Ire v Aus
-
@barbarian said in Ire v Aus:
@taniwharugby said in Ire v Aus:
@barbarian while I don't care about the ins and outs, wasn't there a thing last year before the RWC about Quade not being a citizen?
Yeah that's true, he was never an Aussie citizen. But as I understand it you can qualify through family, as Toby Smith and Mike Harris did.
You don't need to be citizen (do you?). Just resident for 3 years.
Edit; is it necessary for the Olympics?
IOC requires it. World Rugby does not. In any event Quade wasn't a resident of Aus leading up to the Olympics he was playing (or not playing as a healthy scratch) for Toulon.
-
@barbarian said in Ire v Aus:
@taniwharugby said in Ire v Aus:
@barbarian while I don't care about the ins and outs, wasn't there a thing last year before the RWC about Quade not being a citizen?
Yeah that's true, he was never an Aussie citizen. But as I understand it you can qualify through family, as Toby Smith and Mike Harris did.
You don't need to be citizen (do you?). Just resident for 3 years.
Edit; is it necessary for the Olympics?
IOC requires it. World Rugby does not. In any event Quade wasn't a resident of Aus leading up to the Olympics he was playing (or not playing as a healthy scratch) for Toulon.
I have always felt "citizenship" requirement is more easily bypassed. How many Kentan runners found that gaining Bahraini (or other middle eastern country of convenience apologies is it was in fact Qatar or Oman or someghing ... ) was remarkably easy as processes were ummm altered to suit.
Citizenship in and of itself should not be enough. Needs an additional criteria like residency or parentage IMO.
-
@booboo meh who gives a shit? The olympics is a bloated corporate nationalistic dick-waving contest based on who can throw the most cash at the medal table. It's long ceased to be the pinnacle of pure human athletic endeavour.
Finding a small reason why an Aussie can't represent Australia seems incredibly pointless
-
@barbarian said in Ire v Aus:
@taniwharugby said in Ire v Aus:
@barbarian while I don't care about the ins and outs, wasn't there a thing last year before the RWC about Quade not being a citizen?
Yeah that's true, he was never an Aussie citizen. But as I understand it you can qualify through family, as Toby Smith and Mike Harris did.
You don't need to be citizen (do you?). Just resident for 3 years.
Edit; is it necessary for the Olympics?
IOC requires it. World Rugby does not. In any event Quade wasn't a resident of Aus leading up to the Olympics he was playing (or not playing as a healthy scratch) for Toulon.
I have always felt "citizenship" requirement is more easily bypassed. How many Kentan runners found that gaining Bahraini (or other middle eastern country of convenience apologies is it was in fact Qatar or Oman or someghing ... ) was remarkably easy as processes were ummm altered to suit.
Citizenship in and of itself should not be enough. Needs an additional criteria like residency or parentage IMO.
Agreed on citizenship. Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all British UK citizens. People born in Northern Ireland also automatically qualify for Irish citizenship. Longer residency 5-7 years for playing for Tier 1 Nations. 2-3 years for Tier 2. And re-capping after two years for Tier 2 players.
-
@MajorRage said in Ire v Aus:
Although that's probably not too far off a fair assesment, I think it's demeaning to label nations as tier 1 / tier 2 etc. It should be the same rules for all.
Err, they are graded as such by World Rugby. For Development funding purposes, so that's the basis I was applying it. If you're a Fijian player, who got a couple of caps playing for Italy through residency or dual parentage, then a stand down of 2 years, and you can go play for Fiji.
-
@Pot-Hale Yeah I know, it's just my view.
Especially when Italy and Scotland considered tier 1, but tier 2 nations can and will often beat them. Yes, for funding etc it makes sense as without World Rugby funding, the game may not survive in some of these countries. But I struggle to see why they should have more relaxed player eligibility laws when they are already better than some tier 1 nations.
-
@MajorRage said in Ire v Aus:
@Pot-Hale Yeah I know, it's just my view.
Especially when Italy and Scotland considered tier 1, but tier 2 nations can and will often beat them. Yes, for funding etc it makes sense as without World Rugby funding, the game may not survive in some of these countries. But I struggle to see why they should have more relaxed player eligibility laws when they are already better than some tier 1 nations.
Ok fair enough
-
@MajorRage said in Ire v Aus:
@Pot-Hale Yeah I know, it's just my view.
Especially when Italy and Scotland considered tier 1, but tier 2 nations can and will often beat them. Yes, for funding etc it makes sense as without World Rugby funding, the game may not survive in some of these countries. But I struggle to see why they should have more relaxed player eligibility laws when they are already better than some tier 1 nations.
Unless they address the professional league aspect that results in countries being net importers of talent - either by counting days as an overseas professional at a reduced rate towards qualification or abolishing it entirely there is a need for something like this.
-
Brilliant analysis as usual from Murray Kinsella at the42.ie
Analysis: Attention to detail and violence help Ireland deny Pocock
We examine each of the Wallabies back row’s efforts to steal Irish possession last weekend.
Really highlights what a demon Pocock is at the breakdown and how well Ireland executed Joe's plan to deal with him.
-
It is a good analysis, if a little biased.
The couple of times Kinsella says "Pocock's approach is questionable" he's also completely ignoring the angles the Irish players are coming in on e.g.
At least he has the grace to talk about how the cleanout before Ringrose's try was completely illegal, even if he doesn't really call Toner out for obstruction.
Ultimately, the tactics worked, and Pocock got frustrated enough to get tangled up. Just a shame we don't get the same protection for obstruction that other nations do.
-
The other thing I noticed in the game that Kinsella seems to ignore was the other 'tactic' employed of diving head below hips with shoulders targeting Pocockwomble's arms.
Pocock is invariably in a position with his own head below his hips as well though. When he is positioned like that, there is no way of targeting him without doing likewise.
-
@munstergreen said in Ire v Aus:
The other thing I noticed in the game that Kinsella seems to ignore was the other 'tactic' employed of diving head below hips with shoulders targeting Pocockwomble's arms.
Pocock is invariably in a position with his own head below his hips as well though. When he is positioned like that, there is no way of targeting him without doing likewise.
You are entitled after entering the tackle area to bend over, you aren't entitled to enter the tackle area with shoulders below hips.
The art of a good 'jackler' is timing and getting in that position without doing anything clearly illegal.
That whole article just showed how he can be targeted with body rolls. What I recall (although I have no evidence) is players diving with their shoulders aimed at his arms. To me that is borderline dangerous and, if the dive is early, illegal.
I'm not getting at Ireland, just describing something I think I saw that Kinsella didn't put in his analysis.PS I hope one day that the tackle are gets cleaned up a bit by eliminating crocodile rolls. The whole concept is meant to be attackers and defenders contesting the ball by owning the space over it through forward momentum, not wrestling moves flinging players out the side.
-
PS I hope one day that the tackle are gets cleaned up a bit by eliminating crocodile rolls. The whole concept is meant to be attackers and defenders contesting the ball by owning the space over it through forward momentum, not wrestling moves flinging players out the side.
If you remove the crocodile roll as well as policing the head below hips upon entry rule you mentioned, we're going to end up with every side having a Pocock in it and turnovers at every single breakdown. Entire matches would be played back and forth within 10 metres of the half way line!
-
@munstergreen said in Ire v Aus:
The other thing I noticed in the game that Kinsella seems to ignore was the other 'tactic' employed of diving head below hips with shoulders targeting Pocockwomble's arms.
Pocock is invariably in a position with his own head below his hips as well though. When he is positioned like that, there is no way of targeting him without doing likewise.
You are entitled after entering the tackle area to bend over, you aren't entitled to enter the tackle area with shoulders below hips.
The art of a good 'jackler' is timing and getting in that position without doing anything clearly illegal.
That whole article just showed how he can be targeted with body rolls. What I recall (although I have no evidence) is players diving with their shoulders aimed at his arms. To me that is borderline dangerous and, if the dive is early, illegal.
I'm not getting at Ireland, just describing something I think I saw that Kinsella didn't put in his analysis.PS I hope one day that the tackle are gets cleaned up a bit by eliminating crocodile rolls. The whole concept is meant to be attackers and defenders contesting the ball by owning the space over it through forward momentum, not wrestling moves flinging players out the side.
Shit we were coached this 15 years ago in premier rugby, how to hit and remove the leech by various means, mostly just battering a shoulder, grab shoulders and roll with pressure on the neck, hitting elbows first underneath the shoulders to break and lift, etc. It's nothing new.
-
Just to be clear beofre irish eyes start weeping. In no way was i claiming this was a new and illegal tactic to aim for Pocock's arms (although if you come in like a diving missile you run a risk of getting pinged for it)
I was simply pointing out that in Kinsellas rather long analysis he failed to point this one simple tactic out. -
Just to be clear beofre irish eyes start weeping. In no way was i claiming this was a new and illegal tactic to aim for Pocock's arms (although if you come in like a diving missile you run a risk of getting pinged for it)
I was simply pointing out that in Kinsellas rather long analysis he failed to point this one simple tactic out.Sniff, sob, boo hoo, 'snot fair!
I think Kinsella was having a manlove Pocock moment - he doesn't care what anyone else was doing wrong.
-
@Pot-Hale is fascinating how amazing Pocock is perceived yet he breaks laws as much as the next guy...
