6N England v Ireland
-
@nzzp said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
had ruined a high profile match in front of 83,000 paying spectators and God knows how many as a TV audience.
I think I see the problem here...was it only English fans watching? đ
At the time I thought it hilarious and also somewhat deflating that it took our brains trust so long to work it out. But would I care to watch a game like that again? Not really and certainly not if I were a neutral spectator.
I often turn off after red cards, the result is usually not in doubt. Neutral - absolutely. Wrecks the game.
Too much home brew bro! Don't think he's talking about this weekend...
-
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@nzzp said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
had ruined a high profile match in front of 83,000 paying spectators and God knows how many as a TV audience.
I think I see the problem here...was it only English fans watching? đ
At the time I thought it hilarious and also somewhat deflating that it took our brains trust so long to work it out. But would I care to watch a game like that again? Not really and certainly not if I were a neutral spectator.
I often turn off after red cards, the result is usually not in doubt. Neutral - absolutely. Wrecks the game.
Too much home brew bro! Don't think he's talking about this weekend...
fair cop, too early for homebrew or coffee.
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@mikethesnow you forgot to mention....
"100% red" - Tadhg Furlong could be in hot water for 'clothesline' on England's Henry Slade - Ruck
Ireland kept their hopes of a Six Nations title alive as they finally saw off a valiant, spirited England who played 78 minutes with 14 men after Charlie Ewelsâ redâŚ
Edit: consistency would go a long way to helping officials.
Expect two citings today or tomorrow
This is the problem with their approach: One instance defines a game and the other's have no effect whatsoever. WR seem oblivious to this fact.
RCs during games should, IMO, be left to egregious instances of foul play.
-
@antipodean said in 6N England v Ireland:
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@mikethesnow you forgot to mention....
"100% red" - Tadhg Furlong could be in hot water for 'clothesline' on England's Henry Slade - Ruck
Ireland kept their hopes of a Six Nations title alive as they finally saw off a valiant, spirited England who played 78 minutes with 14 men after Charlie Ewelsâ redâŚ
Edit: consistency would go a long way to helping officials.
Expect two citings today or tomorrow
This is the problem with their approach: One instance defines a game and the other's have no effect whatsoever. WR seem oblivious to this fact.
RCs during games should, IMO, be left to egregious instances of foul play.
Weâll agree to disagree
-
@daffy-jaffy said in 6N England v Ireland:
Sky UK rated Charlie Ewels 82 second performance a 4/10 !
Sounds like the ratings I get from Mrs Mach, lasts 82 secs, 4/10
-
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Assume Ewels not cited?
Doesn't look like anyone was
Times says heâs suspended. Not sure where the official record is available!
-
@mikethesnow said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Assume Ewels not cited?
Doesn't look like anyone was
Furlong can breathe easier now đł
-
-
@catogrande said in 6N England v Ireland:
Paywall. Any chance of a cut and paste?
Looking at the Charlie Ewels incident a number of times, I think that Ewels was going for the ball carrier and James Ryan, who braced for the impact, stepped into his path in what could be construed as attempted obstruction to protect his man.
Chris GarrodHi Chris. Thank you for writing in. We have had a couple of questions on Ewelsâ red card, suggesting that he was unlucky. Respectfully, I do not agree. In my opinion, Matthieu Raynal dealt with the incident impressively and outlined everything clearly.
I thought his key line, while explaining Ewelsâ sanction to England captain Courtney Lawes, was this: âIt is the responsibility of the player [Ewels] to not put himself in a reckless position that can seriously injure an opponent.â Raynal went on to say: âHeâs upright, he runs the risk. It is high speed, a high degree of danger, clear head contact. We go for a red card.â
I find it difficult to argue with any of that. In May 2019, when World Rugby first published their high tackle framework, head-on-head contact was a big part of what they wanted to avoid. Since then, though, head-on-head contact has often seemed to be regarded as accidental.
I believe that Ewels wanted to tackle Ryan in a similar manner to how Genge had tackled Furlong seconds previously â slightly late, yet legally. However, he was beaten by the speed of the movement before he could lower himself or simply wanted to make a dominant, upright tackle.
Either way, there is a degree of recklessness that leads to contact between Ewelsâ head and Ryanâs head. That part is accidental. But, crucially, it is avoidable. Ryan, for his part, had just played a pass to Sexton and was entitled to stand his ground. I am not sure he is at all at fault for what happened next.
Pakman: đ¤Śđ˝ââď¸ All this analysis, and ToryGraph writer doesnât even spot that Ryan ran into Ewels (having already passed to Sexton)!!!! On writer logic, Ewels was entitled to stand his ground and onus on Ryan running into him to be conscious of safety.
Very unconvincing.
-
-
@bones said in 6N England v Ireland:
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
âIt is the responsibility of the player [Ewels] to not put himself in a reckless position that can seriously injure an opponent.â
Yes, now apply it consistently. Caleb Clarke springs to mind....
Consistency, we havenât had that spirit here since 1969!
-
Took the plea bargain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60769889
-
@pakman said in 6N England v Ireland:
Took the plea bargain: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60769889
3 games for that, yet not even a mention of Furlong even being cited. Ok imaboutready to get both feet on this "rugby's fucked" wagon.
-
@pakman
"Having acknowledged mitigating factors including, the player's early acceptance of the red card, his remorse and contrition for his offending, his relatively unblemished disciplinary record over a long playing career and his good character and conduct at the hearing, the committee reduced the six-week entry point by three weeks."This part appears in virtually every judicial subcommittee report so must be something drummed up as an acceptable to be used inclusion by the IRB. The only slight differences being that "previously clean" becomes "relatively unblemished" and "apologised to the player wronged immediately afterward" is missing
-
the whole process is now fundamentally stupid
That's a rugby accident any way you want to look at it
England played a man down the entire game because we aren't allowed to do nuance and context. Accidental contact or swinging arm clothesline to the jaw? same shit
Then, because of this same lack of fucking nuance and context, we have top OPEN with 6 fucking weeks. To get it to something people won't have a heart attack over, we copy and paste the "good character" bullshit above so we can instantly halve it.And now, after 3-4 years of this level of interpretation, how is it going changing rugby behaviour. Seeing less of this now are we? Working is it? No, it's fucking not. Because we stamped (pardon the term) almost all violent bullshit out of the game years and years ago. So now we are left with harsly punishing accidental play, after reviewing shit in ultra-HD Super SloMo and removing all context.
All you "what choice did the ref have" people can do one. I am well past that. The policies are bullshit, and having a serious detrimental effect on the game i still kinda love for very little real world impact.
I have said it before, and i will continue to say it. you cannot make rugby 100% "safe" without fundamentally changing the game.
You want to protect players and their brains? Protect them from themselves. you get concussed? 6 week minimum stand down.
