2015 RBS Six Nations General Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread

Larbre34

France

Wowsers, i thought it might get upper mid range of about 8 weeks but they went for broke then mitigated it a bit.

10 weeks is hard to argue with though.

Zzippy

England

Threads merged, we don't need a new thread every time someone is suspended and it's already being discussed

Larbre34

England

Larbre34 wrote: »

Wowsers, i thought it might get upper mid range of about 8 weeks but they went for broke then mitigated it a bit.

10 weeks is hard to argue with though.

I was unsure how this would turn out, but Neil Frances had an unusually good article in the indo today about the other French offences during the game and it's hard to argue with what appears to be fairly cynical intent across the team.

He went so far as to say a €10k punitive punishment would clamp down on this pretty quickly.

Snickers Man

Zzippy wrote: »

Threads merged, we don't need a new thread every time someone is suspended and it's already being discussed

Sorry. I did do a search before I posted to see if somebody had mentioned it already. But I guess Pape is too small a word for the search engine. Now if he had been called Venigoor of Hesselink......

ionadnapokot

England

CatFromHue wrote: »

Yeah, he went out of his way to knee Heaslip.

If you remember as soon as he knees him he then moves off to the right to actually help his team mate.

yea he is a right miserable sort. his captaincy last year was shambolic. in particular v Wales. Not to mention how he disrespected Rolland..in his final international. Actually should have got a ban for that from the IRB. FFR banned him for a game I think.

Sangre

Swiwi. wrote: »

Pape - merited, sends out a message, should have been sent off once Barnes decided it was deliberate. As for assault, I asked my sister (who is a lawyer) about that once, and for a criminal charge it would actually be quite hard to prosecute successfully, at least under NZ law. Might be easier to get through a civil case if Heaslip had had permanent loss of employment or similar.

Assault in sport is quite an interesting area of criminal law, I remember learning about it while in college. Basically (from memory), the act has to be really beyond what anyone on the pitch could have possibly expected before they walked into the pitch. Normal rules of assault obviously don't apply as nearly every act on a rugby pitch involving the opposition would be assult if it happened outside the sport. I can't see a dig like this falling into that category. However, something like eye gouging or biting could a lot more easily.

Getting the law involved in rugby is a path to be avoided if possible as it will harm the sport in the long run due to insurance issues etc.

Swiwi.

Sangre wrote: »

Assault in sport is quite an interesting area of criminal law, I remember learning about it while in college. Basically (from memory), the act has to be really beyond what anyone on the pitch could have possibly expected before they walked into the pitch. Normal rules of assault obviously don't apply as nearly every act on a rugby pitch involving the opposition would be assult if it happened outside the sport. I can't see a dig like this falling into that category. However, something like eye gouging or biting could a lot more easily.

Getting the law involved in rugby is a path to be avoided if possible as it will harm the sport in the long run due to insurance issues etc.

A jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Pape with premeditation and with the deliberate intent to maim or injure attacked Heaslip, or something like that. One of the problems as you say is that by taking a rugby field players consent to the possibility of injury, I really think it would need something way out there like a sustained series of headbutts or repeated kicking to the head of the player or something before the police might be interested.

errlloyd

England

Swiwi. wrote: »

A jury would have to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that Pape with premeditation and with the deliberate intent to maim or injure attacked Heaslip, or something like that. One of the problems as you say is that by taking a rugby field players consent to the possibility of injury, I really think it would need something way out there like a sustained series of headbutts or repeated kicking to the head of the player or something before the police might be interested.

Assault in Ireland probably won't get a jury trial unless you appeal.

Zzippy

England

errlloyd wrote: »

Assault in Ireland probably won't get a jury trial unless you appeal.

AFAIK serious assaults are heard in the Circuit Court, which is a jury trial. A "run-of-the-mill" assault would be heard in the District Court, which is judge only, so you are correct that an appeal from the District Court would go to a jury. (I am not a lawyer so this may not be the full picture)

Swiwi.

English Lurker wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks, dangerous as Fofana and Bastareud are as individual runners, they're probably not the greatest pairing and France could really use a distributor?

(Yes I agree)

My sincere condolences for the barbaric and almost inhumane slaughter of your cricket team EL

English Lurker

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Brian Smith wrote an excellent snippet the other week for one of the English papers about how he always though that a midfield partnership needed a distributor until he got to international level as a coach, and then he realised that it doesn't hold for international rugby in the same way it does for club rugby. Can't remember where I saw that article now.

Didn't see the article, but I did see the consequences of that thought at the time and I can't see I'm as convinced as he is

In fairness, he actually did pretty well with the "No passing centres" thing for a while, and I kinda wish he'd kept the gig longer to see where it ended up. But, in any case, it did depend pretty heavily on a certain set of players i.e. sniping half-backs who distribute well on the gainline and wingers who excellent at tracking them. Do France have that? Cos I don't think they do.

Swiwi. wrote: »

(Yes I agree)

My sincere condolences for the barbaric and almost inhumane slaughter of your cricket team EL

I knew this plan of replacing the South Africans with Irishmen wouldn't work out *ducks and runs*

Swiwi.

English Lurker wrote: »

I knew this plan of replacing the South Africans with Irishmen wouldn't work out *ducks and runs*

The jokes are flowing thick and fast online but one I saw was "Eoin Morgan playing for England because he couldn't get a look in with Ireland..." :pac:

Riskymove

England

Swiwi. wrote: »

The jokes are flowing thick and fast online but one I saw was "Eoin Morgan playing for England because he couldn't get a look in with Ireland..." :pac:

I prefer the "Sleeper agent destroying England from within" idea myself

iroced

France

.ak wrote: »

I was expecting 6'ish, you'd wonder if Heaslip didn't break vertebrae would it have been as sever.

Yeah it really looks like Heaslip actual injury played its part.

A few years back, when Flannery deliberately kicked Palisson (interestingly it already was Barnes the ref and Flannery got away with it - maybe because Healy was already out with a YC Barnes didn't want Ireland to be down to 13 men... - so proportionally Papé YC was almost a bit harsh :P :rolleyes:) he got a 6 weeks ban. But Palisson "just" had a dead leg and although he left the pitch and did not come back on after Flannery assault, he was able to play in Cardiff 2 weeks later.

English Lurker

Swiwi. wrote: »

The jokes are flowing thick and fast online but one I saw was "Eoin Morgan playing for England because he couldn't get a look in with Ireland..." :pac:

They offered us Captain Morgan, we said yes because we wanted a drink, we only found out the truth too late...

Ah well. Rugby thread! Let's be on topic, right?

Wonder if Pape will make his way back in. I don't think he's good enough if someone else performs in his absence.

Zzippy

England

BBC showing the Scotland-Wales game from 1975 at the moment if anyone's interested in comparing...

Edit: Topically interesting - one of the Welsh players was taken off by the doctor for suspected concussion

efb

England

I'm at a loose end this weekend so going hiking

phog

According to Simon Thomas, Castrogiovanni is out of next weekends game.

Simon Thomas (@simonrug) tweeted at 4:25 PM on Sun, Feb 22, 2015:
Italy prop Martin Castrogiovanni is out of the game against Scotland because a friend's dog bit him on the nose and he required stitches!

19543261

France

Was he trying to kiss it?

Zzippy

England

How's the dog? :pac:

total former

England

Jaysus. That's right up there with Euan Murray in the bizarre / stupid injury department.

Larbre34

France

On the wires at the moment, the assigned TMO for Ireland v England, Shaun Veldsman of SA was assaulted in his car near Newlands, Cape Town on Saturday after officiating at the Stormers home match. He received stab wounds, including to his lung and is recovering in hospital. He was to be among a crew of four South African officials at Lansdowne Road.

Terrible incident, best wishes to him

razorblunt

France

Cusiter and Ashe back in the Scotland squad amongst a few others (Allen, Low and Denton).

Hopefully if Cusiter gets into the 22 its at Laidlaw's expense and not Hidalgo-Clyne, though as captain you can't see Laidlaw getting dropped entirely.

b.gud

England

A good video with some stats of the second round of the 6 nations

b.gud

England

phog wrote: »

According to Simon Thomas, Castrogiovanni is out of next weekends game.

19543261 wrote: »

Was he trying to kiss it?

Zzippy wrote: »

How's the dog? :pac:

He might want to consider changing his Twitter pic (HT to the score)

Oregano_State

England

b.gud wrote: »

A good video with some stats of the second round of the 6 nations

14s in, POC celebrating with a skip and a jump is quality!

aimee1

http://balls.ie/rugby/welsh-defence-coach-shaun-edwards-wants-one-popular-irish-tactic-banned/

bizarre. lets ban tackling in rugby

penybont exile

Scotland

IMO he has a point.

Many so called choke tackles should be classified as high and penalised accordingly.

irishbucsfan

England

penybont exile wrote: »

IMO he has a point.

Many so called choke tackles should be classified as high and penalised accordingly.

Choke tackles aren't high. A high tackle is above the shoulders, choke tackles rarely are, and if they are they should be penalised.

I don't think they're dangerous. I think if there's any reason to outlaw them it's that they're a little cynical.

Gits_bone

France

I agree with Edwards kind of, but not that it's dangerous.

Scrums/lineouts are ways of restarting the game. Purposely playing for a scrum is making the game boring imo.

MJohnston

England

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Choke tackles aren't high. A high tackle is above the shoulders, choke tackles rarely are, and if they are they should be penalised.

I don't think they're dangerous. I think if there's any reason to outlaw them it's that they're a little cynical.

It's mad the amount of people believe they actually involve choking tackled players.

total former

England

MJohnston wrote: »

It's mad the amount of people believe they actually involve choking tackled players.

I don't think anyone believes that.

MJohnston

England

total former wrote: »

I don't think anyone believes that.

Go ahead and read a few comments sections on articles about Edwards' words and tell me you still think that.

Edit: going to clarify - I don't think most people think there is a literal choking action involved, but I think a lot of people believe it is supposed to involve tackling near the neck

MJohnston

England

MJohnston wrote: »

It's mad the amount of people believe they actually involve choking tackled players.

They should rename it something more innocuous.


Asphyxiation tackle?

total former

England

http://m.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/29606826

penybont exile

Scotland

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Choke tackles aren't high. A high tackle is above the shoulders, choke tackles rarely are, and if they are they should be penalised.

I don't think they're dangerous. I think if there's any reason to outlaw them it's that they're a little cynical.

I didn't say all choke tackles were high .......

I was referring to the many occasions when the tackled player is held upright in the maul situation by an arm around the shoulder/neck area ..... As you say this should be penalised but more often that not is let go.

It does happen .....Rory Best is a prime culprit as was DOC. Other teams do it as well.

irishbucsfan

England

penybont exile wrote: »

I didn't say all choke tackles were high .......

I was referring to the many occasions when the tackled player is held upright in the maul situation by an arm around the shoulder/neck area ..... As you say this should be penalised but more often that not is let go.

It does happen .....Rory Best is a prime culprit as was DOC. Other teams do it as well.

I don't really think that it's done dangerously. If they're holding someone around the neck maybe but I really don't remember any cases of that

.ak

What Edwards is forgetting is the ball carrier dictates the tackle just as much as the defender. A player can get low with the ball and lead with the open shoulder to avoid this...

But Wales don't like that, because it's harder to play a direct running/offloading game that invites choke tackling.

If anything is dangerous it's the two on one chop tackling Wales employ.

Can't be looking at banning these things, it's the fact there's so many ways to skin a cat that makes the game interesting.

He's just making noise to get the refs ear.

Flipper22

penybont exile wrote: »

IMO he has a point.

Many so called choke tackles should be classified as high and penalised accordingly.

I think they're practically mutually exclusive

molloyjh

While we're at it the chop tackle should also be banned as in the vast majority of cases it's a completely illegal tackle.

CatFromHue

The chop is bad all right, no arms used at all.

penybont exile

penybont exile wrote: »

IMO he has a point.

Many so called choke tackles should be classified as high and penalised accordingly.

He doesn't have a point. A high tackle is a high tackle, and should be penalised all day, no problem.

Zzippy

England

penybont exile wrote: »

I didn't say all choke tackles were high .......

I was referring to the many occasions when the tackled player is held upright in the maul situation by an arm around the shoulder/neck area ..... As you say this should be penalised but more often that not is let go.

It does happen .....Rory Best is a prime culprit as was DOC. Other teams do it as well.

If we're going down that road they should look at the ruck and maul area where players are routinely grabbed around the head/neck and violently yanked to get them out of said ruck/maul. Now that's dangerous if anything is...

accensi0n

Zzippy wrote: »

If we're going down that road they should look at the ruck and maul area where players are routinely grabbed around the head/neck and violently yanked to get them out of said ruck/maul. Now that's dangerous of anything is...

This is actually something I really dislike, it looks very dangerous. Basically a headlock and violent twist.

aimee1

molloyjh wrote: »

While we're at it the chop tackle should also be banned as in the vast majority of cases it's a completely illegal tackle.

im amazed lydiate hasnt suffered multiple concussions diving head first at an opponents feet/knees

OldRio

aimee1 wrote: »

http://balls.ie/rugby/welsh-defence-coach-shaun-edwards-wants-one-popular-irish-tactic-banned/

bizarre. lets ban tackling in rugby

and so it begins.

penybont exile

Scotland

If no arms used then I agree.....

Penalty

total former

England

So Charteris in at lock, Lee back in at TH, North back, Cuthbert dropped and Liam Williams retained, Scott Baldwin ahead of Hibbard.

All those changes are fair enough I think, would have been very harsh to drop Liam Williams.

Buer

Deserved retention of Liam Williams but one has to wonder if the negative publicity that Cuthbert brought to himself with the phone throwing footage came into play. Gatland has been very loyal to him up to this point.

.ak

What phone throwing?

I'd have kept Cuthbert over North imo.