Autumn Internationals Team Announcement/Talk

Retalick with try of the year

jr86

Squatter wrote: »

Yep - and with England (who they generally can be relied on to beat in Cardiff) and Ireland at home they could be a decent bet to win the 6 Nations.

Wales haven't beaten England at home in their last two 6n matches

Granted they fairly blew the 2017 match

To settle the Farrell tackle debate - Gardner now admits he got it wrong.

So I guess it was all just a big agenda on our part against Farrell...!

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

To settle the Farrell tackle debate - Gardner now admits he got it wrong.

So I guess it was all just a big agenda on our part against Farrell...!

Oh right so it could have been a penalty and not a sin binning or a citing? Hmm interesting

The other tackle was an awful decision though. And it’s not good for the sport to have him get away with that one.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Oh right so it could have been a penalty and not a sin binning or a citing? Hmm interesting

The other tackle was an awful decision though. And it’s not good for the sport to have him get away with that one.

The South African one is worse imo

OldRio

He fecked up. Trying desperately to justify the decision but.......... you fecked up.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

The South African one is worse imo

Well no, absolutely disagreed.

The first one should be a reminder to people how the game works and how the laws are applied. It showed a limitation of the laws and the way we apply them. It’s a price to pay for allowing grey areas and altering interpretations without altering the laws themselves. The first decision was justified in the laws and later decided to be wrong because of how they are interpreted and applied, which is always going to be something that is going to happen on rugby unless we have a major change (which won’t and shouldn’t happen). The second wasn’t defensible in the laws at all, it was pretty clear cut.

And obviously the team and player involved put it under a huge spotlight in neighbouring countries but it’s not like we don’t encounter this all the time on a much smaller scale, there’s nothing new about this sort of thing at all.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well no, absolutely disagreed.

The first one should be a reminder to people how the game works and how the laws are applied. It showed a limitation of the laws and the way we apply them. It’s a price to pay for allowing grey areas and altering interpretations without altering the laws themselves. The first decision was justified in the laws and later decided to be wrong because of how they are interpreted and applied, which is always going to be something that is going to happen on rugby unless we have a major change (which won’t and shouldn’t happen). The second wasn’t defensible in the laws at all, it was pretty clear cut.

And obviously the team and player involved put it under a huge spotlight in neighbouring countries but it’s not like we don’t encounter this all the time on a much smaller scale, there’s nothing new about this sort of thing at all.

I can't understand how anybody could consider/interpret either of Farrell's shoulder charges to be tackles. Personally, I think the first one is worse because after he makes contact with his shoulder it goes up into the players chin.

Anyway, at least Gardner saw sense. And hopefully refs are watching Farrell closely in the future so he doesn't get away with them