Are England the kings of legal cheap shots?

First topic message reminder :

Courtney Lawes tackle on Jules Plisson was a disgrace in my opinion because Lawes' sole intention was to blindside France's outhalf and injure him.

I cannot believe that you can take a guy out in the air completely by accident and get a red card ala Payne v Sarries and yet smashing a guy with such unnecessary force that he gets whiplash and lands on his head is deemed ok.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3013551/If-Courtney-Lawes-tackle-Jules-Plisson-legal-explains-parents-discouraging-children-play-rugby.html

Hard tackles are fine but what Lawes did to Plisson was a cheap shot and I see no reason to blindside a player like that.

Similarly I believe that Cole intentionally headbutted Healy when Healy put in a poor tackle on him in the Ireland game.

Are legal cheapshots ok?

Are England the reigning cheap shot champions?

Personally speaking the very fact that Owens was in charge of the game and saw nothing wrong with it after a review means that there was nothing wrong with it. Great hit and nothing he could do to reduce the impact or back off once he'd started.

It may be that this approach may cost Lawes later on, it's a very thin line between mistimed and late and it's a yellow and a citing for getting it wrong, maybe someone with faster hands could dummy him into something very stupid come the RWC.

Also Guns if you're taking opinions on rugby from Jeff Powell and the Daily Fail you're not going to get any support on here.

"It wasn't a late tackle sir, I got there as fast as I could"......

Bathman_in_London wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

100% agree, of course he did and he does the same every game. I have to say I don't particularly like it, I would much prefer he did some 'enforcing' in the pack to generate quick ball or made some big carries rather than boosting his ego and youtube following.   This is an interesting discussion though, as it does seem that there is a real inconsistency in the game between a tackle like this and a dump tackle or a challenge in the air when all 3 could have a similar outcome and only the legal one is premeditated.

I agree it was done with the intent of hurting his opponent but while I wouldn't mind seeing this type of tackle made illegal,right now it's fine.In such an aggressive and physical game you are always going to get players who will play on the edge of the laws.I tackled like that myself (relative to my level obviously) and if I could legally hurt my opponent then I would happily smash him when I got the chance.

You can make a case that the law needs to be changed to outlaw this type of challenge but Lawes did absolutely nothing wrong imo.

I see nothing wrong with that tackle. England are no worse at "cheap shots" than any other team. Maybe South Africa 4-5 years ago might have had a claim for a few too many cheap shots, but still think there is a line between a hard team, and a thug team, and at international level, I think most hard teams are just that.

The wider issue underlying this wummy post is concussion; this has become a serious issue and there is no way I can see in stopping concussions getting worse. We are only a few years from true NFL sized hits happening multiple times a game to a player. In the NFL players get millions to scramble their brains. Rugby doesn't have that luxury. So unless there is a way of reducing the size of rugby players, concussion is going to put a hard cap on the development of our game, as fewer and fewer parents want their kids risked.

LordDowlais wrote:No I do not think they are the kings of cheap shots, it's just the two players you have mentioned can tend to be tools of the highest order, every team has them, are Ireland the kings of spoiling and slowing the game down ?

In what way are Lawes and (especially) Cole "tools of the highest order" ?

Concussion is one issue. A broken neck is another. There are many ways to die on a rugby field with the force of impacts nowadays.

I'm pretty sure it wuz the ref's fault. Probably Barnes.

What is wrong with wanting to hurt your opponent? Nobody wants to seriously injure an opponent but you want them to feel the hurt after such a hit. Maybe I am too old school but I was always told, go in as hard as you can, hit as hard as you can because any slight hesitance of your side could see you getting hurt. Rugby is, by its nature, a physical contact sport.

As I said before, what is the difference in what Lawes did as opposed to tackling a player who has just caught a high ball, is stationary and gets thumped by a player charging at full pelt?

The laws of the game don't need to be changed in this area, its fine and I for one, love good hits like these.

Old school was more like wet fish wrestling with each other than what the new school bring. American Football went Armour plated for a reason.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What is wrong with wanting to hurt your opponent? Nobody wants to seriously injure an opponent but you want them to feel the hurt after such a hit. Maybe I am too old school but I was always told, go in as hard as you can, hit as hard as you can because any slight hesitance of your side could see you getting hurt. Rugby is, by its nature, a physical contact sport.

As I said before, what is the difference in what Lawes did as opposed to tackling a player who has just caught a high ball, is stationary and gets thumped by a player charging at full pelt?

The laws of the game don't need to be changed in this area, its fine and I for one, love good hits like these.

I would be concerned if any player on the Irish team didn't go in with the intent to make their opponents feel pain. It isn't about trying to seriously injure the opponent, but you certainly want them hurting. It is all part of the wonderfully competitive and aggressive game of Rugby.

Fair play to Courtney Lawes for bringing back the old school "halfbacks beware" tackling. He is setting down a marker, and many halfbacks are not going to feel so safe getting the ball away. It will be on the back of their minds and affect their games, exactly what he (and England) will want.

I can barely believe that so many seem to think Lawes was out of line there, you might as well stick a red jersey on the opposition fly half so no one can lay a finger on him

I posted the same in the England thread, but what if he'd hit Maestri or Bastareud with the exact same tackle in the exact same situation? Would you still be calling for him to be cited? If a lock hits a fly half its going to look a lot worse than if it was a lock on a lock

[quote="asoreleftshoulder"]

Bathman_in_London wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

100% agree, of course he did and he does the same every game. I have to say I don't particularly like it, I would much prefer he did some 'enforcing' in the pack to generate quick ball or made some big carries rather than boosting his ego and youtube following.   This is an interesting discussion though, as it does seem that there is a real inconsistency in the game between a tackle like this and a dump tackle or a challenge in the air when all 3 could have a similar outcome and only the legal one is premeditated.

I agree it was done with the intent of hurting his opponent but while I wouldn't mind seeing this type of tackle made illegal,right now it's fine.In such an aggressive and physical game you are always going to get players who will play on the edge of the laws.I tackled like that myself (relative to my level obviously) and if I could legally hurt my opponent then I would happily smash him when I got the chance.


Don't know what you mean by that how can you make a legal tackle illegal or an offence, there was nothing wrong in what he done, what would you want to see changed that would stop it?

bedfordwelsh wrote:

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:

beshocked wrote:Yes it is a cheap shot in my opinion. Lawes quite clearly targetted Plisson with the intent to hurt him.

Doesn't mitigate what Payne did though. Payne might not have intended to hurt Goode but he did. He injured him and he was out for a couple of weeks. What Payne did was very reckless.

Payne's was more dangerous than what Lawes did.

The impact of what Payne did was more telling. The consequences were more grave.

I guess it depends whether you think intent to harm is worse than actually how much harm you do.

100% agree, of course he did and he does the same every game. I have to say I don't particularly like it, I would much prefer he did some 'enforcing' in the pack to generate quick ball or made some big carries rather than boosting his ego and youtube following.   This is an interesting discussion though, as it does seem that there is a real inconsistency in the game between a tackle like this and a dump tackle or a challenge in the air when all 3 could have a similar outcome and only the legal one is premeditated.

I agree it was done with the intent of hurting his opponent but while I wouldn't mind seeing this type of tackle made illegal,right now it's fine.In such an aggressive and physical game you are always going to get players who will play on the edge of the laws.I tackled like that myself (relative to my level obviously) and if I could legally hurt my opponent then I would happily smash him when I got the chance.


Don't know what you mean by that how can you make a legal tackle illegal or an offence, there was nothing wrong in what he done, what would you want to see changed that would stop it?

The only thing I can think of is something like the unnecessary roughness law in either NFL or NHL(it would be very subjective and down to the refs interpretation so might bring more controversy than it's worth).I don't really think that we need to see tackles where someone is launching himself at a player who is unable to brace himself since he's in the process of passing the ball.It isn't a huge problem in the game and I don't feel particularly strongly about this issue but I wouldn't be opposed to removing this kind of hit.

asoreleft,

Can see what you're saying but would be nigh on impossible to police, how would a tackler know that the opposing player wasn't going to throw a dummy instead of carry on with the passing of the ball etc.

Unnecessary roughness in the NFL is mainly used when players are already out of the field of play, and are then hit late by a defender.

The other main use is when a quarterback gets hit, and many fans think that its resulted in the QB being far too protected by referees, and any kind of contact on them is being prohibited, mainly because they are the star players.

Do we want a situation where halfbacks being hit is discouraged?

bedfordwelsh wrote:asoreleft,

Can see what you're saying but would be nigh on impossible to police, how would a tackler know that the opposing player wasn't going to throw a dummy instead of carry on with the passing of the ball etc.

I think this is one of the main points. A defender doesn't know what the attacking player will do, and has to cover his man. Lawes seemingly hit his man a split second after the pass. A player does not get free space to make a pass.

bedfordwelsh wrote:asoreleft,

Can see what you're saying but would be nigh on impossible to police, how would a tackler know that the opposing player wasn't going to throw a dummy instead of carry on with the passing of the ball etc.

Yeah it's very subjective,I suppose it would just mean that the tackle would have to be executed in a safer way.Lawes could have hit Plisson lower and less violently.I agree it'd be very hard to police consistently and again I stress that Lawes did nothing wrong imo,I suppose this really belongs in my list of changes I'd make if I controlled the game along with scrum backs for a missed drop goal and an absolute zero tolerance on early pushing in the scrum.

doctor_grey wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:asoreleft,

Can see what you're saying but would be nigh on impossible to police, how would a tackler know that the opposing player wasn't going to throw a dummy instead of carry on with the passing of the ball etc.

I think this is one of the main points.  A defender doesn't know what the attacking player will do, and has to cover his man.  Lawes seemingly hit his man a split second after the pass.  A player does not get free space to make a pass.  

Had Lawes pulled out of the tackle and was sidestepped (or the same play went forward), people would be harping on as to why he didn't smash him when given the chance. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:What is wrong with wanting to hurt your opponent? Nobody wants to seriously injure an opponent but you want them to feel the hurt after such a hit. Maybe I am too old school but I was always told, go in as hard as you can, hit as hard as you can because any slight hesitance of your side could see you getting hurt. Rugby is, by its nature, a physical contact sport.

As I said before, what is the difference in what Lawes did as opposed to tackling a player who has just caught a high ball, is stationary and gets thumped by a player charging at full pelt?

The laws of the game don't need to be changed in this area, its fine and I for one, love good hits like these.

I would be concerned if any player on the Irish team didn't go in with the intent to make their opponents feel pain. It isn't about trying to seriously injure the opponent, but you certainly want them hurting. It is all part of the wonderfully competitive and aggressive game of Rugby.

Fair play to Courtney Lawes for bringing back the old school "halfbacks beware" tackling. He is setting down a marker, and many halfbacks are not going to feel so safe getting the ball away. It will be on the back of their minds and affect their games, exactly what he (and England) will want.

100% agree. I just wish some of the Scotland players could be as brutal in dealing with the opposition stand-off.

I think it was best described by Rafael Ibanez (former French hooker and France 2 commentator), from memory he said :

Oh Plisson, you want to delay a pass and invite a big man out of the line, that's what you get.

SecretFly wrote:Old school was more like wet fish wrestling with each other than what the new school bring.  American Football went Armour plated for a reason.

American football went armour plated because so many players were dying or being seriously injured that they were told to make it safer or be banned. The armour worked for a few decades, but now the players have reached such a high state of power that they have a new issue - players are concussing themselves in making the tackle because the old ban on spear (=head first) tackles isn't being enforced.

As a result, the Seahawks have adapted to using rugby tackles to great effect, and Martin Johnson is being hired as a consultant by another NFL team.

The laws and interpretations in rugby draw three important distinctions: one of timing, one of technique and one of outcome. Early and late tackles aren't allowed [1], high and no-arms tackles are not allowed [2] and contact that leads to a player landing on the back, neck or head is not allowed. The lines are drawn to avoid players taking hits when they are not expecting them, and to avoid the situations that are most likely to cause serious injury. A player on the ground can prepare himself for a tackle. A player in the air can't. A player with the ball knows to expect a tackle.

Lawes did not lift a player and drive them over the horizontal. His tackle arrived after the ball had left Plisson's hands, but within the tolerance we allow. It was hard, but it was legal. The risk was materially different from making contact with someone in the air. Broken ribs heal, broken necks don't.

[1] Except on Nick Easter, then it's called obstruction...
[2] Though a surprising number of barges into touch are not picked up

Its a gray area. It might have been legal by its not in the spirit of the game.


The one area where there is a strong case against Lawes can be summed up in one word - control. He wasn't in control of himself and wasn't in control of the tackle which saw Plisson land on his neck.


In that tackle Lawes was like an F1 car with no breaks. He launched himself at Plisson with the intention of nailing Plisson and it didn't matter if the ball was gone or not because Lawes was continuing to accelerate into the tackle even after Plisson was in the act of passing. 99% of players would slow down as they realised they wouldn't make it but Lawes was either too stupid or he didn't care.


In my opinion he deserves a ban. If in doubt just have a look at his history of late tackles. Plisson could have been seriously injured and lets no forget that it was a late hit.

(from my post on the other thread)
Bit harsh on guessing his motives, without truly knowing them.
But in spirit of benefit of doubt, part of his job description, utilizing his field speed as distinct from his jumping duties, is to rattle the HBs / midfield physically and psychologically, like an oversized 7. He is fast for a big'un and needs to get there on time, so the kinetic energy upon arrival is pretty fearsome. His timing is mostly the right side of the law.

It wasn't a late hit though. If it was it would have been a penalty. You can dislike the law on it and want it reviewed but you can't really argue it wasn't within the current law.

profitius wrote:Its a gray area. It might have been legal by its not in the spirit of the game.


The one area where there is a strong case against Lawes can be summed up in one word - control. He wasn't in control of himself and wasn't in control of the tackle which saw Plisson land on his neck.


In that tackle Lawes was like an F1 car with no breaks. He launched himself at Plisson with the intention of nailing Plisson and it didn't matter if the ball was gone or not because Lawes was continuing to accelerate into the tackle even after Plisson was in the act of passing. 99% of players would slow down as they realised they wouldn't make it but Lawes was either too stupid or he didn't care.


In my opinion he deserves a ban. If in doubt just have a look at his history of late tackles. Plisson could have been seriously injured and lets no forget that it was a late hit.

I can't agree with that,he acted within the laws as they stand.If a new directive is put out tomorrow that makes this type of hit illegal then punish the 1st guy who transgresses but you can't punish a guy for doing something that he knows is legal.That is what happened to Jared Payne last year and imo it was a disgrace so I can't agree with it happening to someone else.

Ban tackling. Brilliant idea. Scotland may actually profit from that decision, given our penchant for missing them.

profitius wrote:Its a gray area. It might have been legal by its not in the spirit of the game.


The one area where there is a strong case against Lawes can be summed up in one word - control. He wasn't in control of himself and wasn't in control of the tackle which saw Plisson land on his neck.


In that tackle Lawes was like an F1 car with no breaks. He launched himself at Plisson with the intention of nailing Plisson and it didn't matter if the ball was gone or not because Lawes was continuing to accelerate into the tackle even after Plisson was in the act of passing. 99% of players would slow down as they realised they wouldn't make it but Lawes was either too stupid or he didn't care.


In my opinion he deserves a ban. If in doubt just have a look at his history of late tackles. Plisson could have been seriously injured and lets no forget that it was a late hit.

The ref and TMO... following a good video review.... disagree with you.

Why do people rise to such a WUM?

The fact that Healy's love child posted this WUM is somewhat telling isn't it????

Please people wake up and smell the roses! He knows, as we all do, that Healy is the King of the Cheapshot as has been pointed out many times on this board and he's just trying to project Healy's dastardlyness on the English. He pathetically tried to defend Healy's cowardly stamp on Cole continuously on a 50 page thread that went on for about 2 months. People have very short memories on this board!

Miss, you're ruining his thread ! With your late tackle !

MissBlennerhassett wrote:Why do people rise to such a WUM?

The fact that Healy's love child posted this WUM is somewhat telling isn't it????

Please people wake up and smell the roses! He knows, as we all do, that Healy is the King of the Cheapshot as has been pointed out many times on this board and he's just trying to project Healy's dastardlyness on the English. He pathetically tried to defend Healy's cowardly stamp on Cole continuously on a 50 page thread that went on for about 2 months. People have a very short memories on this board!

This is one of the biggest reasons why this forum is still alive. (That and the triumph of hope over experience).

Probably too many late tackles...

Missblennerhassett it might well be a WUM but it does pose some interesting questions.

Its ok MissBlennerHassett, the Munster fans were no longer responding to GunsGerms feeble attempts to wind us up so he had to resort to attacking an English player for attention. He will turn on Munster again soon and give the English a break

On a serious level most things are OK as long as the 'victim' gets up afterwards (maybe not straight away ,but...)

And to be honest we have had pacific island tackles going on for quite a number of years. Lawes is very good at these kinds of tackles but having (very) big guys hitting small guys very hard is nothing new.

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:Its ok MissBlennerHassett, the Munster fans were no longer responding to GunsGerms feeble attempts to wind us up so he had to resort to attacking an English player for attention. He will turn on Munster again soon and give the English a break

He's certainly predictable.

beshocked wrote:Missblennerhassett it might well be a WUM but it does pose some interesting questions.

Genuinely interested in what questions you think he has raised that are interesting?

The point about Payne is mute as he broke the laws of the game.
The point he made about Cole and Healy is mute since it was plainly obvious that Healy got himself into a bad tackling position.

or is it

The question about Lawes tackle being a cheap shot and that he questions if England the kings of legal cheap shots?

I think on the evidence he has provided, he has no right to single England out as possible kings of legal cheap shots...

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:

beshocked wrote:Missblennerhassett it might well be a WUM but it does pose some interesting questions.

Genuinely interested in what questions you think he has raised that are interesting?

The point about Payne is mute as he broke the laws of the game.
The point he made about Cole and Healy is mute since it was plainly obvious that Healy got himself into a bad tackling position.

or is it

The question about Lawes tackle being a cheap shot and that he questions if  England the kings of legal cheap shots?

I think on the evidence he has provided, he has no right to single England out as possible kings of legal cheap shots...

Talking about the gamesmanship of Lawes and whether what he has done is acceptable.

Legal yes but it's interesting to get different view points. Some people seeing absolutely nothing wrong with the tackle, actually applauding and enjoying it. Others deeming it legal but a cheap shot by Lawes. Also some believing that Lawes should be punished.

Nothing to do with Lawes' nationality. I am English but I don't condone his actions. I personally think he's a bit of a bully who likes to target and pick on smaller men than himself in this manner.

Wouldn't be much of a discussion if he tackled someone hard his size like this but he didn't did he?

The stuff about Cole,Healy and Payne - that's been done to death.

GunsGerms wrote:Courtney Lawes tackle on Jules Plisson was a disgrace in my opinion because Lawes' sole intention was to blindside France's outhalf and injure him.

I cannot believe that you can take a guy out in the air completely by accident and get a red card ala Payne v Sarries and yet smashing a guy with such unnecessary force that he gets whiplash and lands on his head is deemed ok.

Lawes tackled a guy incredibly hard. Whether or not the guy saw it coming is immaterial. What else should Lawes have done? Tapped him on the shoulder to let him know he was there? If you are in possession of the ball, you expect to be tackled. If you get smashed without any warning, then it's because your own vision isn't good enough. What about man-and-ball passes? Should the tackler always depower his tackle given that the attacker isn't in any position to evade or fend?

And what the hell is 'unnecessary force' in the context of rugby? Would you penalise someone like Henry Tuilagi for being too powerful?

Either this article is a poor WUM, or you must be quite one-eyed. Using the Healy incident to support your case doesn't help matters either, since it just draws attention to Cian Healy, who is also an immensely powerful man who plays on the border of the laws.

To be fair to Lawes, he smashes into everyone. I've certainly had no sense of him "picking" on smaller men!!

I genuinely struggle to see anything other than a brilliant tackle. I want Richie and Jonny Gray to watch it and replicate it, only harder.

beshocked,

My points on Lawes tackle are clear. I grew up playing rugby in a time when any backrower worth his salt would spend entire games targeting the halfbacks. Back then it was the core of their game to get into the halfbacks heads, hurt them and really put them off their games.

Lawes did that perfectly legally and I for the life of me cant see it as a cheap shot. Had he have been later then yes I would see it as a cheap shot but he was bang on time and made a perfect hit. I put the hit down to 75% excellent timing from Lawes and 25% poor awareness from Plisson.

GG on another Anti-English whine, i'd be careful if i were you, people might start using the following symbol

SecretFly wrote:There are players out there I wouldn't like to play against.  Yes, the game is hard.  Yes it is tough.  Yes it is very dangerous.  But there are still a few players I wouldn't like to play against.  

I always go back to Stephen Ferris.  A hard hard player.  But I remember as he was back for his final attempt at keeping his career going.  He was playing for Ulster.  I think it was against an English side?  But anyway, I remember him hitting a player and almost running backwards with the player in his arms.  It did what it was designed to do - stop the opponent.  It made a statement - he went metres with the poor guy.  But all the while I was admiring the control he used to keep the opponent safe.  He was making a power statement but you just knew his intention wasn't to hurt.

You can do both.  Both make the statement of power and dominance without the suspicion that you'd also like to put the player on a stretcher.

Yes yes yes the Irish are the best, Lawes and the English are the devils brood and should all be banned.

Jesus if this is how some Irish act when they win I'd hate to see how they deal with losing! Probably make a YouTube video about it or something...

1.Healy 2.Leota 3.O Brown 4.Botha 5.Lawes 6.J White 7.AJ Venter 8.Collins 9.Joost 10.Wilkinson 11.A Tuilagi 12.Bunce 13.Lima 14.Cohen 15.Lewsey

A team of wonderfully physical players all hugely committed and capable of epic tackling. I would be utterly staggered if any of these guys wouldn't have done exactly the same thing to Plisson given half the chance, and rugby is all the better and richer for it.

You'll also note that they are not all English.....

yappysnap wrote:

SecretFly wrote:There are players out there I wouldn't like to play against.  Yes, the game is hard.  Yes it is tough.  Yes it is very dangerous.  But there are still a few players I wouldn't like to play against.  

I always go back to Stephen Ferris.  A hard hard player.  But I remember as he was back for his final attempt at keeping his career going.  He was playing for Ulster.  I think it was against an English side?  But anyway, I remember him hitting a player and almost running backwards with the player in his arms.  It did what it was designed to do - stop the opponent.  It made a statement - he went metres with the poor guy.  But all the while I was admiring the control he used to keep the opponent safe.  He was making a power statement but you just knew his intention wasn't to hurt.

You can do both.  Both make the statement of power and dominance without the suspicion that you'd also like to put the player on a stretcher.

Yes yes yes the Irish are the best, Lawes and the English are the devils brood and should all be banned.

Jesus if this is how some Irish act when they win I'd hate to see how they deal with losing! Probably make a YouTube video about it or something...

notice he doesnt always go back to Mr Stampy...

...then there's Trevor Brennan and Peter Clohessy, both shrinking violets when it came to the physical stuff.

Had no idea they were both secretly English.

As an Irishman, I guess I have to accept that this is now going to turn into a witch hunt against any Irish player that once committed an illegal offence.

Thanks for this GunsGerms, although I am sure your sitting back enjoying this...

Nachos Jones_1 wrote:As an Irishman, I guess I have to accept that this is now going to turn into a witch hunt against any Irish player that once committed an illegal offence.

Thanks for this GunsGerms, although I am sure your sitting back enjoying this...

Sorry Nachos.

I know we should ignore it but GG and to an extent Fly both have a way of winding up us English fans! Obviously all countries have a few idiots and we should tar everyone with that brush

*shouldn't

I thought the times article was stupid, this rubbish has perhaps topped it.

The outcome of the tackle was bloody horrible but I don't think that's down to any particular fault on the part of Lawes. The idea that it was late is completely ridiculous, it wasn't high either and there was no lift by Lawes. The fact that Plisson flipped and landed like that was just because of the weight difference.

GunsGerms wrote:
Why would the French players react the way they did if they didnt think it was dirty?

Impartial are they?

GunsGerms wrote:

bedfordwelsh wrote:

They wouldn't have reacted like that if lets say Dussatoir had put in a hit like that on Ford.

Dusattoir has never been a dirty player at all.

Completely irrelevant to the point bedfordwelsh was making.

There's a difference between tackling to hurt and tackling to injure. Thought the tackle was a big hit and fine.

yappysnap wrote:

Yes yes yes the Irish are the best, Lawes and the English are the devils brood and should all be banned.

Jesus if this is how some Irish act when they win I'd hate to see how they deal with losing! Probably make a YouTube video about it or something...

Is this a game everyone can comment on?  Yes.  Did I write the thread?  No.  Did I make a comment?  Yes.  You wind yourself up as much as you want, yappysnap, I don't rightly care.
I'll continue to comment on issues around the game as I see fit - even on threads you'd rather I didn't turn up to comment in.  
My comments are not unreasonable.  Their only fault is that you don't agree with them and get frustrated by the idea that it's 'English' players, teams, citizens, chickens and dogs I tend to pick on.  

Em................ Nope.  I don't.  And you won't find many posts from me on the subject of 'Bastard' cheap-shot English players.  But carry on with the paranoia if that keeps you righteous enough.
I think I kept my comments quite diplomatic....