Article: The Original Rugby Championship - Six Nations 2016
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565118" data-time="1458170999"><p>I don't understand how deliberately throwing a forearm into the face of a prone opponent can not be a red card.<br>
<br>
How can it be considered the same as a badly effected but legitimately attempted tackle?</p></blockquote>
<br>
I think if the ref had seen it, he would have got a yellow. So as Cato says, nothing further warranted (assuming I understand Regulation 17 correctly. Which is not a given, by any means) -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Pot Hale" data-cid="565042" data-time="1458157810"><p>And how has that worked out in reality?<br> <br>Steve Tew still isn't happy and is making noises about not committing to another schedule until some other things are worked out.<br> <br>The development touring squad complaint was a bit hit and miss and had largely stopped well before 2012-2019 schedule. Did the tests generally get full houses when they were played?</p></blockquote><br>Well just the period 2008-2011 the only team that won in New Zealand was France. And they were also the only ones not to get pumped by a double digit points difference in every game. Contrast that with Ireland coming within 30 secs of a draw in 2012 and England coming within six and two points of victory on consecutive weekends in 2014. So while not competitive in every match, certainly more competitive at some point in the tours than the old one stop itinerary.<br> <br><blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Disgusted of TW" data-cid="565139" data-time="1458178047"><p>I think if the ref had seen it, he would have got a yellow.</p></blockquote><br>Again; how is it not a red?
-
<p>I'd guess Antipodean, that it was not considered a red because it was nothing much more than a tap and it was also part of a pile up over the line during a try attempt. There was no wind up of the arm/elbow, no swinging into collision, it really was something and nothing. For sure I've seen lesser offences get worse sanction but I do think that in many cases we are in danger of emasculating the game. This to me is a case in point. Was it within the laws? No. Did it make any material difference? No. Was anyone hurt or likely to get hurt? No. OK Move on, perhaps a penalty at most for Marler being a twat.</p>
-
<p>I guess I'm the sort of person who thinks this shit should be rubbed out of the game rather than having subjective calls about whether someone was likely to get hurt.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565256" data-time="1458221911">
<div>
<p>I guess I'm the sort of person who thinks this shit should be rubbed out of the game rather than having subjective calls about whether someone was likely to get hurt.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Yeah I pretty much agree, although it's low level, it's pretty dirty and uncalled for. At least it was cited however, so that should at least count towards future citations and at least be a deterrent in that regard?</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Bones" data-cid="565257" data-time="1458223167">
<div>
<p>Yeah I pretty much agree, although it's low level, it's pretty dirty and uncalled for. At least it was cited however, so that should at least count towards future citations and at least be a deterrent in that regard?</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>I wouldn't count on anything in relation to the judiciary mate!</p> -
<p>The Gypsy Boy story seems to have legs. The 6N judiciary had a look at it, decided it was a heat of the moment thing and noted that Marler had apologised as soon as he really could, which Lee accepted. The WRU have now expressed 'surprise' at the decision. World rugby have decided to demand that 6N Rugby explains its decision and the whole thing just gets bigger and bigger. The only person to come out of this with any dignity is Samson Lee. Accepted the apology and has since kept his mouth shut. To be fair Gatland tried to play a straight bat but has since had to retract his comments due, I expect, to political pressure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565305" data-time="1458251469">
<div>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>Well of course the gypsy has...</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Catogrande" data-cid="565305" data-time="1458251469">
<div>
<p>The Gypsy Boy story seems to have legs. The 6N judiciary had a look at it, decided it was a heat of the moment thing and noted that Marler had apologised as soon as he really could, which Lee accepted. The WRU have now expressed 'surprise' at the decision. World rugby have decided to demand that 6N Rugby explains its decision and the whole thing just gets bigger and bigger. The only person to come out of this with any dignity is Samson Lee. Accepted the apology and has since kept his mouth shut. To be fair Gatland tried to play a straight bat but has since had to retract his comments due, I expect, to political pressure.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>FFS move on. Lee has.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>The WRU comment was issued in response to them being asked to provide statements about their position on racism in the game by the Welsh press. Just like everyone else it was an attempt to avoid being dragged into the "was it racism" argument. After all, it was a surprising decision given the guidance on verbal abuse and if the WRU wanted to sidestep the question and put the focus elsewhere then so be it. Also, if you read Gatland's retraction all he is really saying is that he's sorry he used the word "banter" but otherwise wants to move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Eddie Jones' baiting of the WRU on this was and is naive. I can see he's trying to deflect attention off his player but he's only keeping the story alive. </p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="565325" data-time="1458254709">
<div>
<p>Well of course the gypsy has...</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Fuck me that made me laugh out loud.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>And no, I'm not doing the bloody acronym. The comment is far to good for that.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="rich1927" data-cid="565404" data-time="1458285853">
<div>
<p>The WRU comment was issued in response to them being asked to provide statements about their position on racism in the game by the Welsh press. Just like everyone else it was an attempt to avoid being dragged into the "was it racism" argument. After all, it was a surprising decision given the guidance on verbal abuse and if the WRU wanted to sidestep the question and put the focus elsewhere then so be it. Also, if you read Gatland's retraction all he is really saying is that he's sorry he used the word "banter" but otherwise wants to move on.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Eddie Jones' baiting of the WRU on this was and is naive. I can see he's trying to deflect attention off his player but he's only keeping the story alive. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>OK fair enough re the WRU comments. I hadn't seen the whole thing just as reported on the BBC. Totally agree re Gatland, I thought his first comments were pretty good but then the apology for using the word banter, to me that smacks of political pressure. I'm not bagging Gatland for it though.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Agree Eddie is being a cock with the continuation although again this was in response to some persistent questioning which he did try to deflect several times by saying he'd said all he had to say on the subject already.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>This was all sort of my point though, that the whole thing is getting bigger and bigger - much more than is warranted and much more than any dirty play. So much for the old saying of sticks and stones may break my bones...</p> -
<p>Just watched the Ireland Under-20 v Scotland Under-20 fixture. Good to see a Hastings back in Scotland colours - Adam.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Scotland were rather unfortunate in that the clock in the ground was showing that the 40 minutes of the first half were up, so Hastings blimped the ball into touch. But it transpired that the clock was wrong so Scotland found themselves defending an attacking line-out, which Ireland duly scored from!</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Also, good to see the referee wearing a Wales shirt. This used to be a nice tradition in the old Five Nations, that the referee would wear his country's shirt.</p> -
That was a very enjoyable match - both sides really up for it. Finished 26-18 to Ireland but wouldn't have been surprised if Scotland had come back and nicked it in the end. <br><br>
U20 rugby is very refreshing to watch. Moves a lot faster and less of the interminable breakdowns in play that seem to occur so often at senior level. <br><br>
Match was held at Leinster's old home ground, Donnybrook. Whatever about the match clock being wonky, the new synthetic pitch is superb and a very popular ground for U20s, Ireland Women's and schools cup games. -
<p>It's being legally streamed for free on the european rugby website if anyone's interested:</p>
<p><a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbyeurope.tv/en/content/160319-enc1a-georgia-romania'>http://www.rugbyeurope.tv/en/content/160319-enc1a-georgia-romania</a></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Georgia lead 7-0 after 4 minutes.</p> -
<p>Understrength Romanian team doing reasonably well considering.</p>
-
Kickoff here in 25 mins. Both sets of fans looking forward to a loosening of the reins with not a lot to play for - except a million quid between 5th and 3rd spot - but that's for the unions to sweat over. <br><br>
Cotter & Schmidt used to work together, now they're rivals. So far, Schmidt has had the upper hand, will Vern get a turn? -
21-10 to Ireland with 32 mins gone.
I can watch both.</p>