The Rugby Thread

[Deutsch Wolf]

Yeah, we were crap in 2007 but pulled it together in the tournament and made the final. Got a bit robbed too with a crap refereeing decision.

Odd things happen in one-off games. Ireland also have to get the monkey off their back of being big time World Cup bottlers, never even won a QF.

 

[1986]

Yeah, we were crap in 2007 but pulled it together in the tournament and made the final. Got a bit robbed too with a crap refereeing decision.

Odd things happen in one-off games. Ireland also have to get the monkey off their back of being big time World Cup bottlers, never even won a QF.

We bottled it in 2011 and again in 2015 for sure , throw in 2019 as well - although the QF opponents then were really tough regardless . I would argue that we simply weren't good enough in any other year you choose . Didn't have the depth required at all in several of those other World Cups .
It takes a long time to build depth in a country where it's a long way behind in terms of participation versus the GAA or even soccer ( as we call it over here ) .
This time around we need to beat South Africa and then Scotland in order to avoid playing France in the quarters . That's a tough draw . We could play very well and still lose .

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The draw is horrendously skewed. And that’s why a poorer team could pitch up in the semi finals having had an easier run and then dispose of one of the favourites who will have had at least three elite level tests in a month

 

[Sniffer]

Curry banned for two games. Ridiculous considering similar challenges in other games haven’t had even a red let alone a further ban.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

It’s the minimum after a red for head contact. You can’t unban curry because a different ref completely missed kreel’s challenge. England are going through now and curry won’t be missing difficult matches for the team.

 

[Tredman]

Consistency

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I know, it because a blind oaf missed one you can’t let the other off. It does make me raise the question of where is the citing commissioner?

 

[1986]

I know, it because a blind oaf missed one you can’t let the other off. It does make me raise the question of where is the citing commissioner?

Absolutely correct . The criticism that's been dished out over missing the challenge in South Africa v Scotland ( head to head ) should hopefully be enough to make them wake up and get it right , even if it does take 10 minutes in the bunker .

 

[Tredman]

I know, it because a blind oaf missed one you can’t let the other off. It does make me raise the question of where is the citing commissioner?

That was my point. They should do them all.

 

[Tredman]

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

There was nothing wrong with that Biggar tackle at all. He wrapped the Fijian and put his head to the side. However some bitter Englishman grabs a still to try and make a point and actually just makes it weaker. Tosspot.

 

[Tredman]

Contact with the head no?

 

[Tredman]

Are the Aussies bitter too?

Five incidents, one red card, two yellows and three unpunished: Inconsistencies slammed at Rugby World Cup

Four games. Five similar incidents. Three different decisions. As rugby grapples with its head-contact rules, players and coaches plead for consistency, writes Simon Smale.

www.abc.net.au

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I don’t think there is head contact at all with Biggar no. Even in that still chosen to try and be the most incriminating you can see a clear gap between the two players heads. Must try harder.

 

[Tredman]

As a fan of rugby, and a parent of 3 kids who play rugby, any head contact needs to be totally taken out of the game.

Support for your team or country needs to be put to one side. General consensus from almost all coverage is that there was contact.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

I disagree.He clearly wraps and puts his head to the side. Unlike Kreel who basically nuts the player. Totally different tackles and using the Biggar one only serves to weaken the point.

 

[Tredman]

It’s the general principle - ignore the arms or any of it, contact with the head should just not be allowed. No ifs or buts.

I’d be more than happy with outlawing any tackle above the stomach regardless of age.

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

Also the nearness of contact in the Biggar case is instigated by the Fijian driving into him. Kreel and Curry both moved toward the head contact. The tackles are completely different. Cite Kreel you have a point. Cite Biggar and you are creating a nonsense and we might as well all pack up and go home to play tiddlywinks.

 

[1986]

We could be arguing all day about those tackles , but when you lead with the head ( as tends to happen when you stay upright ) , then you're nearly always going to look bad if there is some head contact .
A ruling which insisted that as a tackler , your head positioning and arms must be lower than the opponents shoulders might go some way to resolving it .
Not saying it's the answer , but there are too many tackles let go at present for my liking .
There is no easy solution - sometimes there is very little time to reduce your height .

 

[Paddingtonwolf]

The other issue is that a large percentage of HIA incidents occur when the tackler goes low and puts their head the wrong side and gets a knee or hip to the head.