6 Nations - Ireland v England (Part 2)

First topic message reminder :

Part 1 - https://www.606v2.com/t68214-6-nations-ireland-v-england-2nd-feb-2019

Details:

Date: Saturday 2nd February 2019
Time: 16:45 GMT
Location: Dublin, Aviva Stadium
Media Coverage: ITV, TV3, BBC (highlights only), Radio 5Live


Officials


Referee: Jérôme Garcès (France)
Assistant 1: Romain Poite (France)
Assistant 2: Alexandre Ruiz (France)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand)



Teams

Ireland

15 Robbie Henshaw, 14 Keith Earls, 13 Garry Ringrose, 12 Bundee Aki, 11 Jacob Stockdale, 10 Johnny Sexton, 9 Conor Murray; 1 Cian Healy, 2 Rory Best, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 4 Devin Toner, 5 James Ryan, 6 Peter O'Mahony, 7 Josh van der Flier, 8 CJ Stander.

16 Sean Cronin, 17 Dave Kilcoyne, 18 Andrew Porter, 19 Quinn Roux, 20 Sean O'Brien, 21 John Cooney, 22 Joey Carbery, 23 Jordan Larmour


England

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).

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).

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Found it!

1 New Zealand 92.54
2 Ireland 89.37 (-1.79)
3 (↑4) England 88.02 (+1.79)
4 (↓3) Wales 87.55 (+0.31)

Ireland stay second, but England and Wales both close the gap as above. France drop below Argentina into 10th and Scotland and Italy are unchanged.

Ignoring 16 pointers and draws:

Next week, Wales and England will be able to take nothing from Italy or France respectively, despite Italy's home advantage. They'll only be able to lose points if they lose. Ireland will go up to 89.92 if they win against Scotland, but will fall into 3rd with 87.92 if they lose. A Scotland win would see them leap above Australia into 6th, while a win for Ireland would see Scotland drop points but not fall any places.

If we assume Wales and England both win in Week 2, the winner of their game will sit above the other in the rankings. Ireland will get no points against Italy (even if they've lost to Scotland), but assuming they've beat Scotland they'll hold onto 2nd regardless of the Wales vs England game (3rd if they lose to Scotland). France vs Scotland would give France a chance to overtake Argentina and Fiji with a win and get back into 8th. If Scotland are still in the hunt for a Grand Slam by the end of Week 3 they'll also be chasing down South Africa in 5th, but won't overtake them that week. If Scotland win 1 of their next 2 games they'll be 6th, or if they lose them both 7th.

In Week 4, Ireland and England won't be taking any points off France and Italy respectively, regardless of how the results have panned out to this stage.

If Wales have finished Week 3 in 2nd place (Wales beat England, Ireland lose to Scotland), a win against Scotland would keep Wales there. A loss against Scotland would see Wales plummet to 4th.
If Wales have finished Week 3 in 3rd place (Wales beat England, Ireland beat Scotland) a win against Scotland would keep Wales there. A loss to Scotland would see Wales fall to 4th.
If Wales have finished Week 3 in 4th place (England beat Wales) they'll be unable to change their placing up or down regardless of the result.

If Scotland are still in the Grand Slam hunt by the end of Week 4, they'll be 5th in the World rankings as well. Any 2 wins would see them 6th, only 1 win and they're 7th still.

The permutations are already getting quite messy, so I'll stop at this stage. The one thing we know now is that NZ will still be top when the Rugby Championship kicks off this year. Everything else is in flux from 2 to 15 pretty much. There is a hypothetical scenario where Scotland will be 2nd and Italy 5th in the rankings by the end of the Championship!

From my view it’s one of the best performances in the professional era from England, ranks with the last 2 times we have beaten New Zealand Away in 2003 and at Twickers in 2012. It shows how good Endland can be when they play for the full 80 mins, as opposed to 30-40 as they have for the last 2 years.

Watching the game back, I feel the YC for Curry was harsh. Ref says slightly late (correct) and leading with the shoulder (incorrect).

However we then got lucky with Itoje's challenge on Earls. I feel it was clumsy rather than malicious, but with it so far in front of where the ball landed should have been yellow.

LondonTiger wrote:Watching the game back, I feel the YC for Curry was harsh. Ref says slightly late (correct) and leading with the shoulder (incorrect).

However we then got lucky with Itoje's challenge on Earls. I feel it was clumsy rather than malicious, but with it so far in front of where the ball landed should have been yellow.

It was harsh but England in my view are fairly notorious for late tackles mostly to rough up opponents. Not the only one in the game, Its a constant theme in Ireland v England games.  Refs would be aware of it so I dont have much sympathy for that one. England are a much better side when they go out and focus on their own game plan rather than looking for Saracens style niggle.

Always the risk that refs will ref what they think they know rather than what happens. I'm rewatching the game too and where itoje gets injured it doesn't look good. Bent backwards with his legs trapped in a ruck. Itv then pick up the wrong incident as when it happens.

Have to say the coaches have done a great piece of work on our breakdown. Great carrying yes but consistently the first 2 players there are wearing white shirts and gave very little chance at steals to an incredibly dangerous team.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Always the risk that refs will ref what they think they know rather than what happens. I'm rewatching the game too and where itoje gets injured it doesn't look good. Bent backwards with his legs trapped in a ruck. Itv then pick up the wrong incident as when it happens.

Perhaps if England dont want yellow cards they should look at the numbers of late hits and assess if its worth it.

It wasn't even a late hit.

Pressure pays sometimes. As you say yesterday we got a call of a yellow. It was based on a no arm tackle more than the lateness. Incorrect in my view as he does wrap. Perha0s it looked that way from the assistant who called it. There does seem to be more on field decisions across each of the games this season which a lot have called for as well. You're bound to get some marginal incorrect decisions.

It was very similar to the penalty Farrell conceded last year which lead to Irelands first try. If you keep making the same mistake maybe the issue is you not the ref?

It was late so radar.

Well the assistant called it incorrectly as a no arm tackle. We could blame our pressure game but on another day the ref checks and it's just a penalty.

Presuming Ed wrote:Yeah but who polices the police in this police state?

I do.

Late tackles are ones like the tackle on May preceding Slade's first try, how that wasn't a yellow is beyond me, that England scored is irrelevant. In terms of time between kick and tackle, Curry was probably half a second, he was already full committed. The tackle on May was seconds late and he moved and turned his shoulder into May to make sure he did not get past.

"Pressure pays sometimes. As you say yesterday we got a call of a yellow. It was based on a no arm tackle more than the lateness. Incorrect in my view as he does wrap. Perha0s it looked that way from the assistant who called it. There does seem to be more on field decisions across each of the games this season which a lot have called for as well. You're bound to get some marginal incorrect decisions."

He did not even look at the replay to see for himself and check what had actually happened, very poor refereeing.

Speaking of commentators just got to the slade try where D'arcy says it's a good job.for England that they didn't check the pass as despite the hands going backwards the ball travels forwards. It's that level of not knowing the laws and how to interpret them that leads to regurgitation by newbies to the game.

Good point on May. Maybe a bit cynical and borderline yellow but given the try was awarded hardly worth checking.
Yup he could have checked but the assistant was adamant he had seen a shoulder so you've got to back him. Next time the assistant may think let's go upstairs.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Late tackles are ones like the tackle on May preceding Slade's first try, how that wasn't a yellow is beyond me, that England scored is irrelevant. In terms of time between kick and tackle, Curry was probably half a second, he was already full committed. The tackle on May was seconds late and he moved and turned his shoulder into May to make sure he did not get past.

"Pressure pays sometimes. As you say yesterday we got a call of a yellow. It was based on a no arm tackle more than the lateness. Incorrect in my view as he does wrap. Perha0s it looked that way from the assistant who called it. There does seem to be more on field decisions across each of the games this season which a lot have called for as well. You're bound to get some marginal incorrect decisions."

He did not even look at the replay to see for himself and check what had actually happened, very poor refereeing.

I have no real issue with refs backing themselves. Merely my opinion but the Curry/Itoje decisions balanced each other out.

As to the other time he backed himself re Slade's first try. The ball quite clearly travels forward but is always behind Slade, thus as the laws are written this would be allowed. It is almost a carbon copy of the first example:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Speaking of commentators just got to the slade try where D'arcy says it's a good job.for England that they didn't check the pass as despite the hands going backwards the ball travels forwards. It's that level of not knowing the laws and how to interpret them that leads to regurgitation by newbies to the game.

A quick reprise of the physics they learnt at school should do the job, if an object is moving forward and a sideways force is applied, it will initially continue to move forwards at the same rate until the forward momentum is dissipated, hence when passed backwards or sideways, the ball will continue to travel forwards at the same rate as the player is moving forwards until that momentum is dissipated.

As can be seen from the footage, the ball goes forward at the same rate as Slade, until the dissipation takes effect and Slade overtakes the ball and starts to slow down himself to get back behind the receiver.

Lesson over.

Exactly what I have just said LT

After those first 2 errors by curry; going into the ruck with hands and then the late hit how good was he. Line speed great. Some good carries. A right nuisance at the breakdown. Hope he can stay fit as having an actual 7 with him and Underhill makes us look so much better.

No 7&1/2 wrote:After those first 2 errors by curry; going into the ruck with hands and then the late hit how good was he. Line speed great. Some good carries. A right nuisance at the breakdown. Hope he can stay fit as having an actual 7 with him and Underhill makes us look so much better.

He's a really smart player. He was always where he needed to be

The back row worked superbly...as did the whole team.

Taylorman wrote:

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Nah as an AB supporter cant agree with that. If you cant be ruthless enough to finish a match on the up then you have major motivation issues.

See, Tman, you're making the mistake of universaling ABs mentality and/or situation again. I think you do it a lot - which is fine, but you have to understand NZ isn't the epicentre around which everything else revolves: the ABs are the ABs, and Scotland are Scotland, rather than a poor version of the ABs.

Hope you get my drift...

Yeah I get your drift, which is to hand out a lesson in mediocrity, which has prevailed in NH rugby for over a hundered years. Its finally seeping through in sides like Ireland and England have been there or abouts several times. Scotland havent, so had a point to prove.

Its not about culture, its about winning in sport, whether youre Ireland, Wales, Oz, SA and yes Scotland. You might think I think rugby revolves around the ABs and NZ rugby but Im not alone. Wales, Ireland and Scotland also think that, because they enlisted coaches for that reason. No one gets into the players psyche in this sport more than the coach. Vern Cotter wasnt called in because he understood the Scottish psyche. He was brought in because he understood winning rugby.

Think youre selling them short, and if theyre thinking that way, they need to change. ABs or not.

You've missed the point entirely.

Duty281 wrote:

miaow wrote:The more I review it, the more I think it's shocking refereeing: he's chosen to ask the question he has because he doesn't want the pressure of the crowd. That's not good enough.

As I said, it's good that England deserved to win and comprehensively put Ireland away after this. It's a shocker from Garces. Forward pass every single day of the week.

But that isn't the law. You may disagree with how the forward pass law works, and so might I or Jerome Garces for that matter, but the referee can only enforce what the law-makers tell him to enforce. And it's a perfectly legitimate try under the current laws of the game, not a 'shocker' of a decision at all.

It isn't though. Look at the pictures I posted earlier.

Rugby Fan wrote:It was good that Itoje going off didn't seen to disrupt the side. With Kruis having been subbed just moments earlier, it left us with just one specialist lock. It looked like Hughes went to second row in the scrums, rather than Wilson there. Might have expected our lineout to creak from that point but don't recall it being a big worry.

Yeah, big positive for England. Nightmare scenario where you have 3 players able to play 2nd row, and in a matter of minutes you're suddenly down to 1. Ireland must be gutted they didn't get any sort of benefit from that at the set piece.

lostinwales wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:It was good that Itoje going off didn't seen to disrupt the side. With Kruis having been subbed just moments earlier, it left us with just one specialist lock. It looked like Hughes went to second row in the scrums, rather than Wilson there. Might have expected our lineout to creak from that point but don't recall it being a big worry.

Devon Toner went off shortly afterwards and I suspect both packs were feeling the strain at that point. (I remember Stander going off and thinking how beat up he looked, Sinckler wasn't much better)

I believe Hughes has played lock (as has Wilson)

Stander looked like he had broken his jaw from what I saw. Full on face swell almost immediately. Jaw or cheekbone, something looked broken.

We go through this quite often with forward passes but LT posted the interpretation above.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

miaow wrote:The more I review it, the more I think it's shocking refereeing: he's chosen to ask the question he has because he doesn't want the pressure of the crowd. That's not good enough.

As I said, it's good that England deserved to win and comprehensively put Ireland away after this. It's a shocker from Garces. Forward pass every single day of the week.

But that isn't the law. You may disagree with how the forward pass law works, and so might I or Jerome Garces for that matter, but the referee can only enforce what the law-makers tell him to enforce. And it's a perfectly legitimate try under the current laws of the game, not a 'shocker' of a decision at all.

Bizarrely Miaow even provided pictures that undermined his point. The first showed the hands playing the ball back. The second was irrelevant as where the pass ends is not a consideration.

As to not checking the pass with the TMO, if Garces thought it went back he was correct not to check it. Referees are only meant to check things if they are unsure.  Whatever Garces' faults his great strength is that he allows the game to flow. He does not constantly give penalties for minor issues (e.g. at scrums) and he only uses the TMO when really necessary. Some referees seem to think that the TMO has to be consulted for every try.

Na, the hands are flat at best. At the point of release, they're not facing back.

I agree with the protocol - by and large, I'd prefer the referee to get on with the game and trust their instincts. But here the ball is clearly very, very forward. I imagine the call actually came from the touch judge due to the number of bodies between Garces and Slade, but then I also imagine it's a collaborative thing. "Shall we check?" "No, I think it was fine too" etc.

The question is - if he had checked, and seen what you can see from the video, do you seriously think he would have allowed the try? Do you really think he would have allowed the hands rule, or do you think Garces/touch judge assumed the ball had maybe travelled 1m forward and therefore wasn't that far forward?

I am convinced it would be the latter. I don't see how anyone can watch that on video on think that's not a forward pass; I can see how, when moving from the position both Garces and the touch judge are in, they would have thought the forward motion was minimal, and called it real time. But the TMO's there - there's no harm in checking in when you're already checking something else in the move, and where there's a natural stoppage in play.

Should have checked the pass. Had he done so, he would have ruled it a forward pass, no doubt.

Did I see Nowell pack down at flanker at one scrum.....

EnglishReign wrote:Just watched the BBC highlights...can Eddie Butler make his disappointment more obvious? Not an ounce of enthusiasm throughout. Surely him and Jiffy’s days are numbered in this game, time to bring in some guys who are willing to earn that paycheck.

Probably because it's not live? And he doesn't appear to have a co-commentator. And knows much of what he's saying isn't going to be broadcast perhaps? He does seem to have had his day as a main commentator to be honest, too affected/ponderous/out of date. But it's a weird situation where you're used to commentating on games live, with a full team of pundits and co commentators, and suddenly you're, presumably, up there on your own.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Did I see Nowell pack down at flanker at one scrum.....

Yup, while Curry was in the bin.

Youngs then ran the ball blind, forgetting he had no blindside winger.

I thought I saw him...Eddie got his wish

Miaow, as per the guidance video I posted, I believe if reviewed it would be deemed fine. Relative to the passer, the ball goes backwards even if relative to the ground it travelled forwards. In the formal parlance it was not thrown forward.

If you look at all the passes made in all 3 games by players running at some speed, they all have balls that travel forward but are not deemed to be forward by the laws and were reffed as such.

The Healy try and vunipola disallowed/Not given try are more contentious than the application of the forward pass here. As I said though not massive blunders. I didn't see mako hold it up until it was pointed out afterwards and I've seen vunipola s given and ruled out before.

LondonTiger wrote:

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Late tackles are ones like the tackle on May preceding Slade's first try, how that wasn't a yellow is beyond me, that England scored is irrelevant. In terms of time between kick and tackle, Curry was probably half a second, he was already full committed. The tackle on May was seconds late and he moved and turned his shoulder into May to make sure he did not get past.

"Pressure pays sometimes. As you say yesterday we got a call of a yellow. It was based on a no arm tackle more than the lateness. Incorrect in my view as he does wrap. Perha0s it looked that way from the assistant who called it. There does seem to be more on field decisions across each of the games this season which a lot have called for as well. You're bound to get some marginal incorrect decisions."

He did not even look at the replay to see for himself and check what had actually happened, very poor refereeing.

I have no real issue with refs backing themselves. Merely my opinion but the Curry/Itoje decisions balanced each other out.

As to the other time he backed himself re Slade's first try. The ball quite clearly travels forward but is always behind Slade, thus as the laws are written this would be allowed. It is almost a carbon copy of the first example:

This doesn't actually deal with the laws at all. Which are very brief but very clear:

"A throw forward may occur anywhere in the playing area. Sanction: Scrum.
A player must not intentionally throw or pass the ball forward. Sanction: Penalty."

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=11

World Rugby posting that in 2011 makes sense why we ended up in the mess we were in a few years later, with blatantly forward passes being ruled fine because the focus was on the hands.

You can get deep into the physics, but ultimately that video seems to be pretty limited in its scope. It also doesn't deal with the actual laws of rugby. The laws have been amended constantly, but I can find nothing about the player being in front of the ball. The laws have been interpreted to include greater knowledge of the science - since when did the law include those interpretations in it? As someone posted in the comments section, you judge offside and in touch relative to the markings on the ground, not moving people. This is an element of interpretation; just as you would look at that video and interpret that that is clearly a forward pass.

Common sense has to prevail with the interpretation of the law, as it has done since 2014 - I genuinely haven't seen as blatant a forward pass 'seen' and not penalised since then. The 5m forward travel of Slade's cut out pass has allowed the try to occur for the reasons I posted last night.

I disagree entirely that it would have stood had Garces gone to the TMO. There's no way he would have allowed the try - it's a big mistake.

I mean they could interpret it like that. It would rule out Wales first try they had vs france.lots of tries and lots more scrums.

miaow wrote:I disagree entirely that it would have stood had Garces gone to the TMO. There's no way he would have allowed the try - it's a big mistake.

You are entitled to your opinion. I firmly believe you are wrong but accept I will never persuade you otherwise.

I agree, I thought the pass from Adams to Tomos Williams was marginal. Same with Cronin's to Cooney. I think that's where interpretation comes in - it's why I brought up the football offside analogy, as it is very, very relevant to these situations.

Basically, the forward motion of the ball in those two 2 on 1s hasn't created the try - that's primarily the break, the draw and pass, and then the pass is, in a way, incidental. Yeah the player is closer to the shoulder than if the pass was flatter, allowing him to get past the player, but ultimately the defender has been beaten.

In England's situation, the pass is the primary reason why the linebreak occurred, whereas in the other two it was a break through the ruck defence. The pass allows May to go at full pelt, cuts off Larmour's scramble tackle, and also allows Slade to contine running at pace/speed up as soon as he's released the ball to make sure he claims the kick first.

That's an interpretation of the laws that I'd like to see - and why going to the TMO shouldn't be seen as a 'dirty' thing in this occasion.

Rugby League gets it so right with the TMO, talking over these kind of situational things live and in time. Their video refs are so knowledgeable and thorough - Union is a joke in comparison.

Anyway, said all I can on it I think. Agree to disagree LT.

Hard to argue against that argument miaow. Literally.

Folks,

Last time I ask nicely. Please desist from the name calling.

Hmmm - deciding if a pass is forwards based on the type of play is an 'interesting' concept ... as if there isn't enough inconsistency in officiating already. I thought the video explained it pretty clearly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Hard to argue against that argument miaow. Literally.

No point 'arguing' with you.

No problem LT, I'll leave it.

I understand miaow.

Watched the Adams to TW pass. It's fine. The Cronin to Cooney's, however, is forward.

I should clarify; I'm not saying you should judge solely on situation. For instance, an offside is an offside in football. However, without video replay, I think there can be less complaint if the officials get a marginal call wrong if the situation is barely decided by the minor infringement, i.e. how 'important' is the half a yard in creating the scoring chance.

But if we're considering whether a player stays in front of the pass, or other interpretations not based on the very clear, basic laws written down, then I think there should be a situational acceptance to some degree. Basically, if Slade was drawing the last man, and sent his pass away to May, there would be less of an issue with the forward travel than here, where the forward direction of the pass has created the break. Surely people understand that? It's a big like mitigating circumstances in a high tackle or in air collision - it's not a perfect science, sometimes it takes common sense and an understanding and appreciate of game situations to make the right/fair call.

Anyway, as I said, I'm convinced it would have been chalked off had the TMO reviewed it. And it didn't decide the game in a way it might have done. I just hope this doesn't crop up again in the tournament or during the RWC and was a one off.

Collapse2005 wrote:

nathan wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I don't think there were any howlers from the ref but there were a lot of decisions that could have gone either way.

Tmo missed this one. Should be cited.

https://twitter.com/Bfoodloo/status/1091761023642750978?s=19

Oh would you stop. Jesus christ.

Yeah too many serial whiners on here. Why not set up a thread for them?

Very good performance from England but is their back-row better than Wales’?

LondonTiger wrote:Folks,

Last time I ask nicely. Please desist from the name calling.

Does that include alluding to the fact that some folk are just here to whine on about irrelevant stuff with every comment that they post?

The England back row has a lot of potential but bar vunipola everyone else is new to international rugby. Will be good to view it up against the huge French pack next week along with the front 5.
I think the best back row for Wales is Shingler tipuric and faletau and they're streets ahead of what you have available.

I'm truly stunned to hear that Miaow thinks that the marginal forward pass by a Welsh player was backwards but the ones by the Irish and English players are forward

You'll cop a ban Bam. Really not worth it.