England v Ireland; Six Nations Round 3

First topic message reminder :

              

ENGLAND vs  IRELAND

Date: Saturday 27th February 2016
Venue: Twickenham
Kick Off: 16:50 (GMT)
Referee: Romain Poite (FFR)
Asst Refs: Nigel Owens (WRU), Alexandre Ruiz (FFR)
TMO: Shaun Veldsman (SARU)
TV Coverage: Live on ITV, RTE, FR2


Head to Head

Played - 119
Wins - 65/47
Draws - 7
Points - 1443/1037


Current Form

England:
W 40-9 v Italy
W 15-9 v Scotland
W 60-3 v Uruguay

Ireland:
L 9-10 v France
D 16-16 v wales
L 20-43 v Argentina


Recent Meetings

05/09/15 England 21 Ireland 13
01/03015 Ireland 19 England 9
22/02/14 England 13 Ireland 10
10/02/13 Ireland 6 England 12
17/03/12 England 30 Ireland 9



Teams

England


1 Joe Marler (Harlequins, 39 caps)
2 Dylan Hartley (captain, Northampton Saints, 68 caps)
3 Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 58 caps)
4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 1 cap)
5 George Kruis (Saracens, 12 caps)
6 Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, 45 caps)
7 James Haskell (Wasps, 64 caps)
8 Billy Vunipola (vice captain, Saracens, 23 caps)
9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 54 caps)
10 George Ford (Bath Rugby, 19 caps)
11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps)
12 Owen Farrell (vice captain, Saracens, 37 caps)
13 Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 18 caps)
14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 17 caps)
15 Mike Brown (vice captain, Harlequins, 45 caps)
Replacements
16 Jamie George (Saracens, 5 caps)
17 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 30 caps)
18 Paul Hill (Northampton Saints, 1 cap)
19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 44 caps)
20 Jack Clifford (Harlequins, 2 caps)
21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 56 caps)
22 Elliot Daly (Wasps, uncapped)
23 Alex Goode (Saracens, 20 caps)


Ireland


15. Rob Kearney (UCD/Leinster) 68
14. Andrew Trimble (Ballymena/Ulster) 60
13. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht) 17
12. Stuart McCloskey (Ballynahinch/Ulster)*
11. Keith Earls (Young Munster/Munster) 47
10. Jonathan Sexton (St Mary's College/Leinster) 58
9. Conor Murray (Garryowen/Munster) 44
1. Jack McGrath (St. Mary's College/Leinster) 27
2. Rory Best (Banbridge/Ulster) Captain 91
3. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster) 56
4. Donnacha Ryan (Shannon/Munster) 36
5. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster) 33
6. CJ Stander (Munster) 2
7. Josh van der Flier (UCD/Leinster)*
8. Jamie Heaslip (Dublin University/Leinster) Vice Captain 82

Replacements
16. Richard Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster) 14
17. Cian Healy (Clontarf/Leinster) 56
18. Nathan White (Connacht) 10
19. Ultane Dillane (Corinthians/Connacht)*
20. Rhys Ruddock (St Mary's College/Leinster) 7
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster) 68
22. Ian Madigan (Blackrock College/Leinster) 27
23. Simon Zebo (Cork Con/Munster) 22

Munchkin wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think what saved Brown is that his such a likeable chap loved by all rugby fans/players and Refs.

Brown will be out for revenge now for that comment TightHEAD.  Unforgiveable slur on his reputation...I'd be cautious if you ever meet up with him.  Lad has a long memory.

He will be fine as long as he has Warburton to protect him

Warburton whistling the tune "Walk this Way!" as Brown gives him a good verbal thrashing. Classic moment of rugby.

[quote="Munchkin"]

SecretFly wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:I think what saved Brown is that his such a likeable chap loved by all rugby fans/players and Refs.

Brown will be out for revenge now for that comment TightHEAD.  Unforgiveable slur on his reputation...I'd be cautious if you ever meet up with him.  Lad has a long memory.

He will be fine as long as he has Warburton to protect him [/quote

There is no conclusive evidence to show it was a try.

I'm happy to see a try chalked out in that circumstance and at least there was consistency.

If Hartley's non try was disallowed there's no way the VDF non try should be given.

Seen much worse TMO work than this match.

As he's always 'up for a fight' I think Mike Brown will launch an appeal.

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

TJ wrote:Hartley "try" - he is clearly stopped short on the replay.  So there is no way for the ball to move forward legally after that as he has had his chance to place the ball and been unable to do so.  Correct decision IMO

ON the Brown incident - reckless / dangerous use of the boot in a ruck is a long standing penalty - you can use your feet but you cannot be reckless / dangerous.  He was near  / made contact with the ball which is why no red card but given he makes contact with a players head no matter what that player is doing a penalty for foul play should have been given IMO - lets see what the citing commissioner says.  Its not a deliberate kick to the head so no red card

Why wasn't he able to place the ball. You feel that Hartley propelled himself over the line?

beshocked wrote:I like Brown, good player but don't condone him kicking Murray in the face even if he was going for the ball. We can say that Murray shouldn't have been doing was he was but Brown's action was reckless nonetheless.

I agree if it was an English player who was kicked in the face we would be in uproar.

As for the VDF non try it wasn't a try. Kruis held him up.

At least the ref showed consistency in denying both tries.

I think the biggest sin is when a TMO ignore the rules and gives a try when he shouldn't.....

Ugo Moyne said in a post match interview that the question should have been is there any reason a try shouldn't have been awarded because he reckons all logic suggests it was a try.

Also a closer inspection showed that it was a try but you cant blame the TMO for not seeing it and in fairness if I was TMO I would have said no try too.

Try yes or no:

beshocked wrote:There is no conclusive evidence to show it was a try.

I'm happy to see a try chalked out in that circumstance and at least there was consistency.

If Hartley's non try was disallowed there's no way the VDF non try should be given.

Seen much worse TMO work than this match.

Of course it wasn't a legal try. If it had been, we wouldn't be talking about it. You said he was 'held up'. Nope, even the TMO didn't say 'held up' but inconclusive as I recall.

Not seen.... no try. But we all know 'Nose tap and '. A great inverted commas "Try"!!!!

Why is Mike Brown in a permanent state of anger anyway? Anyone know? Himself and Farrell seem to be permanently riled up. I'd say one of them will cop a red card soon enough. Ireland really should have targeted them much more.

By contrast Dylan Hartley seems to be a delightful chap these days.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

That simply isn't logical. We can't both be wrong, and as I'm always right, you must be wrong. Makes perfect sense.

Are we saying that Brown wasn't cited because the citing officers didn't want to go through a hearing with Brown staring at them

lostinwales wrote:Are we saying that Brown wasn't cited because the citing officers didn't want to go through a hearing with Brown staring at them

They feared he might want 6 months rather than one match...like I say, he gotta reputation to uphold. He'd have tried to bribe them into giving him longer on the sidelines.

"One week is for P***ies, mate!!! Frak you! *head butt*

So no citing for Brown - all the official who all know a lot more than we do rules no case to answer - so thats that then. I am suprised tho

Officials know more than us????????????!!!!!!!!

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:Hartley "try" - he is clearly stopped short on the replay.  So there is no way for the ball to move forward legally after that as he has had his chance to place the ball and been unable to do so.  Correct decision IMO

ON the Brown incident - reckless / dangerous use of the boot in a ruck is a long standing penalty - you can use your feet but you cannot be reckless / dangerous.  He was near  / made contact with the ball which is why no red card but given he makes contact with a players head no matter what that player is doing a penalty for foul play should have been given IMO - lets see what the citing commissioner says.  Its not a deliberate kick to the head so no red card

Why wasn't he able to place the ball. You feel that Hartley propelled himself over the line?

He wasn't able to place the ball forwards due to his position / the position of the other players. No matter how you try to spin it there is no way the ball can go from being grounded short to over the try line legally

SecretFly wrote:Officials know more than us????????????!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable isn't it?

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

That simply isn't logical. We can't both be wrong, and as I'm always right, you must be wrong. Makes perfect sense.

I think everybody is wrong and you're right Munch

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

TJ wrote:Hartley "try" - he is clearly stopped short on the replay.  So there is no way for the ball to move forward legally after that as he has had his chance to place the ball and been unable to do so.  Correct decision IMO

ON the Brown incident - reckless / dangerous use of the boot in a ruck is a long standing penalty - you can use your feet but you cannot be reckless / dangerous.  He was near  / made contact with the ball which is why no red card but given he makes contact with a players head no matter what that player is doing a penalty for foul play should have been given IMO - lets see what the citing commissioner says.  Its not a deliberate kick to the head so no red card

Why wasn't he able to place the ball. You feel that Hartley propelled himself over the line?

He wasn't able to place the ball forwards due to his position / the position of the other players.  No matter how you try to spin it there is no way the ball can go from being grounded short to over the try line legally

I've never seen a situation like this, I've said I could see several options none of which were the actual outcome. Do you think hartley propelled himself over the line? If not it wasn't the correct decision.

beshocked wrote:There is no conclusive evidence to show it was a try.

I'm happy to see a try chalked out in that circumstance and at least there was consistency.

If Hartley's non try was disallowed there's no way the VDF non try should be given.

Seen much worse TMO work than this match.

It depends on the question asked - "any reason not to award the try" the TMO has to see something to show the try should not have been given inconclusive = try
"Try yes or no" TMO has to see something that shows a try was scored - inconclusive = no try

If Brown was deemed reckless he would have been cited. Therefore what he did was legal. Murray was wrong to continue to play the ball while on the floor. Murray was brave but reckless for his own safety. If what Brown did was reckless then allowing lawes to tackle a small No9 is reckless too. Rugby is a tough game.

Perhaps Brown should be cited for taking a backward step, onto Murray's forehead. Now that really would be a slur on Brown's reputation.......

Move on. Things don't change much on this site do they???!!!

TJ wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Officials know more than us????????????!!!!!!!!

Unbelievable isn't it?  

Well, apart from the joking...I'd say it probably is a little unbelievable, given that 30 or 40 people in here certainly seem to watch more rugby more closely - with repeated slow mo viewings of past games - than I'd say any of the officials do.

So maybe my self-effacing joke about the 606 crew actually has a ring of truth to it.... maybe the three or four or seven or eight officials that might be involved in citing commisions simply don't know as much about rugby as this collective?  Maybe I'd win a bet on that.

Recwatcher16 wrote:Perhaps Brown should be cited for taking a backward step, onto Murray's forehead. Now that really would be a slur on Brown's reputation.......

Move on. Things don't change much on this site do they???!!!

Nope - people still kick fun out of citings and non-citings. Now where's the harm in that?

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

That simply isn't logical. We can't both be wrong, and as I'm always right, you must be wrong. Makes perfect sense.

I think everybody is wrong and you're right Munch

Now that can't be right either. Plenty agree with me that Brown was reckless.

However those who matter - and who are trained in understanding the laws do not agree that Brown was reckless. I assume because he made contact / was very close to the ball - careless use of the boot is usually given when nowhere near the ball

One thing that is very obvious reading comments on reffing on here is how poor our knowledge of the laws often is - and how little awareness of the poverty of our knowledge is shown.

To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

TJ wrote:However those who matter - and who are trained in understanding the laws do not agree that Brown was reckless.  I assume because he made contact / was very close to the ball - careless use of the boot is usually given when nowhere near the ball

One thing that is very obvious reading comments on reffing on here is how poor our knowledge of the laws often is - and how little awareness of the poverty of our knowledge is shown.

Try telling all that to the biggest lawgivers of all, TJ................... the refs themselves.  A few of them would be better off chatting on here with the rest of us idiots.  

Ce la Vie - just because you wear a Police Uniform doesn't make you always an ideal cop.

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

That simply isn't logical. We can't both be wrong, and as I'm always right, you must be wrong. Makes perfect sense.

I think everybody is wrong and you're right Munch

Now that can't be right either. Plenty agree with me that Brown was reckless.

I'd give you reckless perhaps but it wasn't illegal.

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Perhaps Brown should be cited for taking a backward step, onto Murray's forehead. Now that really would be a slur on Brown's reputation.......

Move on. Things don't change much on this site do they???!!!

Nope - people still kick fun out of citings and non-citings.  Now where's the harm in that?

True I guess, if folk think it might have changed the result or just giving a player a deserved sanction for a panto villain status but what player when they see a route to the ball isn't going to take it... Anyway thought Ireland did well with the players available. If the centres had some pace and slicker hands they could have pinched it.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Perhaps Brown should be cited for taking a backward step, onto Murray's forehead. Now that really would be a slur on Brown's reputation.......

Move on. Things don't change much on this site do they???!!!

Nope - people still kick fun out of citings and non-citings.  Now where's the harm in that?

True I guess, if folk think it might have changed the result or just giving a player a deserved sanction for a panto villain status but what player when they see a route to the ball isn't going to take it... Anyway thought Ireland did well with the players available. If the centres had some pace and slicker hands they could have pinched it.

I'm not looking for a citing.  Brown had the usual rush of blood to the head in an intense game...you can't ask any more of any player than to be fully emotionally involved.  He wasn't being malicious, I don't think anybody would come to that judgement.  Just fired up to the highest level - like usual.

But the theory of when a kick is an accident, a reckless decision or plain malicious is still an interesting rugby argument enough for people to engage with.

Brown is at this point a vaguely humourous 'naughty' lad on the field with a school yard 'fisticuffs readiness' about him - though I do tend to fantasise about one day his abrasiveness being rewarded with a straight knockdown by a player that's prepared to take a red card to make a resounding point to Mr Angry.  That'd be fun and some nice drawma.
He's a bit of a Jack Russell nuisance going around always ready to take personal offence at anything that moves at one time or another rather than being in any way a nasty or dirty player.  You might say one of rugby's new/ish 'Characters'.... and I suppose we need a few.

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Recwatcher16 wrote:Perhaps Brown should be cited for taking a backward step, onto Murray's forehead. Now that really would be a slur on Brown's reputation.......

Move on. Things don't change much on this site do they???!!!

Nope - people still kick fun out of citings and non-citings.  Now where's the harm in that?

True I guess, if folk think it might have changed the result or just giving a player a deserved sanction for a panto villain status but what player when they see a route to the ball isn't going to take it... Anyway thought Ireland did well with the players available. If the centres had some pace and slicker hands they could have pinched it.

I'm not looking for a citing.  Brown had the usual rush of blood to the head in an intense game...you can't ask any more of any player than to be fully emotionally involved.  He wasn't being malicious, I don't think anybody would come to that judgement.  Just fired up to the highest level - like usual.

But the theory of when a kick is an accident, a reckless decision or plain malicious is still an interesting rugby argument enough for people to engage with.

Brown is at this point a vaguely humourous 'naughty' lad on the field with a school yard 'fisticuffs readiness' about him  - though I do tend to fantasise about one day his abrasiveness being rewarded with a straight knockdown by a player that's prepared to take a red card to make a resounding point to Mr Angry.  That'd be fun and some nice drawma.
He's a bit of a Jack Russell nuisance going around always ready to take personal offence at anything that moves at one time or another rather than being in any way a nasty or dirty player.  You might say one of rugby's new/ish 'Characters'.... and I suppose we need a few.

What's Trevor Brennan doing these days?

Trevor can't take the drawma no more!

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

To be honest guys, I hate to say it but Joe is turning into Eddie and Deccie, he must have been in Ireland too long.

All spin and diversion tactics to cover up for the fact his selection is all wrong and the team are playing total rubbish, headless chicken rugby.

Being employed by the irfu will get to anyone I suppose.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

munkian wrote:No citing for Brown 'shocker'

Huge suprise as he didn't actually do anything wrong....

Yes he did. He was reckless. All this proves is that the citing commission/officer is a joke.

I respect your opinion but it's wrong.

That simply isn't logical. We can't both be wrong, and as I'm always right, you must be wrong. Makes perfect sense.

I think everybody is wrong and you're right Munch

Now that can't be right either. Plenty agree with me that Brown was reckless.

I'd give you reckless perhaps but it wasn't illegal.

I'm sure reckless is illegal, but I get your point. Maybe 8 stitches to the face, and very close to the eye, after repeated kicks around the head area, just wasn't reckless enough for the citing commissioner, but I disagree with him/them. I've seen much less being cited, and with the player being banned. Whatever the opinion on this incident, the citing commission isn't consistent.

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

To be honest guys, I hate to say it but Joe is turning into Eddie and Deccie, he must have been in Ireland too long.

All spin and diversion tactics to cover up for the fact his selection is all wrong and the team are playing total rubbish, headless chicken rugby.

Being employed by the irfu will get to anyone I suppose.

I don't think many would disagree that we were beat by the better team, rodders. I certainly wouldn't. We look a shambles.

But you did have chances. A probable try disallowed, try saving tackle by Nowell and one other near-try that I forget now.

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

To be honest guys, I hate to say it but Joe is turning into Eddie and Deccie, he must have been in Ireland too long.

All spin and diversion tactics to cover up for the fact his selection is all wrong and the team are playing total rubbish, headless chicken rugby.

Being employed by the irfu will get to anyone I suppose.

I didn't think Ireland were that bad at the weekend! Some great line breaks, particularly from Sexton. What was "all wrong" about the team selection?

This is the problem with being a Scotland fan, everyone else looks awesome.

Munchkin now you are being a bit of a drama queen. It wasn't repeated kicks around the head was it. It was repeated rucking attempts at the ball. All perfectly legal.

We look awesome???

Lots of shock talk in here today. Gaspy stuff.

Let it be known I think we're genuinely the least likely team to cut through melting butter with a hot knife in the NH right now. Scotland look like the All Blacks in comparison.... and Italy at least pretend they have more shapes than us in attack.

englandglory4ever wrote:Munchkin now you are being a bit of a drama queen. It wasn't repeated kicks around the head was it. It was repeated rucking attempts at the ball. All perfectly legal.

You calling me a drama queen..... That's funny. I would have to dress in drag to compete with you.

Your warped version of the incident doesn't surprise. It was reckless. End of. You don't agree, that's fine, but then you would have to explain why other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences?

Munchkin wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

To be honest guys, I hate to say it but Joe is turning into Eddie and Deccie, he must have been in Ireland too long.

All spin and diversion tactics to cover up for the fact his selection is all wrong and the team are playing total rubbish, headless chicken rugby.

Being employed by the irfu will get to anyone I suppose.

I don't think many would disagree that we were beat by the better team, rodders. I certainly wouldn't. We look a shambles.

Worst Irish team in 20 odd years, and you guys all know I'm not one to exaggerate things.

Someone cite this f**ker Rodders please. He's bad for morale and kicks people when they're down!

rodders wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

rodders wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:To be honest the only reason Ireland lost was because Mike Brown stood on Conor Murray's eye.

To be honest guys, I hate to say it but Joe is turning into Eddie and Deccie, he must have been in Ireland too long.

All spin and diversion tactics to cover up for the fact his selection is all wrong and the team are playing total rubbish, headless chicken rugby.

Being employed by the irfu will get to anyone I suppose.

I don't think many would disagree that we were beat by the better team, rodders. I certainly wouldn't. We look a shambles.

Worst Irish team in 20 odd years, and you guys all know I'm not one to exaggerate things.

Sure we all know you're not given to hyperbole, rodders

[quote="funnyExiledScot"]

rodders wrote:

I didn't think Ireland were that bad at the weekend! Some great line breaks, particularly from Sexton. What was "all wrong" about the team selection?

This is the problem with being a Scotland fan, everyone else looks awesome.

You obviously missed Friday night's match then.

GunsGerms wrote:

beshocked wrote:I like Brown, good player but don't condone him kicking Murray in the face even if he was going for the ball. We can say that Murray shouldn't have been doing was he was but Brown's action was reckless nonetheless.

I agree if it was an English player who was kicked in the face we would be in uproar.

As for the VDF non try it wasn't a try. Kruis held him up.

At least the ref showed consistency in denying both tries.

I think the biggest sin is when a TMO ignore the rules and gives a try when he shouldn't.....

Ugo Moyne said in a post match interview that the question should have been is there any reason a try shouldn't have been awarded because he reckons all logic suggests it was a try.

Also a closer inspection showed that it was a try but you cant blame the TMO for not seeing it and in fairness if I was TMO I would have said no try too.

Try yes or no:

Logic doesn't suggest it was a try at all in real time hence why the question was correctly; Try or no try. It isn't clear at all in that picture what is the ball and what is Kruis' hand but I suppose we all see what we want to see.

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Munchkin now you are being a bit of a drama queen. It wasn't repeated kicks around the head was it. It was repeated rucking attempts at the ball. All perfectly legal.

You calling me a drama queen..... That's funny. I would have to dress in drag to compete with you.

Your warped version of the incident doesn't surprise. It was reckless. End of. You don't agree, that's fine, but then you would have to explain why other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences?

Err why? Three refs, tmo, and citing commissioner all unanimously agree with me. Its not just me that says you are wrong and being all blousy about it doesn't help.

What a joke and corrupt game rugby has become, but that's what happen when money is involved and this will be my last words on the matter.

You lost the game Vince, get over it.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Munchkin now you are being a bit of a drama queen. It wasn't repeated kicks around the head was it. It was repeated rucking attempts at the ball. All perfectly legal.

You calling me a drama queen..... That's funny. I would have to dress in drag to compete with you.

Your warped version of the incident doesn't surprise. It was reckless. End of. You don't agree, that's fine, but then you would have to explain why other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences?

Err why? Three refs, tmo, and citing commissioner all unanimously agree with me. Its not just me that says you are wrong and being all blousy about it doesn't help.

First of all, it was one ref and the TMO who made the call. Next, just because they made that call, doesn't mean that they got it right, and that includes the citing officer. Now, unless you agree with all refs decisions, all TMO decisions, and all citing officer decisions, you will find fault in your logic (shouldn't be difficult, although you might need someone to point it out for you).

So, have you never disagreed with any ruling? Never? I look forward to catching you out.

P.s seeing as you obviously need support in making your choices, it isn't just me that says you're wrong.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with that ruling, you're just plain wrong.