Six Nations 2023 - Ireland v France Match Thread, Sat 11th Feb, KO 2:15PM - TV: RTÉ2, ITV, France2

That stupid anti-Irish bias thing came from that article on one of the clickbaity sites about our win/loss record with Barnes as ref. It was the most egregiously stupid use of stats I've ever seen and was roundly debunked on a thread here. But it got plenty of traction elsewhere and here we are.

Embarrassingly enough, I had to google to make I didn't spell it after everyone's favourite Gaul

So ROG suggested the French media had been criticizing the team a bit, and basically encouraging them to run the ball more.

It's unlikely the team designed their policy around media rumblings, but it certainly raises the question of what you should do against the Irish kicking game.

When Ireland kick the ball at you, you basically have three options:

(a) kick for touch (if permissible)

(b) kick it back deep (i.e., keep on the field)

of if France then:

 (c) do something outrageously French (run it back, chip over and catch, etc.)

(a) is problematic, because you likely give Ireland a set piece inside your half. Any slight miskick and they're already deep into your territory. In either case, Ireland will win the lineout, maul it up a bit, possibly winning a penalty and gaining points or deeper territory. Failing that, they will hit you with a first phase move, which are best avoided.

(b) This is where the Ireland backs deserve credit. When France kicked infield, Sexton would drop back and either take it himself, or immediately take the pass from whomever caught it. You now have Hansen, Lowe and Keenan all cocked and ready to chase a return kick. Even Ringrose has the gas to help here. Sexton mixed it up nicely, sometimes kicking deep and sometimes landing it in that no-mans land (French 22-halfway). Here, they can't kick for touch, and will likely face immediate pressure from the kick chase. If the receiver looks for immediate contact, the heavy forwards now have to retreat from midfield to reset. This will make them tired and grumpy. There are really no good outcomes here unless....

(c) You push the France button?

Point I'm trying to make is, the Irish kicking game is now so organized, that if one can France, one probably should France? Any aerial exchange will more often than not leave you defending a set-piece in your territory. Most other scenarios will at the very least leave your forwards retreating. And though I didn't factor it into the above, there is always the chance Ireland win back possession from a hoist.

So while my instinct coming out of the game was "France will kick a LOT more if we play them in October"

I'm actually not so sure if they will....

Thanks for Hemmingwaying my point, perfectly 🤣

Pretty sure that's not true. If you lose two hookers to injury caused by fould play you aren't penalised like that as you haven't caused the uncontested scrums

Unfortunately this is the law that applies. If a player goes off causing unconstested scrums then he can't be replaced. So Kelleher being injured would have meant 14 man Ireland on Saturday.

3.17 In a squad of 23 players or at the discretion of the match organiser, a player whose departure has caused the referee to order uncontested scrums cannot be replaced.

Laws of the Game | World Rugby Laws

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/3/

Individual Laws of the game of rugby union.

Listening to ROG discussing it from coach & player point of view was interesting. Basically depending on where you are, how isolated is the tackled player, the size differential and a couple of other factors determines the choices the tackling player will make, some of it is about dislodging the ball, some is to increase the likelihood of a steal on the ground, some to slow down ruck speed, prevent an offload, or just to get a big shot on the other guy. So potentially a lot of decisions being made very quickly. Big high shots are part of the repertoire but if you get it wrong it's a card. Overall his point was that it's not just as simple as lowering the tackle height from a player point of view because you trade that against any advantage you can win legally in the tackle.

This.

The biggest single challenge facing rugby, both domestically and internationally and at both amateur and professional levels is player safety. Tinkering with the Laws will not be sufficient. A radical change in approach at World Rughy level may see the game expand beyond the traditional powerhouses of Tier 1 countries. Anything less will prompt a decline in children starting to play, and thus eventual decline in Pro & International player quality, making professional rugby financially non viable.

I think what shows it is that wherever the law is coaches and players will come right up to it and in doing so they'll cross it at times. So if the law says chest high hits are ok then we will have guys trying to hit the chest at certain moments in any game, some of those efforts will go wrong and you get head contact. The laws the problem here, given that we know players will always take it to the line. If you want to get rid of head contact then tackles have to be lower than the chest, that will at least diminish the number of contacts like Antonio's we see. You still get elbows, knees and hips, but that's another issue.

"More red cards" is what was happening 4-5 years ago. What we've seen in the last couple of years is a drift in the other direction, to more mitigation for high hits and shorter suspensions for anyone who is sent off.

And since some unions want to go even further and get rid of red cards completely, I don't think we're going back to the way it was tbh

Edit: to confirm, I hate that it's going this way, I'd much prefer the zero tolerance approach.

I think a replay showing the foot possibly in touch was shown very early on and another when they were looking at the touchdown (although that one was inconclusive imo). I definitely remember remarking on the possibility of that foot touching the grass during the process and was watching for it in all the replays. I was quite convinced by the time the decision was made that there was clear evidence that his toe was in contact with the ground. But time constraints meant that they really couldn't look back on it, having dismissed it early on as well.

TMO has access to all angles. He picks out the ones to show the ref. So we only see those ones and any that the broadcaster might pick up as well.

They've moved on from the conversion being the back stop for checking, it's now the kick off after the try. But I'm not sure if any of that applies to a situation where officially the TMO has already been used to come to the decision.

Me too, being honest I couldn't believe they awarded it (and I think Hugh and Donal were equally surprised!). And the "new" angle after the try didn't show anything different to me - it was still a no try. At the time, I thought we got very lucky with Barnes' question.

I'm also less convinced it was a no arms tackle from Penaud, I think he does just enough to wrap his arms around Lowe's chest/belly to be seen to wrap. He is certainly far from arms by his side.