6 Nations - IRELAND v ENGLAND 2nd Feb 2019

First topic message reminder :

6 Nations

IRELAND v ENGLAND

Saturday 02 February 2019 16:45 GMT

Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Maybe a little early but I for one can not wait for this fixture. 2nd vs 4th.

The 6 Nations is officially the BEST rugby competition........................In the World.

England starting XV (485 caps)

15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 25 caps), 14 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 17 caps), 12 Manu Tuiagi (Leicester Tigers, 27 caps), 11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 29 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 65 caps), 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 80 caps); 1 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 51 caps), 2 Jamie George (Saracens, 32 caps), 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 17 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 26 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 27 caps), 6 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 8 caps), 7 Tom Curry (Sale Sharks, 5 caps), 8 Billy Vunipola (Saracens, 36 caps).

Finishers (206 caps)

16 Luke Cowan-Dickie (Exeter Chiefs, 7 caps), 17 Ellis Genge (Leicester Tigers, 5 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 15 caps), 19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 68 caps), 20 Nathan Hughes (Wasps, 18 caps), 21 Dan Robson (Wasps, uncapped), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 51 caps), 23 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 42 caps).

Of course. They're still a very good team. The mistake among fans (cognitive dissonance, we're all guilty of it) is filtering out what they don't want to see, even when they're winning, and expecting more and more of the good stuff. It's why so many England fans were clamouring to play NZ for 'best in the world' title after bouncing back from big underachievement that played a part in upping standards/motivation. They didn't see the other teams catching up and then moving past them in Ireland's case, and perhaps even Wales' too.

All in all, though, there's not much between those 3 teams still. Ireland have kicked on under Schmidt to a level Wales and England haven't hit but Wales drew with Ireland in 2016 away, beat them in 2017, and were going for a win with the last play in 2018. Wales were shocking against England in 2016 but came back to within a score and were going for the win with the last play, bottled in it 2017 after dominating, and again went close but didn't have enough in 2018, deservedly losing. England ground it out against Ireland in 2016, Ireland scraped it home in 2017, and then took England apart in 2018. All in all it's fairly even but England were consistent straight after the RWC, Ireland have been consistent since, with Wales failing to string together consistency to win silverware but they've been nearly men in the 6Ns table, reflecting their competitiveness, if lack of ruthlessness. It'll be interesting to see if either France or Scotland can step up - I don't think they will, but who knows?

But England were winning against opposition when they were at their weakest - even out in Australia. It's still a great achievement to win two 6Ns and then have many players make up a good bulk of the 2017 Lions. It's just the team/players aren't as good as they were portrayed as, and some deluded fans still think they are - it's the difference between seeing things clearly and being a fan.

Which is no problem. If you watch sport like 7.5 and want to support your team irrespetive of the reality when it comes to discussing them, no problem.

Just be honest about it.

Lol. Wales.

Go on. Go on a xenophobic rant about the Welsh. Just like your mate Jeremy. Jezzaaa. Good old Jezza. It's free speech, right!?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkCBhKs4faI

Lol.

Now EJ considering Jack Nowell openside?

mikey_dragon wrote:Now EJ considering Jack Nowell openside?

It's largely smoke and mirrors. But if you take him at your word, he's not treating him as a true openside in the full sense of the word. What he would be doing is picking Nowell instead of a winger and playing him as a forward.

How it would work in practice I guess is he would have 2 winger/fullbacks (May and Daly?) who would line up on the openside. He'd then have Nowell playing in close proximity to the forwards, rucking, taking one out carries, scoots, linking play etc. I guess the reason he'd pick Nowell rather than an actual other flanker would be because Nowell has better feet and could isolate forwards around post and guards to make yards, as he did from the base for his try last weekend.

I'm not sure if he would go back to the wing on defence. He could push Ford back to 15, push May and Daly wide and put everyone else in the front line. Would get Ford out of front line defence as well, which is a side benefit.

But I don't think it will happen. If Nowell plays, I think Eddie will give him a bit of freedom to pop up where he wants, but if Eddie hadn't mentioned it I don't think anyone would have noticed any difference in how he played.

Latest comments from Jones is he used to do a leeds and send people to watch the opposition train and Sefton has a bat phone to the ref. I've heard better from him.

He can't help himself, I was hoping he could just keep it low key and just let the rugby do the talking. Old habits die hard I suppose. Expect usual media reaction and click bait getting people worked up. Sexton is not the weak link so why try, it didn't work last time and won't work this time.

All a bit unedifying, imo.

Sexton isn't but Garces isn't the strongest ref. Try and get in his head early that the Irish influence too many decisions by complaining to the ref. Could work, might be worth a punt, especially with a ref that doesn't talk to the players much.

I love the comments about Sexton.  HOw about Farrell who doesn't get penalised no matter what he does?

Bit of injury news.

Farrell having thumb surgery that will keep him out for 7 to 10 days. Should make the opener, but it will disrupt preparations.

Shields misses the Leinster game with a side strain. No timeframe on the recovery.

It's all bluster tj don't fall into the Eddie merry go round both players are great but both need to stop remonstrating with refs, kids watch them and copy.

TJ wrote:I love the comments about Sexton.  HOw about Farrell who doesn't get penalised no matter what he does?

I think Farrell is a bit of a weak link for England as much as he can be a game changer for them. He put in a really stupid late tackle on Rob Kearney early in the fixture last year. Really dumb stuff, conceded a penalty which Ireland put down the line and scored their first try off.

Irelands second try which Stander scored came from a backs move through Farrells channel while he was ball watching. Later on though he put a nice dink in through for Daly to score Englands first try.

In the last two Ireland games Farrell has spent more energy in looking for late hits than in my view making sensible decisions.

Collapse2005 wrote:

TJ wrote:I love the comments about Sexton.  HOw about Farrell who doesn't get penalised no matter what he does?

I think Farrell is a bit of a weak link for England as much as he can be a game changer for them. He put in a really stupid late tackle on Rob Kearney early in the fixture last year. Really dumb stuff, conceded a penalty which Ireland put down the line and scored their first try off.

So to summarise Farrell gets away with everything and also gives away stupid penalties.

Gooseberry wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

TJ wrote:I love the comments about Sexton.  HOw about Farrell who doesn't get penalised no matter what he does?

I think Farrell is a bit of a weak link for England as much as he can be a game changer for them. He put in a really stupid late tackle on Rob Kearney early in the fixture last year. Really dumb stuff, conceded a penalty which Ireland put down the line and scored their first try off.

So to summarise Farrell gets away with everything and also gives away stupid penalties.

That's why Jonny Sexton is better. He just gets away with everything.

According to reports Launchbury Shields and Sefton should all be fit for the game. Not sure if they'll miss some of the training and put themselves down the pecking order though.

Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Oh I see Sexton even getting away with injuries now.

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

Gooseberry wrote:Oh I see Sexton even getting away with injuries now.

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

He plays very well in a back row that is set up to cater for his skills.

If England were to do the same we would have a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Armand
8 Curry


The alternative is that Armand would be selected at 6 and have to change his game to suit the way Eddie wants to play.



That the coach has decided neither scenario works for him does not make it a travesty that the lad from Zimbabwea is not selected, just a debating point.

Collapse2005 wrote:

TJ wrote:I love the comments about Sexton.  HOw about Farrell who doesn't get penalised no matter what he does?

I think Farrell is a bit of a weak link for England as much as he can be a game changer for them. He put in a really stupid late tackle on Rob Kearney early in the fixture last year. Really dumb stuff, conceded a penalty which Ireland put down the line and scored their first try off.

Irelands second try which Stander scored came from a backs move through Farrells channel while he was ball watching. Later on though he put a nice dink in through for Daly to score Englands first try.

In the last two Ireland games Farrell has spent more energy in looking for late hits than in my view making sensible decisions.

Who else is going to put the 'scummy Irish' into their place - at least Owen doesn't mind getting his shoulder dirty.

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

He plays very well in a back row that is set up to cater for his skills.

If England were to do the same we would have a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Armand
8 Curry


The alternative is that Armand would be selected at 6 and have to change his game to suit the way Eddie wants to play.



That the coach has decided neither scenario works for him does not make it a travesty that the lad from Zimbabwea is not selected, just a debating point.

At a guess your not a fan of the residency rule are you LT

Roux replaces Beirne in the Ireland squad. Injury replacement, shame.

I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

carpet baboon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

But it's sport.  Sport IS different to just normal 'work'.  If it's just rights and legality then why don't women golfers look to play in the exact tournaments as men (higher earning potential)?  Same golf clubs, same balls, different treatment of men's golf and women's golf.  And that happens in virtually all professional sports.

Sport is different.  Nations have a right to protect the idea of 'International' sport and not let International just descend into a 'club' game where players can change National allegiances at the drop of a hat or juicy contract.

I know where you're coming from carpet, but 'workplace' legality of many sports can be questioned if players can challenge sporting rules by using 'equality' and political rights rules.

carpet baboon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

I think its 5 years in Ireland.

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

Based on many games watched by Stuart Barnes and countless other pundits, Alex Goode is also very much test quality, except that he doesn't seem to be able to play to the level he does for Sarries in an England shirt. I presume Armand is in a similar boat: there is something missing from his game that two successive international coaches have felt is enough to keep him out of the squad.

Poorfour wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

Based on many games watched by Stuart Barnes and countless other pundits, Alex Goode is also very much test quality, except that he doesn't seem to be able to play to the level he does for Sarries in an England shirt. I presume Armand is in a similar boat: there is something missing from his game that two successive international coaches have felt is enough to keep him out of the squad.

You could say at least Goode has had the caps to prove he can't hack it at this level. Armand hasn't been given the same number of opportunities.

SecretFly wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

But it's sport.  Sport IS different to just normal 'work'.  If it's just rights and legality then why don't women golfers look to play in the exact tournaments as men (higher earning potential)?  Same golf clubs, same balls, different treatment of men's golf and women's golf.  And that happens in virtually all professional sports.  

Sport is different.  Nations have a right to protect the idea of 'International' sport and not let International just descend into a 'club' game where players can change National allegiances at the drop of a hat or juicy contract.

I know where you're coming from carpet, but 'workplace' legality of many sports can be questioned if players can challenge sporting rules by using 'equality' and political rights rules.

I was more talking about citizenship. If say you become a naturalized citizen after 3 years residency in a country I could see a court case easily going the way of the player and against any rule that says they can't (assuming they haven't represented another country)

And I'm pretty sure a female golfer has qualified for a men's tournament. But will have to look that one up.

carpet baboon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

But it's sport.  Sport IS different to just normal 'work'.  If it's just rights and legality then why don't women golfers look to play in the exact tournaments as men (higher earning potential)?  Same golf clubs, same balls, different treatment of men's golf and women's golf.  And that happens in virtually all professional sports.  

Sport is different.  Nations have a right to protect the idea of 'International' sport and not let International just descend into a 'club' game where players can change National allegiances at the drop of a hat or juicy contract.

I know where you're coming from carpet, but 'workplace' legality of many sports can be questioned if players can challenge sporting rules by using 'equality' and political rights rules.

I was more talking about citizenship. If say you become a naturalized citizen after 3 years residency in a country I could see a court case easily going the way of the player and against any rule that says they can't (assuming they haven't represented another country)

And I'm pretty sure a female golfer has qualified for a men's tournament. But will have to look that one up.

Tennis is the classic, the Women that would get beat by the 100th ranked man, get the same money for winning with an inferior game and over best of 3 instead of 5 sets. My wife is the one that constantly points out that if women want to have equality, they should do what the army do, you have to go through the same training, tests etc. all sports that pay the same money should be fully open, no gender discrimination.

My wife was born over here of German parents, but only recognises British as her nationality, she would not dream of playing any sport or other for Germany. Having said that, with two left feet (she is right footed) and two left hands (the same) she would struggle to represent any team at any sport. She is brilliant at being right all the time though.

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

He plays very well in a back row that is set up to cater for his skills.

If England were to do the same we would have a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Armand
8 Curry


The alternative is that Armand would be selected at 6 and have to change his game to suit the way Eddie wants to play.



That the coach has decided neither scenario works for him does not make it a travesty that the lad from Zimbabwea is not selected, just a debating point.

Why Lawes at 6 LT? I assume its lineout skills?

yappysnap wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:Its a travesty that Don Armand is not in the England squad.

It really isn't.

Really?

Based on the game I watched he was very much test quality, and deserves his place in the England squad.

He plays very well in a back row that is set up to cater for his skills.

If England were to do the same we would have a back row of:

6 Lawes
7 Armand
8 Curry


The alternative is that Armand would be selected at 6 and have to change his game to suit the way Eddie wants to play.



That the coach has decided neither scenario works for him does not make it a travesty that the lad from Zimbabwea is not selected, just a debating point.

Why Lawes at 6 LT? I assume its lineout skills?

Closest I could get to Skinner who has been playing at 6 for Chiefs ( with Curry filling the Kvesic role)

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I think Armand qualifies through a parent or grandparent, but no not a huge fan of adults moving to a new country and representing them.

About the only one I ever felt vaguely comfortable with was Mouritz Botha who worked his way up the junior rugby ladder in England.

I know the rules are the rules, but I do not have to like them. To me the international game seems a farce when you see Te'o lineup opposite Aki or Parkes.

It's why I think pro players should have to declare on signing their first contract. If you move and get an academy contract or amateur rugby role in another country, you can qualify and move. If you come over to a new country to play rugby, then you're fine to play club, but you are not entitled to qualify for that country.

Would have to add a bit of nuance to the rules, but I think it's a good basic principle.

Don't think that would be legal.
It's a pro sport these days, and the world's getting smaller.
To be honest I could see a player challenging the 5 year rule, if they can claim legal citizenship in under 5 years

But it's sport.  Sport IS different to just normal 'work'.  If it's just rights and legality then why don't women golfers look to play in the exact tournaments as men (higher earning potential)?  Same golf clubs, same balls, different treatment of men's golf and women's golf.  And that happens in virtually all professional sports.  

Sport is different.  Nations have a right to protect the idea of 'International' sport and not let International just descend into a 'club' game where players can change National allegiances at the drop of a hat or juicy contract.

I know where you're coming from carpet, but 'workplace' legality of many sports can be questioned if players can challenge sporting rules by using 'equality' and political rights rules.

I was more talking about citizenship. If say you become a naturalized citizen after 3 years residency in a country I could see a court case easily going the way of the player and against any rule that says they can't (assuming they haven't represented another country)

And I'm pretty sure a female golfer has qualified for a men's tournament. But will have to look that one up.

Tennis is the classic, the Women that would get beat by the 100th ranked man, get the same money for winning with an inferior game and over best of 3 instead of 5 sets. My wife is the one that constantly points out that if women want to have equality, they should do what the army do, you have to go through the same training, tests etc. all sports that pay the same money should be fully open, no gender discrimination.

My wife was born over here of German parents, but only recognises British as her nationality, she would not dream of playing any sport or other for Germany. Having said that, with two left feet (she is right footed) and two left hands (the same) she would struggle to represent any team at any sport. She is brilliant at being right all the time though.

We're drifting from international eligibility now, which itself is a jump from the original topic as it was, but here we are.

3 sets or 5 sets is a red herring, because the people who argue that aren't calling for women's footballers being paid the same, despite both games being played over 90 minutes. Regardless, you don't get paid per set. Men's tennis players also don't get paid less for winning in straight sets. Women's tennis players are fully pro and they'll do as many hours training. Does 40 minutes less play time really make that much difference?

Women's sport is the biggest growth area for sport. If you treat it as a hobby with a little trophy at the end, then it will never raise above hobby level. If you give it the same billing, same pay, then women and girls will be inspired to play sport and pursue a career in sport and the quality will rise.

I don't know all that much about tennis but focussing back on rugby; go down any park on minis day. There will be one or two girls per age group maximum. Maybe a couple of girls teams at junior age group level that straddle 2 or 3 school years. There are no professional academies. There's a whole pathway to be built up, but slowly shifting people's perception of women's sport from hobby to serious business is the first stage, and profile and paying elite players is the way to do that.

Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

This maybe explains why Sexton cant be yellow carded, hes payed too much.

Gooseberry wrote:This maybe explains why Sexton cant be yellow carded, hes payed too much.

Barnes has no problem carding him especially against Wales. Imagine getting carded for lying under the ball, that's a new one for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFmxvL7blp0

Collapse2005 wrote:Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

I don't agree with women being paid the same (because they don't generate the same) but training is work. Not just match length.

Slowing the ball down near the try line results in yellow card shocker.

Scottrf wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Pay per hour is relevant. Of course it is. Why would you expect two people who do the same job to be happy with the same pay if one only works 3/5 of the hours of the other. The football comparison is a red herring. Women's football isn't as popular a product as men's where as women's tennis arguably is as popular as mens or at least the gap between the two isn't as large.

Plus women because they play less sets have more of a chance to participate in doubles or mixed doubles tournaments during which they can ear even more than men.

I don't agree with women being paid the same (because they don't generate the same) but training is work. Not just match length.

Interesting point, however, they don't get paid for training. I also do training for my job, courses in my own time and don't expect to get paid for it but it does enhance my chances of earning more in work. As I see it matches and tournaments are their job, training is what they do to ensure they make the most possible in their job.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Slowing the ball down near the try line results in yellow card shocker.

I agree it was a shocker for the following reasons:

Usually a yellow comes as a result of multiple warnings and infringements but that wasn't the case here.
Sexton was under the ball and therefore harder to roll away at the bottom of a ruck.
Literally two seconds had passed before Barnes stuck the arm out for a penalty. He had the card out of his pants after 3.
Same application of the law was not applied to Wales as usual with Barnes.

Not when you're under severe pressure and you've given penalties away in the build up to the mini break towards the try line.
Doesn't matter he falls the wrong side and needs to move away from the ball.
You're wrong but if you don't understand the application of those laws I appreciate you're going to get upset and think it's unfair.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not when you're under severe pressure and you've given penalties away in the build up to the mini break towards the try line.
Doesn't matter he falls the wrong side and needs to move away from the ball.
You're wrong but if you don't understand the application of those laws I appreciate you're going to get upset and think it's unfair.

Yes, you are required to move away from the ball when you are in a ruck but not sure how you are expected to do that when you are pinned down with Jonathan Davies lying on top of you. If anything it was Davies lying on Sexton that was preventing the ball from coming out. How many penalties had Ireland given away in the lead up to that?

It was a typically daft application of the laws by Barnes and yet when someone actually lies on the ball he somehow misses it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3HvvvnlGQI

Doesn't matter. You fall the wrong side and minimum effort to move you're going to get done.
Joseph called up to the squad for Ireland.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Doesn't matter. You fall the wrong side and minimum effort to move you're going to get done.
Joseph called up to the squad for Ireland.

Refs rarely dish out yellows as quickly as Barnes did in that instance. He tends to let the big occasion get to him though and makes impetuous and inconsistent decisions as a result.

And yet didn't on that occasion. Good decision.

No not really, typically impetuous and one sided application of the law.