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

Can't you read. What I said is that Murray by diving on the ball after the initial tackle was made (Murray was NOT the tackler) and then hanging on to the ball whilst he remained on the floor contributed to his injury. I can't be any clearer no matter how simple some people are.

Rugby Fan wrote:

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.

I'm pretty sure that under law 10.4 c kicking an opposition player, regardless of intent, is punishable, unless intent is actually being taken into consideration now, which I doubt.

There has been numerous citing where the act has been deemed as accidental, yet the act has been punished. Fergus McFadden and Luke Marshall are just two of Irelands players that have been banned for kicking an opponent's head, even though accidental. I will be honest and say that I was angry about Marshall being punished at the time, I didn't think he deserved to be, yet I did accept that it was within the law of the game to do so. What Marshall did seemed much less obvious than what Brown did, yet Brown gets off. I'm not after Brown. It's the inconsistency of the citings that I'm annoyed about.

There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

Can't you read. What I said is that Murray by diving on the ball after the initial tackle was made (Murray was NOT the tackler) and then hanging on to the ball whilst he remained on the floor contributed to his injury. I can't be any clearer no matter how simple some people are.[/quote]

You come out with a statement like that and have the nerve to call other people simple?

englandglory4ever wrote:Munchkin writes:
"You think Murray's injury is a result of him taking a dive? Are you thick?"

Can't you read. What I said is that Murray by diving on the ball after the initial tackle was made (Murray was NOT the tackler) and then hanging on to the ball whilst he remained on the floor contributed to his injury. I can't be any clearer no matter how simple some people are.

He dived on the ball. Diving on the ball does not make him a diver, as you are implying.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Pete330v2 wrote:Can't you read. What I said is that Murray by diving on the ball after the initial tackle was made (Murray was NOT the tackler) and then hanging on to the ball whilst he remained on the floor contributed to his injury. I can't be any clearer no matter how simple some people are.

You come out with a statement like that and have the nerve to call other people simple?[/quote]

If they can't understand the truth then yes, they are simple. Does the truth come as a difficulty for you too?

englandglory4ever wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Can't you read. What I said is that Murray by diving on the ball after the initial tackle was made (Murray was NOT the tackler) and then hanging on to the ball whilst he remained on the floor contributed to his injury. I can't be any clearer no matter how simple some people are.

You come out with a statement like that and have the nerve to call other people simple?

If they can't understand the truth then yes, they are simple. Does the truth come as a difficulty for you too?[/quote]

Ha! you calling me simple. The wonderful irony. Well done for providing the comedy

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

To cite him under 10.4, you'd be saying the use of the boot in a ruck is dangerous. Since boots are all you can use in a ruck, then that becomes problematic.

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Come on mate. He didn't "kick to the head" did he? Why do you keep making up these lies? Is it because you're Irish? Lies won't make the citing officer change his mind will they?

englandglory4ever wrote: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.

Not sure about that. The ref said the penalty was against Brown. He said it doesn't warrant a card but just a penalty or something along those lines (from memory). Care was separately penalised.

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Come on mate. He didn't "kick to the head" did he? Why do you keep making up these lies? Is it because you're Irish? Lies won't make the citing officer change his mind will they?

You really are thick. I would write it in crayon for you if I could.

What do you call the act of striking a person to the head with the foot?

Now, take your time. Get an adult to help you with that one.

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Come on mate. He didn't "kick to the head" did he? Why do you keep making up these lies? Is it because you're Irish? Lies won't make the citing officer change his mind will they?

You really are thick. I would write it in crayon for you if I could.

What do you call the act of striking a person to the head with the foot?

Now, take your time. Get an adult to help you with that one.

It would be an incorrect use of the citing process then as that rule doesn't ccover this instance, you'd have to apply the ruck rules, unless you don't think it was a ruck?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Come on mate. He didn't "kick to the head" did he? Why do you keep making up these lies? Is it because you're Irish? Lies won't make the citing officer change his mind will they?

You really are thick. I would write it in crayon for you if I could.

What do you call the act of striking a person to the head with the foot?

Now, take your time. Get an adult to help you with that one.

It would be an incorrect use of the citing process then as that rule doesn't ccover this instance, you'd have to apply the ruck rules, unless you don't think it was a ruck?

Or if you were particularly thick.

Guns

The difficulty is that Poite had blown for the penalty to Ireland before reviewing the video of Brown's attempts to kick the ball away - I think he'd initially given the penalty against Haskell for being off his feet, although it could have been for Care not rolling away (difficult with a midget like Haskell lying on top of him...). His comment re Brown's actions were that he judged it a penalty offence only, not meriting a card.

Two Laws potentially applicable:

Law 10.4c: "(c) Kicking. A player must not kick an opponent. "

Law 16.4f :"(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."

Now, clearly under 16.4f the intent is a major component - 'intentionally', 'try to' both make this far less than abosolute.

Law 10.4c is an absolute. The question is whether what Brown did constituted a kick on Murray. To me it didn't, in that he was attempting to kick the ball and only caught Murray when trying to regain his footing when pushed in the ruck. To me (and to the example video on the World Rugby laws website), a kick is a usually forward motion of the leg and foot with an aim to make contact with something.

Of course I like the irony that we are discussing Brown kicking or not Connor Murray when Brown himself missed most of last year's 6Ns after taking a kick to the head when diving on a loose ball.

Gosh, it's usually only the England vs Wales threads that stoop to this level of silliness.

The game is done, the better team won and all citings etc. have been finished with. Rightly or wrongly Brown has been cleared to play against Wales.

I thought it was only us Scots who whinged after games.....

Jimpy wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:There's a specific law already stated above which states it has to be deliberate. You could say it deserved a citing but it would have been thrown out.

If he was cited under that law then I would agree, but if he was cited under the law 10.4 c then obviously he could be cited, and punished, for kicking to the head, even if accidental.

Come on mate. He didn't "kick to the head" did he? Why do you keep making up these lies? Is it because you're Irish? Lies won't make the citing officer change his mind will they?

You really are thick. I would write it in crayon for you if I could.

What do you call the act of striking a person to the head with the foot?

Now, take your time. Get an adult to help you with that one.

It would be an incorrect use of the citing process then as that rule doesn't ccover this instance, you'd have to apply the ruck rules, unless you don't think it was a ruck?

Or if you were particularly thick.

It doesn't matter if it was a ruck. It was a reckless use of the boot, and the provision for citing is already provided under law 10.4 c. Remember, the ref didn't rule that it was ok because it was a ruck. He ruled that it was accidental. The issue with that is that 'accidental' is taking intent into account, when intent supposedly isn't, or shouldn't be, a factor when considering punishment.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Gosh, it's usually only the England vs Wales threads that stoop to this level of silliness.

The game is done, the better team won and all citings etc. have been finished with. Rightly or wrongly Brown has been cleared to play against Wales.

I thought it was only us Scots who whinged after games.....

I think it's healthy enough to debate these issue's, so long as you're a bit thick skinned, and don't have a breakdown.

The problem with some decisions is the lack of clarity, otherwise these debates wouldn't happen, and sometimes having these decision helps bring clarity, even if the conclusion is that the citing process, the laws, need to be clarified

Munchkin, the rule you need to look at is the specfic one for rucks unless you think it wasn't a ruck? That law does judge intent.

I don't understand why Rees stamping down on Easter's head because he was on the wrong side is being compared with Brown kicking the ball and then catching Murray on the back swing. One was a clear attempt to dislodge the ball (legal), the other was an attempt to dislodge the player (illegal).

Using the boot in a ruck is dangerous. So is tackling. Both are legal. I wouldn't have any problem with them deciding that it's too dangerous and banning it (there is almost always someone on the floor with their head near the ball and any kicking of the ball could easily result in someone getting kicked in the head).

As for those other examples of bans.

Luke Marshall (I presume it's this one?)
http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/luke-marshall-ban-five-weeks-head-kick/16208

As Marshall is coming back he sticks the his foot to pull the ball back, this is from an offside position (15.6d). So, Marshall makes contact with a player's face through an illegal act. Brown's was a legal act (ignoring whether either would be classed as reckless). That's ignoring the fact from that angle (the only one I have seen of this), he doesn't even look close to getting the ball. Brown actually kicked the ball and would have dislodged it if Murray hadn't held one (although the contact probably would have still be made). The outcome may well have been worse but the act itself wasn't.

Fergus McFadden (is it this one?)
http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/video-fergus-mcfadden-is-cited-for-alleged-stamp-in-leinsters-win-over-connacht/57591

If some I can't even see the similarity here. McFadden seems to kick down on the Connacht players head (who is away from the ball but on the wrong side). The as McFadden goes down and regains his feet he seems to do it again. That is, much like the Rees on Easter one, seemingly to deliberately ruck the player and catching the head. One again, an illegal act that resulted in contact with the head.

Are there any examples of anyone legally rucking for the ball being banned after contact with the head?

I see nothing wrong with the idea that this sort of act should be banned because it is dangerous. But the only way you can really do it is to ban rucking for the ball.

Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

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..

As I view the video Brown makes at least 5 attempts to kick the ball and rakes Murray once.Presumably he knew where both the ball and Murray's head were or else he's kicking out and raking regardless.Either way he's doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and possible results(stitches near the eye rather than eye loss).Your suggestion that the mitigating circumstances were Murray was acting illegally is probably the same argument Guirado used when he damaged Kearney's AC joint and finished his season.Both Kearney and Murray now know that having the ball can lead to serious injury without any risk of sanction to the perpetrator.It's a funny old but increasingly dangerous game that must be worrying quite a few parents.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Munchkin, the rule you need to look at is the specfic one for rucks unless you think it wasn't a ruck? That law does judge intent.

I agree that intent is taken into consideration when the citing panel is considering entry, and so on. It is my understanding that the directive is that intent isn't to be taken into consideration when on the field. When it comes to rucking, it is also my understanding that player can't simply act as they wish, as they used to, when using their studs to encourage players to move. Players used to get shredded. Just because the may be a law more specific to the rucks doesn't mean that recklessness may not be cited under another law, such as 10.4 c. I get your point, 7&1/2, and it's fair, but I, and others, do see another side of it.

The only other side is attempting to apply a law that shouldn't be applied to rucking though, that's the issue. I know what you're saying but you're applying it incorrectly. If you think this instance is a ruck then the ruck laws apply; not 10.4.

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Brown was entitles to go for the ball. That's not an issue. The issue is how he did it. It was reckless, and more so because of the repeated attempts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The only other side is attempting to apply a law that shouldn't be applied to rucking though, that's the issue. I know what you're saying but you're applying it incorrectly. If you think this instance is a ruck then the ruck laws apply; not 10.4.

Who says it shouldn't be applied? 10.4 c is there to provide for reckless play. This instant was a reckless use of the boot. That is what law 10.4 c is there to do.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Gosh, it's usually only the England vs Wales threads that stoop to this level of silliness.

The game is done, the better team won and all citings etc. have been finished with. Rightly or wrongly Brown has been cleared to play against Wales.

I thought it was only us Scots who whinged after games.....

Eh wrong. Ireland only lost because England stood on Murray's eye.

Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

My question is would you like a stud in the eye and if not would you be ok if it wasn't penalised?

I really don't Danny Care if Brown was cited or not. Just enjoying listening to England fans squirm in trying to defend a boot to the head.

Anyone think Owen Farrell and Mike Brown are one tantrum away from copping a red card?

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

My question is would you like a stud in the eye and if not would you be ok if it wasn't penalised?

I wouldn't like a stud in the eye, yes I'd be fine if it was deemed not deliberate. If I had a real problem with this I wouldn't put my head in there.

This one is going to go around in ever decreasing circles.

But

Yooooooooou wouldn't let it lie

Munchkin wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Brown was entitles to go for the ball. That's not an issue. The issue is how he did it. It was reckless, and more so because of the repeated attempts.

How was he supposed to go for the ball?

I don't think we are going to convince each other or anyone who has stayed with this debate (and yeah lets forget the other 79 minutes and 55 second BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS)

But...
Given that it was a ruck and he wasn't offside then technically he's allowed to use his foot and not his hands. So he hacked the ball with his foot, only Murray was holding on to it in an illegal position (not the first offense so in the big scheme of things...). And then guess what happens

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

My question is would you like a stud in the eye and if not would you be ok if it wasn't penalised?

I wouldn't like being tackled by Billy Vunipola either, should we cite him for that?

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

My question is would you like a stud in the eye and if not would you be ok if it wasn't penalised?

I wouldn't like being tackled by Billy Vunipola either, should we cite him for that?

Yeah why can't he go play with the big kids instead!

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well when you're thinking it through, my first question is: Is it a ruck? If the answer is yes you go the rucks laws.

My question is would you like a stud in the eye and if not would you be ok if it wasn't penalised?

I wouldn't like being tackled by Billy Vunipola either, should we cite him for that?

I rather be tackled by Billy V than try to tackle him to be honest. He should probably be cited for having a couple of extra chromosomes alright.

lostinwales wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Brown was entitles to go for the ball. That's not an issue. The issue is how he did it. It was reckless, and more so because of the repeated attempts.

How was he supposed to go for the ball?

I don't think we are going to convince each other or anyone who has stayed with this debate (and yeah lets forget the other 79 minutes and 55 second BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE MATTERS)

But...
Given that it was a ruck and he wasn't offside then technically he's allowed to use his foot and not his hands. So he hacked the ball with his foot, only Murray was holding on to it in an illegal position (not the first offense so in the big scheme of things...). And then guess what happens

Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless. Gone are the days when a player could shred the back of a prone player, in a ruck. It was up to Brown to ensure that he was not reckless when trying to clear the ball out. He was reckless. I have no doubt about that.

You're right though. We are not going to convince each other, and regardless our opinions, Brown has been cleared. Still, it's an interesting debate, and it will be interesting to see if World Rugby (really don't like that name) respond to some of the questions raised. They, allegedly, are hot on the issue of head injury, and so I would think they should respond to at least bring clarity to the issue. Not that I really expect them to.

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Em not viciously stamp on Murray's eye in the hope that he would become one-eyed like England fans?

exile jack wrote:

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..

As I view the video Brown makes at least 5 attempts to kick the ball and rakes Murray once.Presumably he knew where both the ball and Murray's head were or else he's kicking out and raking regardless.Either way he's doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and possible results(stitches near the eye rather than eye loss).Your suggestion that the mitigating circumstances were Murray was acting illegally is probably the same argument Guirado used when he damaged Kearney's AC joint and finished his season.Both Kearney and Murray now know that having the ball can lead to serious injury without any risk of sanction to the perpetrator.It's a funny old but increasingly dangerous game that must be worrying quite a few parents.

It all comes down to interpretation. I'm going from what I saw on the screens in the stadium, but there were two distinct phases. First Brown's foot comes over with the toe pointed forwards and kicks at the ball. Then he lifts his ankle up and scrabbles at the ground several times behind the ball.

A lot depends on why you think he made that second movement. He wasn't connecting with the ball. It's not a strong position to have your foot in. He wasn't trying to connect with Murray's head (because otherwise he could have just swung his heel or studs back into Murray's face, which didn't happen as far as I could see). It looks very much to me as if he's being pushed back by the Irish counter-rucker (Best?) - which I think was confirmed on replay - and trying to hold his ground without his foot being pushed back into Murray. He can't lift his foot out without risking hitting Murray, he can't put it flat (a much stronger position to hold it in) because Murray's moved his head forward, he can't move it forward because he's being pushed backwards by someone in a stronger position.

If you then look at that in the context of the first movement, he's kicked the ball, not dislodged it and made contact with Murray (who has during the kick started to move his head closer to the ball) on the backswing. Realising he's made contact is the trigger for him changing his foot position.

Interpreted like that, his actions are the opposite of reckless. It was certainly good enough for Poite, the TMO, Nige (who I am sure would have intervened if he thought he'd seen something different - he'd already done so at least once in the match) and the citing commissioner to take that interpretation.

Reckless is charging in without any regard to player safety, as Jared Payne can tell you. But that doesn't require you to give up contesting the ball fairly (as the changes to the contact in the air rules this year have shown), as long as you're showing some regard for safety. There is enough in what I saw to suggest that Brown was - certainly far more than in the other examples shown.

Anyway, enough of that. I enjoyed the game. Love England v Ireland games and wasn't too disappointed over all.

England dominated the set piece, in particular the out lineout and they won most of the collisions on the day and that for me was the difference.

To be fair the England back three of Watson, Brown (bold boy) and Nowell were more of a threat too but I think Ireland will be able to get one back by the time next years fixture comes around.

I really enjoy watching Nowell play and if Jones continues picking him I can see him being a Lions starter.

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Em not viciously stamp on Murray's eye in the hope that he would become one-eyed like England fans?

Isn't a viscious stamp a recognisable movement? As in, nobody would be calling it a kick?

Scottrf wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

lostinwales wrote:Another question is what exactly should Brown have done instead.

Em not viciously stamp on Murray's eye in the hope that he would become one-eyed like England fans?

Isn't a viscious stamp a recognisable movement? As in, nobody would be calling it a kick?

Call it the Brown shuffle if you like.

Not really.

Ok don't then. How about the Brown eye poke?

What don't you like about the incident Guns? Or is it just that the current laws allow this sort of thing to happen legally?

No 7&1/2 wrote:What don't you like about the incident Guns? Or is it just that the current laws allow this sort of thing to happen legally?

They don't allow them to happen legally. It was deemed an accident and therefore he was let off. Putting a stud in someone's eye is not legal.

Intent should be decided by citing commissioners. That way players will know that if they are reckless they may have to get their suit out the next week and at the very least state their case.

There is plenty of precedent for cases like this going to the citing commissioner. This year seems to be a particularly lenient year for citings. Id say if this happened in the lead up to the WC it would have been a citing at the very least.

So it's the lack of citing and then being cleared fair enough. I was expected that process to be honest.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So it's the lack of citing and then being cleared fair enough. I was expected that process to be honest.

So we agree then case closed. Lets go for a beer.

By the way hope England win the championship but draw with France on the last weekend. The deflated celebrations coupled with the best team winning would thoroughly satisfy my ambivalent feelings towards England.

GunsGerms wrote:Anyway, enough of that. I enjoyed the game. Love England v Ireland games and wasn't too disappointed over all.

England dominated the set piece, in particular the out lineout and they won most of the collisions on the day and that for me was the difference.

To be fair the England back three of Watson, Brown (bold boy) and Nowell were more of a threat too but I think Ireland will be able to get one back by the time next years fixture comes around.

I really enjoy watching Nowell play and if Jones continues picking him I can see him being a Lions starter.

Guns
My reading of the game overall was that England dominated the forward exchanges and out wide, but Ireland had some success (particularly late 1st half and early 2nd half) in the 10-12-13 area. I think Eddie Jones was right to say we left 15 to 20 points on the field in the first half, when we were by far the better team - a combination of some poor execution, excellent last ditch defence by Ireland (stopping Hartley and Haskell on the goal line), and our unending ability to give away promising positions by indiscipline.

Second half Ireland were much more in the contest, and it took an outstanding bit of defence by Nowell to keep the game reasonably comfortable on the scoreboard in the closing stages.

Ireland looked lacking in physicality up front, or at least didn't have a 'go to' big beast like Billy V, who seemed to be determined to be a one man wrecking ball on Saturday. Now if only he could add a bit more off-loading to his game...

The citing officer can do 3 things:

1) cite a player if he believes the offence warranted a sending off
2) Apply a retrospective YC
3) Take no action

He is not meant to cite someone just so they can step before the beak.

My own view was that Brown was lucky not to get a YC - but 3 independent and neutral officials with a better knowledge of the laws and the desired interpretations disagreed with me.