Ireland Team Talk XII: Farrell's First Fifteen

How does one make an objective assertion regarding "degree of danger"? There is no applicable metric, nor a definition of World Rugby's interpretation of the term. It is literally a referee's subjective assessment of the situation.

"They're either both reds, or neither are reds, and to try stand in the middle is to perform mental gymnastics."

This is patently untrue. Not all contact with the head is equal, this is why step 3 of the process exists.

That video shows the point of contact from behind where you cant see the players chest...

The first point of contact was a split second before that clip which shows in that there was no contact with the head, you have to look closely to notice it, if we showed more angles it would prove that the first point of contact was with the chest clearly for all to see.

At most its a penalty and yellow but no way is it a red.

Clearly the first significant impact is Baird's shoulder with the other guys face. Baird's shoulder is nowhere near the players chest. His upper arm may be but it was a dangerous head hit. As a retired lecturer in anatomy and physiology I can still recognise the difference between a chest and a head. The head is the bit at the top...where Baird collides at speed. Red card.

Baird dips and comes up into the contract. It may get to mitigation after that but the contact was clearly illegal and dangerous. You can start looking force and severity after to reduce it to a yellow but the tackle is very clearly a player driving upwards and making contact with the head.

That's what does happen?

Like, the TMO reviews things while the game continues, and it's only when he/she decides that the referee needs to review something that the game gets interrupted.

Still waiting for Cheslin Kolbe, Damian McKenzie, Gabin Villere to be eaten alive.

What would someone from a country that's never got to a semi final know about what's required to get to a semi final? There's no magic formula to getting to a semi final, if Michael Lowry is good at the basic's of his role then he's good enough to be our fullback.

So you said you said you'd never seen him play. Then you said you might have seen him play but you hadn't noticed him. Now he's not good enough for international rugby.

If you had have seen him play in any of the ERC games this year you would have seen him take high balls out of the sky all day. You'd also have seen him tear defences apart with his footwork. In fact if you had have watched him properly you'd also have noticed he very rarely misses his tackles.

Maybe actually watch a player before you comment on them.

He is pretty small, not tiny but certainly not big. You know if he was Irish we'd be saying he's too small.

See its when you start going like "except x, y & z" it show's that you're example is bullshit. McKenzie is a 40 cap All Black, Lowry only just got his first cap, he'll need time.

His size isnt much of a concern if he's a good rugby player, that's more important.

McKenzie is 5'9

Kolbe is 5'7

They are similar sizes. If we were talking about a tight five player maybe I would agree with you but a fullback size isnt really that important if you have other good facets of you're game. Worrying about size is such an Irish thing to do, I look at the French media when they cover Ireland and the Irish provinces and they cant get enough of Michael Lowry and not once was his size mentioned, sort of show's the different mindset of the two countries.

It's could be a weakness, but also offers a strength. You could devise a defensive strategy where wingers cover the high balls etc, I think Lowe did a bit of that yesterday.

It all depends on how the team are set up to attack and defend, if you create a lot of opportunities then Lowry is a weapon to exploit them, but if it's all slow and no creativity then better off with a different fullback.

Could always experiment with Lowry on the wing too.