the IRB guidance video that clearly shows the ball going forwards in relation to a fixed point of reference marked on the ground. By your own definition this would be a forward pass, and I agree.

Perhaps the single most unique aspect of Rugby compared to every other sport is that to go forwards you have to pass backwards. I know Webb Ellis ran with the ball but I’m sure he passed it as well and was just as much subject to Newtonian physics then as now. Up until the recent confusion officials simply used their judgment as to whether the ball went forward or not by referencing the pitch. Having a fixed point of reference makes their decision simple, fast and accessible to all forms of the game for both players and spectators.

The IRB/World Rugby guidance video shows that they as a governing body are now happy for the ball to travel forwards relative to a fixed point on the pitch. This is clearly a departure from the fundamental spirit of the game. Judging by the confusion after the Ire/Eng game in the media (and on this thread), their guidelines are difficult to adjudicate upon requiring the right camera angles (and a physics degree). They could use a GPS chip in the ball but do World Rugby really want to confuse the crowd and punctuate the game with ever increasing stoppages? If people want to see forward passes and interminable games they really should try AFL instead.

You can't throw the ball forward to a team mate but it can travel that way.

Just another point about Kidney before we go on.

Has he written an autobiography yet?  

Perhaps he's far too nice a guy to indulge in one.  But I think if he was brutally honest about the period of his tenure and about the people who circled it - players/fellow coaches - I think it would prove a very In-teresting read.

The more I look back on that period the more I have uneasy thoughts about it.  More intrigue went on there than just good players playing atrociously week after week.

I think the point aukster is that if there is sufficient gap between the players, a typically slightly backwards pass will end up going forward. Are you suggesting that the player has to factor that in, and for example aim longer passes further back? In reality a large percentage of passes in a typical game go forward by your 'old school' definition... and always have. Its why they go with the initial direction concept rather than actual ball flight. It isn't perfect (hence all the debate) but might be better than having a gps sensor in the ball to establish its flight.

A game where 'flat passes' were obsolete would probably hinder expansive sides and suit england's historic 'stuff it up the jumper' tactics... so i'm fine with it!

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

ME-109 wrote:

rodders wrote:

Notch wrote:I don't think their tactic is to start slowly and concede points?! You make it sound like their under instructions to give the other team a head start

Well that was a tactic we used regularly under Deccie...guess it takes a kiwi coach to point out that this isn't always the best approach!

Amazingly it got us a grand slam...something still missing here but I guess we will win the world cup so no worries there then.

We're also missing a 2nd from bottom finish in the 6 Nations,3 defeats to Scotland (or was it 4),a 60-0 defeat to NZ,a loss to Italy,I think that's the total list of embarrassments but there were plenty more disappointments.Funny how you never mention them when you come on here to whinge.

Can you finally admit that Kidney was obviously the problem and our players were good enough they were just poorly prepared and coached?

Kidney had a different coaching style. ROG made a comment about Sexton & his relationship at a Q&A last weekend which might explain the differences.

ronan o'gara wrote:"Johnny is hyper-organised, and that’s what Schmidt delivers to him, and he gets great confidence from that.”

Interesting bits of info here. Worth a read.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/donal-lenihan/donal-lenihan-ronan-ogara-jj-hanrahan-i-think-he-has-the-capability-to-be-really-special-315204.html

No 7&1/2 wrote:You can't throw the ball forward to a team mate but it can travel that way.

This is the current guideline but why does anyone think this is a good idea? It is far harder for an official to judge whether the ball was thrown forward compared to whether it traveled forward.

It is which is why you have instances like Sunday where I personally think the pass was fine but some don't. The problem is if you had a hard and fast rule to say if the ball moves towards the opposition goal line full stop players wouldn't be able to throw a pass when running at any sort of speed.

milkyboy wrote:I think the point aukster is that if there is sufficient gap between the players, a typically slightly backwards pass will end up going forward. Are you suggesting that the player has to factor that in, and for example aim longer passes further back? In reality a large percentage of passes in a typical game go forward by your 'old school' definition... and always have. Its why they go with the initial direction concept rather than actual ball flight. It isn't perfect (hence all the debate) but might be better than having a gps sensor in the ball to establish its flight.

A game where 'flat passes' were obsolete would probably hinder expansive sides and suit england's historic 'stuff it up the jumper' tactics... so i'm fine with it!

Yes mb that's exactly what I'm saying, players have to factor distance and speed into their pass as indeed players have to do with any pass get the timing and direction right. Passing back to finish level is a much greater skill than passing level and finishing forward. Expansive sides with those skills will still be relatively better than those sides who don't have them and maybe more so.

Of course there were always forward passes that were missed by the referee, but at least he had a linear reference to judge against. Without that reference more and more passes 'look' forward but may or may not be OK because there is no obvious benchmark, so the referee has to stop the game and go upstairs and the TMO maybe doesn't have the angle to provide a definitive answer anyway. The GPS thing could be used not just for forward passes but also help with touch, not straights in either set piece, confirming ball between posts etc. - it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than forever increasing the number of cameras to get the right angle.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone running and throwing a pass which didn't finish forwards though. You can talk about skill but physics generally has the bigger role.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is which is why you have instances like Sunday where I personally think the pass was fine but some don't. The problem is if you had a hard and fast rule to say if the ball moves towards the opposition goal line full stop players wouldn't be able to throw a pass when running at any sort of speed.

I disagree 7&1/2. Players have always been able to pass backwards when running at speed since the invention of the game - it's the USP of rugby.

It's a harder skill to learn and therefore favours more skillful ball players, but on the other hand if offside lines are policed properly it should give the attacking player a couple of yards more space to beat his opposite number.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is which is why you have instances like Sunday where I personally think the pass was fine but some don't. The problem is if you had a hard and fast rule to say if the ball moves towards the opposition goal line full stop players wouldn't be able to throw a pass when running at any sort of speed.

I disagree 7&1/2. Players have always been able to pass backwards when running at speed since the invention of the game - it's the USP of rugby.

It's a harder skill to learn and therefore favours more skillful ball players, but on the other hand if offside lines are policed properly it should give the attacking player a couple of yards more space to beat his opposite number.

Like I said you won't many examples of legal passes if you take it as the ball can't travel towards the opposition line.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone running and throwing a pass which didn't finish forwards though. You can talk about skill but physics generally has the bigger role.

Where the ball goes is solely down to the skill of the player. Every player is subject to the same laws of physics as everyone else so the differential between them is their own individual skill.

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone running and throwing a pass which didn't finish forwards though. You can talk about skill but physics generally has the bigger role.

Where the ball goes is solely down to the skill of the player. Every player is subject to the same laws of physics as everyone else so the differential between them is their own individual skill.

I refer you to my previous comment.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is which is why you have instances like Sunday where I personally think the pass was fine but some don't. The problem is if you had a hard and fast rule to say if the ball moves towards the opposition goal line full stop players wouldn't be able to throw a pass when running at any sort of speed.

I disagree 7&1/2. Players have always been able to pass backwards when running at speed since the invention of the game - it's the USP of rugby.

It's a harder skill to learn and therefore favours more skillful ball players, but on the other hand if offside lines are policed properly it should give the attacking player a couple of yards more space to beat his opposite number.

Like I said you won't many examples of legal passes if you take it as the ball can't travel towards the opposition line.

I'm not saying the trajectory of the ball will be straight or any different to now. All I'm saying is that it is perfectly feasible to measure how forward a pass is in reference to a point on the field - namely the point at which it was released. If the receiver catches the ball beyond this point then it is a forward pass. If the receiver catches the ball behind this point then it isn't forward.

I'd agree entirely with that. If you were to implement that it would end throwing passes when running forward.

And you all make fun of refs and insult them and ridicule them??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Look at all the science and trigonometry and physics ideas that have to pass through his brain in an instant just to get a f**king forward call right!

God, you guys are a tough crowd

Rugby is made more fun with a protractor.

The Great Aukster wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think the point aukster is that if there is sufficient gap between the players, a typically slightly backwards pass will end up going forward. Are you suggesting that the player has to factor that in, and for example aim longer passes further back? In reality a large percentage of passes in a typical game go forward by your 'old school' definition... and always have. Its why they go with the initial direction concept rather than actual ball flight. It isn't perfect (hence all the debate) but might be better than having a gps sensor in the ball to establish its flight.

A game where 'flat passes' were obsolete would probably hinder expansive sides and suit england's historic 'stuff it up the jumper' tactics... so i'm fine with it!

Yes mb that's exactly what I'm saying, players have to factor distance and speed into their pass as indeed players have to do with any pass get the timing and direction right. Passing back to finish level is a much greater skill than passing level and finishing forward. Expansive sides with those skills will still be relatively better than those sides who don't have them and maybe more so.

Of course there were always forward passes that were missed by the referee, but at least he had a linear reference to judge against. Without that reference more and more passes 'look' forward but may or may not be OK because there is no obvious benchmark, so the referee has to stop the game and go upstairs and the TMO maybe doesn't have the angle to provide a definitive answer anyway. The GPS thing could be used not just for forward passes but also help with touch, not straights in either set piece, confirming ball between posts etc. - it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than forever increasing the number of cameras to get the right angle.

hey... I copywrited the gprs ball thing first!

I don't think its easy either way. If the refs and touch judges are running to keep up with play, then they lose the reference point from where the pass set off. As we joked earlier, Sunday's decision was probably given because the touch judge happened to be in the right place by accident (had stopped because he was out of breath etc!) to see it.

The TMO's though would be able to see it, granted. So one rule for internationals/pro club games and one for everyone else!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Rugby is made more fun with a protractor.

Or protracted arguments

milkyboy wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think the point aukster is that if there is sufficient gap between the players, a typically slightly backwards pass will end up going forward. Are you suggesting that the player has to factor that in, and for example aim longer passes further back? In reality a large percentage of passes in a typical game go forward by your 'old school' definition... and always have. Its why they go with the initial direction concept rather than actual ball flight. It isn't perfect (hence all the debate) but might be better than having a gps sensor in the ball to establish its flight.

A game where 'flat passes' were obsolete would probably hinder expansive sides and suit england's historic 'stuff it up the jumper' tactics... so i'm fine with it!

Yes mb that's exactly what I'm saying, players have to factor distance and speed into their pass as indeed players have to do with any pass get the timing and direction right. Passing back to finish level is a much greater skill than passing level and finishing forward. Expansive sides with those skills will still be relatively better than those sides who don't have them and maybe more so.

Of course there were always forward passes that were missed by the referee, but at least he had a linear reference to judge against. Without that reference more and more passes 'look' forward but may or may not be OK because there is no obvious benchmark, so the referee has to stop the game and go upstairs and the TMO maybe doesn't have the angle to provide a definitive answer anyway. The GPS thing could be used not just for forward passes but also help with touch, not straights in either set piece, confirming ball between posts etc. - it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than forever increasing the number of cameras to get the right angle.

hey... I copywrited the gprs ball thing first!

I don't think its easy either way. If the refs and touch judges are running to keep up with play, then they lose the reference point from where the pass set off. As we joked earlier, Sunday's decision was probably given because the touch judge happened to be in the right place by accident (had stopped because he was out of breath etc!) to see it.

The TMO's though would be able to see it, granted. So one rule for internationals/pro club games and one for everyone else!

No mb! The whole point is that the officials call it how they see it as they do now at every level. However it should be easier for them to call passes forward because they at least have the grid-lines of the pitch to refer to against rather than the 'protracted' guesswork they have to resort to now. The lower levels that don't have the extended technology would stand a much better chance of getting the decision right.

Hammersmith harrier 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

You are aware that it isn't fact and they said from the start that the timekeeping issue had been resolved at the time so the extra two minutes is a fallacy created by the Irish Independent?

I knows it's going back a bit.  But I do have to go back here and say that as far as I can reckon, from my scrutiny of the clock and game, it still is a fact that the game played longer than it should have by roughly over two minutes.

The Great Aukster wrote:

milkyboy wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

milkyboy wrote:I think the point aukster is that if there is sufficient gap between the players, a typically slightly backwards pass will end up going forward. Are you suggesting that the player has to factor that in, and for example aim longer passes further back? In reality a large percentage of passes in a typical game go forward by your 'old school' definition... and always have. Its why they go with the initial direction concept rather than actual ball flight. It isn't perfect (hence all the debate) but might be better than having a gps sensor in the ball to establish its flight.

A game where 'flat passes' were obsolete would probably hinder expansive sides and suit england's historic 'stuff it up the jumper' tactics... so i'm fine with it!

Yes mb that's exactly what I'm saying, players have to factor distance and speed into their pass as indeed players have to do with any pass get the timing and direction right. Passing back to finish level is a much greater skill than passing level and finishing forward. Expansive sides with those skills will still be relatively better than those sides who don't have them and maybe more so.

Of course there were always forward passes that were missed by the referee, but at least he had a linear reference to judge against. Without that reference more and more passes 'look' forward but may or may not be OK because there is no obvious benchmark, so the referee has to stop the game and go upstairs and the TMO maybe doesn't have the angle to provide a definitive answer anyway. The GPS thing could be used not just for forward passes but also help with touch, not straights in either set piece, confirming ball between posts etc. - it would be a lot easier (and cheaper) than forever increasing the number of cameras to get the right angle.

hey... I copywrited the gprs ball thing first!

I don't think its easy either way. If the refs and touch judges are running to keep up with play, then they lose the reference point from where the pass set off. As we joked earlier, Sunday's decision was probably given because the touch judge happened to be in the right place by accident (had stopped because he was out of breath etc!) to see it.

The TMO's though would be able to see it, granted. So one rule for internationals/pro club games and one for everyone else!

No mb! The whole point is that the officials call it how they see it as they do now at every level. However it should be easier for them to call passes forward because they at least have the grid-lines of the pitch to refer to against rather than the 'protracted' guesswork they have to resort to now. The lower levels that don't have the extended technology would stand a much better chance of getting the decision right.

It still ignores the fact that there's a hell of a lot of forward passes in the game if you take forward to mean the ball travelling towards the opposition line instead of being passed there.

Interview in the Guardian with Dan Cole sheds some light on that lost lineout when England turned down a shot at goal.

“The first attacking lineout we had was annoying because we practised the move during the week,” Cole continues. “Having looked at videos of Ireland, Toner normally chased in, defending in the middle or the front, and we were looking to go over the top of him. For the first time in the tournament he stood still. Looking back now, we would change the call, but given what we had seen of him it was the right one. I am not saying the game changed on that, but it was an emotional swing. We did not get another chance like it.”

One of the perils, perhaps, of video analysis. England may have been so certain that Toner would do what he had always done, that their body language gave the opposition player enough clues to change his strategy.

That is gratifying in that they thought they had cracked our defensive lineout but they hadn't.

EOS was talking about it on Newstalk and he was so incredulous it was quite funny. He was almost annoyed by it on behalf of England. They're 6-3 down, they get an easy kick at goal, they instead go for a lineout and proceed to try the most audacious long throw to the back, over just about the tallest lock in rugby. It seemed a bizarre decision.

I suppose it's less bizarre, given Cole's explanation of their video analysis. But seriously, when you have a kick at goal at that stage of a game you have to take it. Maybe a touch of over confidence from Lancasters men?

It was one of several strange choices from England. By strange I mean stupid obviously. Another i didn't like was ford taking the drop goal when they already had an easy penalty. I get the whole two shots at it thing, but a kicker should be backing himself that one is enough.

By way of comparison had ireland done that, they have 3 points not 7, and if nowell's  try had then stood, England have a conversion to win the game. Travesty though that would have been, such are the small margins.

England shouldn't make the same mistakes again. I fully expect England to beat any Irish side that comes to HQ in the RWC. England showed signs of battering Ireland at times with a fairly new and inexperienced side. Get a few like Lawes, Manu, Wilson, Wood, Launchbury, etc back and it'll be a very different story at Twickenham I have no doubt. I'd also like to see big Sam in the mix by then too.

englandglory4ever wrote:England shouldn't make the same mistakes again. I fully expect England to beat any Irish side that comes to HQ in the RWC. England showed signs of battering Ireland at times with a fairly new and inexperienced side. Get a few like Lawes, Manu, Wilson, Wood, Launchbury, etc back and it'll be a very different story at Twickenham I have no doubt. I'd also like to see big Sam in the mix by then too.

So would Ireland no doubt

As we have competitive games against every other team in the Six Nations before we can play England again, I have no interest in worrying about what happens next time we play them!

Notch wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:England shouldn't make the same mistakes again. I fully expect England to beat any Irish side that comes to HQ in the RWC. England showed signs of battering Ireland at times with a fairly new and inexperienced side. Get a few like Lawes, Manu, Wilson, Wood, Launchbury, etc back and it'll be a very different story at Twickenham I have no doubt. I'd also like to see big Sam in the mix by then too.

So would Ireland no doubt

As we have competitive games against every other team in the Six Nations before we can play England again, I have no interest in worrying about what happens next time we play them!

I don't mind if we lose the next time we play them as long as we win the time after that.