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

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There was absolutely nothing wrong with that ruling, you're just plain wrong.

And I'm supposed to take your word for it, Precious? Sure......

Munchkin wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There was absolutely nothing wrong with that ruling, you're just plain wrong.

 

And I'm supposed to take your word for it, Precious? Sure......

I presume you were shouting for poc to be cited, found guilty and then banned for this?

Ouch! Forgot how nasty that was...

Comfortable win for England in the end. couldnt believe after 30 minutes and the stats were 230m made england, 19 ireland, and yet the score was only 6-3.

i think both non-trys should have been given. maybe poite felt the need to even it up subconsciously. who knows.

i felt ireland were a tad lucky to not get pinged more and carded in the first half when they kept slowing the ball down on their 5 yard line. but it wasnt blatant so well done them for getting away with it.

england again a few really stupid pens that concede kickable points from the 10 yard line when the opposition are going...NOWHERE! dan cole, playing much better post RWC, but still seems to concede at least 1 dumb open play pen that results in 3 points for oppo.

i like mike brown a lot. hes not dirty at all. yes hes mouthy and aggressive, but hes not dirty. i bet hes the second name on the teamsheet at present. ref, tmo and citing commissioner agree there was nothing to talk about with kickgate.

farrell however, i wouldnt be sorry to see dropped if he gives another high or late cheapshot that results in 3 points or a card. to be honest hes only at 12 for his kicking, although he has played solidly there this 6N. whether he should be at 10 instead of ford is a better question. i am marginally in favour of ford, but its much closer than i thought it would be for me.

ireland were unbelievable in defense, but it took its toll as the game wore in ineitably. i thought the much vaunted cj stander however was a liability in that match and he was lucky not to get yellowed for repeated unnecessary penalties. sexton and murray unfortunately not firing either. liked your new combative 12. did great on such a big occasion. huge potential. trimble had a few shockers, and earls and zebo have pretty feet but rarely break through against an organised defense. irelands two best attacks both involved a forward subtly blocking the tackler as sexton looped around. one got pinged first half, the other didnt (rightfully) and only nowell saved an almost certain try.

great game. but i bet both sets of fans were a bit frustrated.

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

Are you trying to say Mr Angry is of a certain Principality in the West of a certain island that consists of three countries?

He would dragon you through hell if he thought that, if word leeks out you're likely to be pushing up the daffodils, he'll be spitting feathers, you better run through the valleys and head for the hills.

Munchkin. Quit before you look too silly. Ref plus 2 others acting as assistant refs, plus tmo plus citing officials all disagree with you. And so do I.

and also. sexton could have had 2 yellow cards for 2 very deliberate knockons. one england still scored their first try from. the second the ref missed completely when england had a 4 man overlap in the second half. he got away with both so fair play. but i wouldnt be surprised if teams playing against ireland highlight his swinging arm going for the ball in future matches...

GunsGerms wrote:...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...

Monye has also suggested referees should be allowed to put their question after having a look at the footage. That assumes the ref can always see the footage, mind you. There are a couple of stadiums in Japan where there are no screens.

actually the first one was mccloskey not sexton. apologies.

Nice to see you Quins! You been having a break?

hey stub. yes, just been busy with some other stuff. still mad about rugby though. going through my usual post 6N weekend ritual of watching scrumv now...

Always interesting to watch Scrumv's take on things - haven't done that for a bit.

hard to see past an england win in 2 weeks tbh...home advantage...much better morale and team spirit than RWC...a coach with some tactical nous...the opportunity to redress the RWC loss...very strong set piece...

its not going to be anywhere near as close as some people think.

Ah quinners, you are back? Where have you been?

quinsforever wrote:hard to see past an england win in 2 weeks tbh...home advantage...much better morale and team spirit than RWC...a coach with some tactical nous...the opportunity to redress the RWC loss...very strong set piece...

its not going to be anywhere near as close as some people think.

I hope that you're right on that one but I'm not so sure. I think the coach will help for sure but has he had long enough to strengthen the mindset sufficiently? I hope so...

hey sin e.

i have been reading on here, especially the european club games. but to be honest its been fairly quiet and uncontroversial here. there has been no need for quins the peacemaker

stub, re the mindset. let the boys have their head. they want revenge. i love that billy v now feels like hes enjoying his england rugby. lancaster held england back with his no fun approach. eddie's role is to keep them patient and not concede silly penalties in biggar-able range.

anyway, i'm off for at least the next couple of weeks. stay safe and be nice everyone

quinsforever wrote:stub, re the mindset. let the boys have their head. they want revenge. i love that billy v now feels like hes enjoying his england rugby. lancaster held england back with his no fun approach. eddie's role is to keep them patient and not concede silly penalties in biggar-able range.

That is going to be key. Joubert could be the wild card.

nathan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:There was absolutely nothing wrong with that ruling, you're just plain wrong.

 

And I'm supposed to take your word for it, Precious? Sure......

I presume you were shouting for poc to be cited, found guilty and then banned for this?

Seriously, Nathan, why do you, and a few others on here, spout this nonsense? POC isn't the issue. That was then, this is now, things have moved on from then, especially in the area of discipline. Just to answer your petulant comment, Yes, I do think POC should have been cited, and I was really surprised he wasn't. To take that further, if it had have been an Irish player that had kicked an English player, I would feel, and think, the exact same way.

Here's someone else who is baffled at Brown being let off:

Former prop Jeff Probyn is surprised Mike Brown was not cited following England's Six Nations win over Ireland.

"I am surprised that he hasn't been cited but in reality he's got away with it," said Probyn, who made 37 appearances for England.

"I was at Twickenham and the big screen showed it over again and everyone was a little bit puzzled why Danny Care, not Brown, got yellow carded." (BBC)

munchkin. nice to see you.

the ref, tmo and citing commissioner are professional refs. each of whom had their own opinion that there was not even a penalty. probyn is not a ref.

does that answer your question?

quinsforever wrote:munchkin. nice to see you.

the ref, tmo and citing commissioner are professional refs. each of whom had their own opinion that there was not even a penalty. probyn is not a ref.

does that answer your question?

No it doesn't. Refer back to my previous comments...

Enough of that. Great to see you back, quins. It must be an age since you have posted here

The referee and TMO decided Brown didn't warrant a yellow card, while the citing officer decided it didn't warrant a red.

That settles the matter officially but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the decision. Jonathan Kaplan thinks it warranted a citing and - I haven't seen his actual comments to check - apparently believes Brown deserved red.

As Nathan points out, there's no precedent being set here, because decisions are all over the map when it comes to accidental kicks to the head, or even use of feet in rucks. POC and Tom Wood went unpunished, while James Horwill escaped sanction when his foot caught AWJ's head during the Lions tour.

I would accept punishment for Brown if it was consistent with other incidents. The fact top officials thought it didn't warrant even a penalty, while one former top referee thinks it was a red card action, suggests we are all over the map.

Steve Walsh (from an interview I just made up) on the Mike Brown - Conor Murray incident:

Mike Brown didn't merit a red card despite his foot impacting against some blokes head.
Rather, a 10 game ban just because Brown in English
And finally a lifetime ban because Conor Murray normally has really nicely coiffed hair, and to mess it up is a crime.

Eggchasers podcast points out that the relevant law is this:

16.3 (f) A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground. A player rucking for the ball must try to step over players on the ground and must not intentionally step on them. A player rucking must do so near the ball.

It may be an anomaly when we look at how other parts of the game are refereed, but the law clearly says that a player's intention is key. Once the officials decided Brown's contact was accidental, then that was the end of the matter.

There's talk about whether Brown was reckless but, as far as I can tell, "reckless" only comes into consideration at a disciplinary panel when an action has already been sanctioned, and the panel is weighing up want kind of punishment to award.

Of course, we do have Law 10 which governs dangerous play but, as Joe Schmidt noted, the laws of the game allow the use of the boot at a ruck, so that alone would not count as dangerous.

If we want more clarity, then perhaps the law needs to rule out use of the boot, or else apply the kind of duty of care standard which we now regularly see in lifting tackles or mid-air collisions.

Rugby Fan wrote:The referee and TMO decided Brown didn't warrant a yellow card, while the citing officer decided it didn't warrant a red.

That settles the matter officially but it doesn't mean everyone has to agree with the decision. Jonathan Kaplan thinks it warranted a citing and - I haven't seen his actual comments to check - apparently believes Brown deserved red.

As Nathan points out, there's no precedent being set here, because decisions are all over the map when it comes to accidental kicks to the head, or even use of feet in rucks. POC and Tom Wood went unpunished, while James Horwill escaped sanction when his foot caught AWJ's head during the Lions tour.

I would accept punishment for Brown if it was consistent with other incidents. The fact top officials thought it didn't warrant even a penalty, while one former top referee thinks it was a red card action, suggests we are all over the map.

How can decisions be all over the place regarding "even use of feet in rucks"? The feet are the only things that can legally be used as the use of hands is a penalty offence except for picking the ball out of the back of a ruck.

Exiledinborders wrote:How can decisions be all over the place regarding "even use of feet in rucks"? The feet are the only things that can legally be used...

I'm talking about when feet are used for anything other than kicking. Decisions are all over the place as the Horwill case showed.

Sort yourselves out England fans. Love England Ireland games and love England rugby but you would be crying into your cornflakes if an Irish player stood on Brown's eye just as you cried for weeks when Healy stamped on Cole and just as Mike Brown is a hypocrite for being incensed for this incident in November:

http://www.balls.ie/rugby/mike-brown-in-november-that-stray-boot-nearly-took-his-eye-out/326049

Some of the English reaction has been hilarious. Guscott almost cried when he said "but, but he hasn't done anything wrong" on rugby special on Sunday night. Sort yourselves out lads.

GunsGerms wrote:Sort yourselves out England fans. Love England Ireland games and love England rugby but you would be crying into your cornflakes if an Irish player stood on Brown's eye just as you cried for weeks when Healy stamped on Cole and just as Mike Brown is a hypocrite for being incensed for this incident in November:

http://www.balls.ie/rugby/mike-brown-in-november-that-stray-boot-nearly-took-his-eye-out/326049

Some of the English reaction has been hilarious. Guscott almost cried when he said "but, but he hasn't done anything wrong" on rugby special on Sunday night. Sort yourselves out lads.

Ha Ha nice one Guns, what a hypocrite. That incident Brown was in tears about was completely accidental and the player didn't hang around continuing to swing his boot around Easter's face. Perhaps Brown should take to twitter (such an aptly named site) again calling for his own banning.

Personally I believe an accident's an accident and no matter how much care you take they will always happen in what's a very physical sport. I've seen players banned for much less than what Brown did but in this case I think good sense has prevailed. Accidents will continue to happen unless we remove the physicality from rugby and call it tiddley-winks

I agree. I actually don't like Brown at all. He is constantly motoring around with a pi$$ed off face and an attitude that makes Hartley look like a saint. However, I do believe that this was an accident. Accident or not though he should have been cited over it because it was reckless and at the very least he should have to explain his actions even if it means giving him the benefit of the doubt and letting him off.

Brown was accidental, wouldn't have minded a citing to look further at it publically, but Healy was deliberate and not going for the ball. Main differences for me.

News just in from Twickers that 'Happy Feet' Brown signed up by Riverdance for their next world tour.Starring in the section of the show called 'On Yer Head,Mate' fellow performers will wear protective head gear to prevent accidental and non-intentional contact with their craniums.

GunsGerms wrote:...you would be crying into your cornflakes if an Irish player stood on Brown's eye just as you cried for weeks when Healy stamped on Cole...

Well, that works the other way round, of course. If you think the incidents are comparable, then anyone who finds Healy blameless while wanting Brown disciplined would also be inconsistent. If the incidents aren't comparable, then you need to say why.

In the case of Rees, it's easy to say the incidents aren't comparable because a panel found Rees guilty while Brown was deemed innocent. It's fair to disagree with that judgement, but the debate doesn't go very far if you don't lay out the grounds for doing so.

exile jack wrote:News just in from Twickers that 'Happy Feet' Brown signed up by Riverdance for their next world tour.Starring in the section of the show called 'On Yer Head,Mate' fellow performers will wear protective head gear to prevent accidental and non-intentional contact with their craniums.

Murray the diver is touted to become the next world champ at Diving. He's also really good at mud wrestling on the floor with pigs. Says he never let's go no matter what happens..

I actually think the Brown/Murray thing is similar to the Parling/North thing last year. It wasn't great and caused North a lot of pain long term but nobody was saying anything other than it was an accident.

The only points of difference seem to be that Brown tried several kicks FOR THE BALL when there was only one kick in Parling vs North.

englandglory4ever wrote:

exile jack wrote:News just in from Twickers that 'Happy Feet' Brown signed up by Riverdance for their next world tour.Starring in the section of the show called 'On Yer Head,Mate' fellow performers will wear protective head gear to prevent accidental and non-intentional contact with their craniums.

Murray the diver is touted to become the next world champ at Diving. He's also really good at mud wrestling on the floor with pigs. Says he never let's go no matter what happens..

So you resort to painting the victim in a bad light? Show's what a wonderful character you are.....

Rugby Fan wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:...you would be crying into your cornflakes if an Irish player stood on Brown's eye just as you cried for weeks when Healy stamped on Cole...

Well, that works the other way round, of course. If you think the incidents are comparable, then anyone who finds Healy blameless while wanting Brown disciplined would also be inconsistent. If the incidents aren't comparable, then you need to say why.

In the case of Rees, it's easy to say the incidents aren't comparable because a panel found Rees guilty while Brown was deemed innocent. It's fair to disagree with that judgement, but the debate doesn't go very far if you don't lay out the grounds for doing so.

Never said Healy was blameless at all. He got a two match ban which was fair enough IMO. At the time though you would be forgiven for believing that someone had died such was the reaction from the BBC and England fans alike despite fairly cynical play from Dan Cole (slowing down the ball).

I just find it amusing that when an England player does something quite dangerous even if unintentional all of a sudden it is all fair in love and war again because to quote Jeremy Guscott as he whimpered "but he was holding onto the ball". Come on, get a grip lads.

Murray was not the tackled player. He arrived later and dived on the floor to grab the ball and then stayed there hanging on for dear life. He should have been penalised for going off his feet and holding on at the ruck. This is what prompted Brown who came in from onside on his feet to ruck at the ball. If Murray had been legal none of this would have happened. I suppose you agree that what POC did was alright.

This bit is too funny for words. "So you resort to painting the victim in a bad light? Show's what a wonderful character you are....."

So you resort to painting an innocent man as guilty. Who wants to kill a mocking bird. Shows what you're like, not nice.

lostinwales wrote:I actually think the Brown/Murray thing is similar to the Parling/North thing last year. It wasn't great and caused North a lot of pain long term but nobody was saying anything other than it was an accident.

The only points of difference seem to be that Brown tried several kicks FOR THE BALL when there was only one kick in Parling vs North.

It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. It was reckless, and it did deserve to be cited. I base that on the fact that other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences.
For me, this isn't about Brown, or any England player. It's about the lack of consistency with citing commissioners, and citing panels.

englandglory4ever wrote:Murray was not the tackled player. He arrived later and dived on the floor to grab the ball and then stayed there hanging on for dear life. He should have been penalised for going off his feet and holding on at the ruck. This is what prompted Brown who came in from onside on his feet to ruck at the ball. If Murray had been legal none of this would have happened. I suppose you agree that what POC did was alright.

This bit is too funny for words. "So you resort to painting the victim in a bad light? Show's what a wonderful character you are....."

So you resort to painting an innocent man as guilty. Who wants to kill a mocking bird. Shows what you're like, not nice.

What POC did was wrong. Now what's your point?

I agree initial penalty should be against Murray who is clearly hanging on to the ball.

The real issue is Kicking through the ruck should be banned.

It isn't, so technically Brown didn't do anything wrong other than be a bit reckless, which was penalized end of story.

To me this just distracts from the fact that England were average and Ireland were terrible.

rodders wrote:I agree initial penalty should be against Murray who is clearly hanging on to the ball.

The real issue is Kicking through the ruck should be banned.

It isn't, so technically Brown didn't do anything wrong other than be a bit reckless, which was penalized end of story.

To me this just distracts from the fact that England were average and Ireland were terrible.

It wasn't penalised.

"It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. It was reckless, and it did deserve to be cited. I base that on the fact that other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences. "

It was NOT reckless. Reckless is a word used during the sentencing stage of a citing hearing. A player is either guilty or not guilty of breaking the laws of rugby. "Reckless" is a word used to qualify the level of severity. In this case the citing officer deemed there was no case to answer so it was not reckless as you keep wrongly saying.

englandglory4ever wrote:"It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not. It was reckless, and it did deserve to be cited. I base that on the fact that other players have been cited, and banned, for similar offences. "

It was NOT reckless. Reckless is a word used during the sentencing stage of a citing hearing. A player is either guilty or not guilty of breaking the laws of rugby. "Reckless" is a word used to qualify the level of severity. In this case the citing officer deemed there was no case to answer so it was not reckless as you keep wrongly saying.

Only in your one-eyed world.

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Murray was not the tackled player. He arrived later and dived on the floor to grab the ball and then stayed there hanging on for dear life. He should have been penalised for going off his feet and holding on at the ruck. This is what prompted Brown who came in from onside on his feet to ruck at the ball. If Murray had been legal none of this would have happened. I suppose you agree that what POC did was alright.

This bit is too funny for words. "So you resort to painting the victim in a bad light? Show's what a wonderful character you are....."

So you resort to painting an innocent man as guilty. Who wants to kill a mocking bird. Shows what you're like, not nice.

What POC did was wrong. Now what's your point?

POC was a final throw away. Murray is a diver whose actions contributed significantly to his own injury that's the point. Or can't you read?

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Murray was not the tackled player. He arrived later and dived on the floor to grab the ball and then stayed there hanging on for dear life. He should have been penalised for going off his feet and holding on at the ruck. This is what prompted Brown who came in from onside on his feet to ruck at the ball. If Murray had been legal none of this would have happened. I suppose you agree that what POC did was alright.

This bit is too funny for words. "So you resort to painting the victim in a bad light? Show's what a wonderful character you are....."

So you resort to painting an innocent man as guilty. Who wants to kill a mocking bird. Shows what you're like, not nice.

What POC did was wrong. Now what's your point?

POC was a final throw away. Murray is a diver whose actions contributed significantly to his own injury that's the point. Or can't you read?

You think Murray's injury is a result of him taking a dive? Are you thick?

Munchkin wrote:...It doesn't matter if it was an accident or not...

Under the point of law I quoted above, it does.

I think there's a good argument to be had about all this but, if we want consistency in our game, then it's worth understanding when some laws apply and some don't.

I certainly don't claim to know. In fact, I think all supporters would greatly benefit from World Rugby explaining the principles behind some decision-making otherwise we're left feeling things are too arbitrary.

No Rodders you are wrong.
"It isn't, so technically Brown didn't do anything wrong other than be a bit reckless, which was penalized end of story."

It was not penalised. Brown did nothing wrong. The penalty given and subsequent YC was for Care. Brown did nothing wrong.

To be fair Care really wasn't blocking and did roll away as well. That's more debateable than the Brown incident (assuming you're not debating whether the laws should be changed which is fair enough).

rodders wrote:I agree initial penalty should be against Murray who is clearly hanging on to the ball.

The real issue is Kicking through the ruck should be banned.

It isn't, so technically Brown didn't do anything wrong other than be a bit reckless, which was penalized end of story.

To me this just distracts from the fact that England were average and Ireland were terrible.

How times change - used to be the staple tactic of Ireland in the 70s and 80s. Wasn't it Willie-John McBride that was once hears to say "kick ahead Ireland, kick ahead. Any head..."