Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ireland v England Grand Slam Decider 2023

Options
13335373839

Comments

  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    It probably means having two TMOs though, as you might need to have someone keeping an eye on "live" play whilst the other does the review work.

    Was just about to make this exact point as well.

    Wasn't there a relatively recent incident (possibly in the AI's?) of 2 incidents in close succession, and in the aftermath it came out the TMO hadn't see a player stumbling after receiving treatment (who, I think, was subsequently left back on the pitch) as the TMO was reviewing the 1st incident? Can't recall the specifics off the top of my head.

    The Nic White one maybe?



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,581 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Has anyone inquired as to the health of Steward and his elbow/shoulder. The lack of concern and disdain shown here for an opponents health is in poor taste. What a bunch of homers.



  • Registered Users Posts: 675 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    Your analysis is correct. With the newer interpretations of red card offences the number of players entering contact head down is decreasing, but it still coached as an effective way of involving as many opposition tackler in order to 'create' space elsewhere.

    Ireland prosper with a 'heads up' approach creating (as the SH call it) Lightning fast ball. Other sides are struggling to implement this strategy. These sides are the ones conceding red & yellow cards. As per Aloofs post says, fewer cards conceded = fewer games lost.

    But stating that removing tackling from the game is logical is reductio ad absurdum



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,586 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    England has a discipline problem that they have not addressed.

    Debate this red all you want but they had a dumb yellow as well in the same game and last years in the 6 nations was a clear red for hit on james ryan They had a red and a yellow in the U20’s.


    England are the creators of their own problems, and they have plenty of problems without creating more



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,486 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    It's not "England" though. It's coaching and players. And it's in France too.

    ROG on the radio a few weeks back (paraphrasing here) saying there are a number of ways to tackle (or hit a player), and that the high shot is beneficial/the right one in some instances. So it's a risk they are willing to take. It's not being coached out of the game. And it's less likely to be if we go this absurd 20 minute red route.

    ROG comment was in the context of the Atonio yellow/red on Herring. He was basically saying that in this scenario the method he used would have been a coached/approved approach given that scenario and he takes his chances (with his and someone else's brain) by going for a high/dominant hit to stop the player in their tracks.

    If we introduce 20 minute reds it's obvious and inevitable we see more risk taking with peoples' health.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    We do that too though. The choke tackle is an upright tackle that we actually did successfully complete twice in Saturday's match to get a turnover. There were a few more unsuccessful attempts as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 53,028 ✭✭✭✭ButtersSuki


    I've avoided the Rugby forum for years as it normally descends into a Red v Blue sh*t show, but decided to venture in for old times' sake.

    On the red card; I think it was very harsh and should have been a yellow. Peyper said there was no mitigation, but for me there is mitigation in the angle Keenan is at at the moment of the collision. He's practically 90 degrees bent over at the hips as he reached to gather the bouncing ball. If the roles were reversed and Keenan got sent off for that exact same collision on Stewart, I'm pretty sure that most of you would be fairly annoyed about it (to put it mildly).

    I don't think it hugely affected the result as I do think Ireland were inevitably going to win. I would be far more concerned with the Irish performance. Players looked nervous, and the team as a whole under-performed. A similar performance against a better team in the World Cup will inevitably leave us going home early, again. France absolutely hammered England in Twickenham in what was IMO the single best team performance in the 6 Nations. I'm not saying we should have put 50 on England, but we should have been much more in control of the game. I find it very worrying that players seemed to let the occasion get to them.

    Finally on the Super 12 20minute red topic (as I see that's coming up a bit), I think that is just a terrible idea TBH. Wn't go into detail on it as the main points have already been discussed, but I don't like it at all. Far too much room for manipulation.



  • Registered Users Posts: 6,317 ✭✭✭gameoverdude




  • Registered Users Posts: 923 ✭✭✭ujjjjjjjjj


    Good post and largely agree with your view on the card. Re our performance I think it is hard to compare to the England France game as for whatever reason England did not turn up that day, they were brutal. I don't think it's hugely controversial to say England did turn up against us. They went back to a limited style of play and a very physical approach and spoling rucks etc and it worked to a large extent and we took an age to throw off the shackles. But we did.

    Yes a few jitters and I think it was clear the players felt the weight of importance but I am glad, they will 100% learn from this and better to have those jitters now that a wcup qtr or semi. I think every bit of adversity they have had this 6 nations they have responded to and this will just be a another tick in that box.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,586 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    By England, i mean the players and coaches playing with england.

    I was fairly certain that wouldnt need clarifying



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 14,599 ✭✭✭✭CIARAN_BOYLE


    I wonder if it would be more meaningful to move the punishment for an offense post game.


    We are seeing a lot of red cards with a week or two of suspension. What if 6 weeks (after everything, mitigation, remorse, record) was a low end ban.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,599 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    I wonder if it would be more meaningful to move the punishment for an offense post game.

    The issue with that is that the team infringed upon don’t benefit.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    This debate should should have stopped here really. Don't turn to shoulder/elbow the player and you won't get sent it off. Steward chose to do that. Straight forward decision.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,472 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    The RFU are appealing the card. Interesting quote from Ross Tucker on how to implement the atckle framework he helped implement:

    World Rugby’s research scientist Ross Tucker, who helped to design the high-tackle framework that informs refereeing decisions, said that Steward should have been shown a yellow card.

    “Personally, I think you could arrive at red initially and mitigate for a late change in the situation and go yellow,” he wrote on Twitter. “Or you could say that there’s no fault.



  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 8,124 ✭✭✭fitz


    They don't currently, either...thats not what the ban is about though. The punishment is about deterring future behaviour, and has to be such that it stops people taking risks. Clearly the current punishments are not significant enough to change behaviour.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    My concern with post-match sanctions is that they take too much of the jeopardy out of risky actions during the match. Coaches already think that the red+ban risk is outweighed by the reward of dominant upright tackles. Move that sanction post game and the risk reward calculation favours the hit even more. Add in a high reward situation like a World Cup final and moving the consequences to the future tilts towards making the hit even more.

    In an ideal world I'd prefer post-match sanctions but I'm not convinced that it would have the required effect. I'm very interested in the results of the 20 minute red card trial but it was brought in solely to avoid "ruining the game", not with player safety as a focus.

    Post edited by [Deleted User] on


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,486 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    And the 20 minute red isn't exactly going to help.



  • Subscribers Posts: 41,644 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    agreed. im a fan of the 20 minute red, but it HAS to be followed up with tougher sanctions post game. The current judicial system is a stain on the game.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,486 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    Would u be saying that if some front row takes Johnny Sexton out in the first few mins of the RWC quarter final? Small price to pay, 15 players for 70% of the game.....why not?

    It's giving license to players to up their appetite for risk taking given the penalty is lower.

    This Is a retrograde step. It is not with players safety in mind. It's a reaction to players and coaches not adapting to a measure that has player safety in mind. It's smacks of spineless leadership.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28 Rangy


    Steward didn’t take a risk. His reflex reaction was to protect himself. Under the current law you can’t protect yourself in the way he did. If he therefore stayed in a head on position two players would have had head injuries. The law doesn’t make sense in application.

    Head contact happens all game just with different parts of the body. You can’t legislate head contact out of the game. Trying to do so just ruins the game.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Not sure he had enough time tbh. These clips are taken from the Virgin TV tweet where they discussed it at half time. You can see the video timer shows 15 seconds in from the first to the last. And that was in slo-mo. From the first one, you can see Steward has a realistic chance of getting to the ball depending on the bounce. In the second, it looks like he's shaping to kick it. In the third, he realises Keenan is about to take possession and starts to abort the kick (if that's what he was attempting). He completely stops on his planted right foot which swings his hips and the rest of his body in that direction. There's very little time from when Keenan takes possession and the collision.

    One way of looking at this is as a rugby incident and accidental contact. Another is, as Shaggy said, he had a duty of care to Keenan and should have aborted the move earlier. It's really hard to know without knowing exactly what his intention was. But it didn't look to me that he was attempting a tackle. Good luck to the disciplinary panel sorting that out.




  • Registered Users Posts: 21,500 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    No, If Steward had opened up facing Keenan, Keenan would have banged into his chest. no serious injury risk to either player. Now Steward might have been a bit winded but had have no penalty against him and he would have stayed on the field.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Yes. That's true. But the original contention from Peyper apparently was that he should have turned sideways. Which he seems to have tried to do. This is what I was addressing via the post from @[Deleted User] replying to @q2ice



  • Registered Users Posts: 923 ✭✭✭ujjjjjjjjj


    Thanks for posting those pics although goodness knows how they will sort this one out. Those who think it was dangerous and malicious will say he deliberately turned his arm into Keenan those who think he was just reflex turning following an aborted kick will see that. Good luck to the disciplinary panel :)

    As clear as mud :)



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,991 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I don't think anyone thinks it was malicious?

    I lean towards Shaggy's point of view though I probably would also have given a yellow.



  • Registered Users Posts: 923 ✭✭✭ujjjjjjjjj


    I agree I would have given a yellow on balance. Anyway importantly let's just hope Hugo is okay !! Leave it to the boffins now in World Rugby to work it out.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think it was malicious, just sloppy or clumsy.

    If Peyper had decided that Steward didn't have enough time to avoid the collision and mitigated it to yellow I wouldn't argue too much. Unfortunately for Steward he's jumped into contact opening up the question of the red. Players who end up in that red or yellow situation will tend to receive the higher sanction if the referees are under pressure to help avoid high profile head injuries.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,771 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    Peyper said that he had the time to turn sideways, as a response to Stewart who said it was milliseconds.

    I think Stewart lined up keenan for a tackle expecting him to get the ball from hansen, when that didn't happen then he tried to adjust and took action to protect himself by turning. This resulted in him hitting a prone Keenan in the head with ith his elbow.

    He probably could have continued on and tackled keenan but that would have been a penalty. Instead he tried to pull and turned to protect himself.

    It was caused by Stewart, he elbowed someone in the head. I also think keenan didn't dip so close to the hit that it was mitigation. So a red seemed the right decision to me.

    But I also see how someone thinks that Stewart had no options and hence yellow is correct.



  • Registered Users Posts: 632 ✭✭✭squidgainz




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    There are screengrabs seven posts above yours. Maybe have a look at them?



Advertisement