Ireland v Scotland, 15 August

First topic message reminder :

  
IRELAND v SCOTLAND
15 August 2015
KO: 17:00 local
Aviva Stadium, Dublin

Live on Sky Sports at Notch's house

Referee: Pascal Gaüzère (France)
Assistant Referees: [TBC]
TMO: [TBC]

A. Head to Head

130 Played 130
59 Won 66
5 Drawn 5
66 Lost 59
1,416 Points 1,420

B. Recent Form

21 March 2015
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
10 – 40 to Ireland

2 February 2014
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
28 – 6 to Ireland

24 February 2013
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
12 – 8 to Scotland

10 March 2012
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
32 – 14 to Ireland

6 August 2011
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
10 – 6 to Scotland

27 February 2011
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
18 – 21 to Ireland

20 March 2010
Croke Park, Dublin
20 – 23 to Scotland

C. Teams

IRELAND

15. Simon Zebo (Cork Constitution/Munster)
14. Tommy Bowe (Belfast Harlequins/Ulster)
13. Jared Payne (Ulster)
12. Gordon D'Arcy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
11. Luke Fitzgerald (Blackrock/Leinster)
10. Ian Madigan (Blackrock/Leinster)
09. Isaac Boss (Terenure/Leinster)

08. Sean O'Brien (UCD/Leinster) capt
07. Chris Henry (Malone/Ulster)
06. Jack Conan (Old Belvedere/Leinster)*
05. Dan Tuohy (Ballymena/Ulster)
04. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster)
03. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster)
02. Sean Cronin (St Mary's College/Leinster)
01. Dave Kilcoyne (UL Bohemians/Munster)

16. Richardt Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster)
17. Michael Bent (Dublin University/Leinster)
18. Nathan White (Connacht)*
19. Paul O'Connell (Young Munster/Munster)
20. Jordi Murphy (Lansdowne/Leinster)
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster)
22. Paddy Jackson (Dungannon/Ulster)
23. Dave Kearney (Lansdowne/Leinster)

SCOTLAND

15 Ruaridh Jackson  (Wasps)
14 Sean Lamont  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
13 Richie Vernon  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
12 Peter Horne  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
11 Tim Visser  (Harlequins)
10 Greig Tonks  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
09 Henry Pyrgos  CAPTAIN  (Glasgow  Warriors)

01 Ryan Grant  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
02 Fraser Brown  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
03 Jon Welsh  (Newcastle  Falcons)
04 Jim Hamilton  (Saracens)  
05 Grant Gilchrist  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
06 Blair Cowan  (London  Irish)
07 Hugh Blake  (Glasgow  Warriors)
08 David Denton  (Edinburgh  Rugby)  

16 Ross Ford  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
17 Gordon Reid  (Glasgow  Warriors)
18 Mike Cusack  (Glasgow  Warriors)
19 Rob Harley  (Glasgow  Warriors)
20 John Barclay  (Scarlets)  
21 Sam Hidalgo-­Clyne  (Edinburgh  Rugby)
22 Duncan Weir  (Glasgow  Warriors)  
23 Matt  Scott  (Edinburgh  Rugby)

Whatever you want mate. I'm just baffled at you picking out such a good example of legal breakdown play and trying to rules lawyer a penalty out of it somehow

Chunky Norwich wrote:

rodders wrote:

Only in RL.

You're very odd.

That'll be the 3 years I spent in Wales .

Notch wrote:Whatever you want mate. I'm just baffled at you picking out such a good example of legal breakdown play and trying to rules lawyer a penalty out of it somehow

The point is that alot of what the Irish backro do is totally illegal. And when they get a competent referee like Barnes ping them for it, the whinging starts. It's mostly not supporting weight at ruck time.

Barnes interpretations are extremely pedantic and I'm on record as disagreeing with how he refs the game- but I have to point out that only one poster is whinging about how the breakdown is reffed on this thread.

Notch wrote:Um, I don't think you understand what happened there. He was eventually cleared out off his feet by a Scottish player but if there is any offence, the first offence was the Scottish player not releasing the ball. The referee has allowed play to continue, but the ball would be coming back faster and legally if the Scottish player releases. I think Ireland are sightly hard done by not to get the penalty in that instance but the have won the ball and you can't fault the referee for letting the game flow.

But in any event if a player is in a legal body position and is then pulled off his feet by the opposition it's only going to be a penalty if he continues to try and play the ball after being forced off his feet. But actually he's already gotten over the ball and won it by by the time he's cleared out; so play on.

I agree. I mean I don't think the Scottish player should be penalised for not releaseing the ball, but thats just because I'm biassed and I'm pretty sure if it was reveresed you'd feel the same. But I can honestly see nothing wrong in what O'Brien is doing. His knee touches the ground for half a second, but thats it, the rest of the time he is clearly in control and supporting his weight.

If Ireland got penalised for this I would have been shocked, delighted, but shocked.

EWT Spoons wrote: His knee touches the ground for half a second

Then the law needs re-writing. Because that is a bona fide penalty to Scotland.

Either referee the law 100% of the time or get rid of it.

Barnes wasn't too pedantic with Wales at the breakdown in the 6N anyways.

It's been pointed out that the Scottish player could have been pinged for not releasing, but he isn't as it doesn't prevent the ball coming back quickly.

But if you apply the law about supporting your own weight to mere slips which have no impact on the eventual outcome you have to apply that law to any player who doesn't instantly release when on the ground. And so on.

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Why should 12 be a battering ram - guys like Giteau and Fofana

Giteau has done well at Toulon as a auxiliary 10 behind a monster Toulon pack - for the Wallabies he has been battered from pillar to post in his first few outings.

The nature of the game now is that the inside center must have the physicality to win collisions against the opposition backrow and midfield - having skill and vision is a given but the power and athleticism is not a nice to have anymore - there are very few inside centers under 100kg and many are 105kg plus. D'arcy had all sorts of problems against Scotland.

Henshaw and Payne are a relatively small combination and for me are picked not just because they are physical, although that is a bonus, but because they are the best footballers we have in the backline at the minute - Henshaw has brilliant hands and Payne has great vision and awareness of space.

The fact that Cave, D'arcy, Olding and Earls have all been looked at as back ups shows Schmidt is not looking at size primarily for midfield a la Gatland.

I wouldn't rate Payne as a footballer. Olding, Henshaw & Earls yes.

Of course he's a footballer - that's why he played fullback - Earls is a makeshift winger, the other 3 are footballers.

Do you actually know what a footballer is?

Well in a rugby union context I'd say its someone with a natural awareness, vision and in depth understanding of the game beyond the players around them and then the skill levels to put people into space and create opportunities.

So definitely not Earls given how he himself said in the past how he struggles to understand the game and decision making from midfield.

Darren Cave is a great footballer for example, as is Conrad Smith.

The clue is in the word 'footballer' - someone who can kick, pass off both sides, offload, beat a man (along with those things you list) - in general - a skilful player.

I would consider Paddy Wallace a good footballer, I wouldn't consider Andrew Trimble to be one.

Notch wrote:It's been pointed out that the Scottish player could have been pinged for not releasing, but he isn't as it doesn't prevent the ball coming back quickly.

But if you apply the law about supporting your own weight to mere slips which have no impact on the eventual outcome you have to apply that law to any player who doesn't instantly release when on the ground. And so on.

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

The Scottish player isn't pinged, because the referee has no idea what is going on.

Some refs like Barnes apply the laws more stringently. They get moaned at because of this. Some refs have never read the law book, have no idea what is going on at scrum time, and let everything go at the breakdown, like Nigel Owens. This plays into the hands of teams like Ireland, who consistenlty trangress in those areas. This therefore penalises teams who have been coached properly to try and stay on the right side of the referee. And some peopel wonder why young players are coaached to "cheat".

But I would consider Payne extremely capable of doing all those things, while I have some major doubts over Earls with some of them.

And you can't say Earls is more well rounded than Trimble surely?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

EWT Spoons wrote: His knee touches the ground for half a second

Then the law needs re-writing. Because that is a bona fide penalty to Scotland.

Either referee the law 100% of the time or get rid of it.

The laws are clear but its up to the referee to determine who has dominance in a given situation and where possible favor the attacking side.

Now the Scottish player is clearly isolated and O'Brien takes a strong position over the ball with both feet planted. If you want to be pedantic then you could say that the penalty is already won before O'Brien's knee touches down.

You could also say there is never a circumstance where a player is supporting his bodyweight 100%.

The rule is there to stop players blatantly handling the ball whilst on the floor or lying over the ruck as they are clearly out of the game - not to deter legitimate attempts to win the ball, when its available.

Sin é wrote:
The clue is in the word 'footballer' - someone who can kick, pass off both sides, offload, beat a man  (along with those things you list) - in general - a skilful player.

I would consider Paddy Wallace a good footballer, I wouldn't consider Andrew Trimble to be one.

So ROG wouldn't have been a good footballer then?

Pretty sure Payne has all those attributes more than any other Irish player followed by Henshaw.

rodders wrote:

The laws are clear but its up to the referee to determine who has dominance in a given situation and where possible favor the attacking side.

The referee should favour the attacking side?

Jesus Christ Rodders. You're even more barking than I realised.

Now the Scottish player is clearly isolated and O'Brien takes a strong position over the ball with both feet planted. If you want to be pedantic then you could say that the penalty is already won before O'Brien's knee touches down.

You could also say there is never a circumstance where a player is supporting his bodyweight 100%.

The rule is there to stop players blatantly handling the ball whilst on the floor or lying over the ruck as they are clearly out of the game - not to deter legitimate attempts to win the ball, when its available.

It wasn't a legitamite attempt.

The Sean O'Brien example being argued here isn't a great example to use as it's typical of a decision that could go either way depending on how one particular referee interprets the laws at ruck time. Rules (such as in soccer) are followed and adhered to, laws (such as in rugby union) are open to interpretation so we find incidents such as these.
I was taking particular notice on saturday of how Scotland were clearing out at ruck time when they had possession. In far too many cases the players were diving in off their feet at ruck after ruck therefore keeping the Irish players well away from the ball. If the referee had ruled to the letter of the law as it what one person here wants, then the pea in the whistle would have been worn out.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The clue is in the word 'footballer' - someone who can kick, pass off both sides, offload, beat a man  (along with those things you list) - in general - a skilful player.

I would consider Paddy Wallace a good footballer, I wouldn't consider Andrew Trimble to be one.

So ROG wouldn't have been a good footballer then?

Pretty sure Payne has all those attributes more than any other Irish player followed by Henshaw.

No, I wouldn't say ROG was a good footballer. Neither would Doug Howlett have been because he couldn't kick. Great rugby player though.

I just don't rate Payne for his passing and particularly his kicking and he isn't particularly good under a high ball (just ok). He has a good offload though.

edit: I'd also include athleticism as being a feature of a good footballer.

"I just don't rate Payne for his passing and particularly his kicking and he isn't particularly good under a high ball (just ok). He has a good offload though"

Payne was always fantastic under the high ball when playing at 15. He was excellent at judging it so that he could take it at full pelt, this is why he wasn't jumping in the air when Goode decided to launch himself recklessly at Payne's head
Payne's all round abilities are world class when playing at 15. The 13 'experiment' hasn't shown off his outside centre abilities as well as the style of play the Blues offered him in the Super15 where he was one of the outstanding 13's in the tournament that year.

This thread needs to be put out of my misery.

Sin é wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The clue is in the word 'footballer' - someone who can kick, pass off both sides, offload, beat a man  (along with those things you list) - in general - a skilful player.

I would consider Paddy Wallace a good footballer, I wouldn't consider Andrew Trimble to be one.

So ROG wouldn't have been a good footballer then?

Pretty sure Payne has all those attributes more than any other Irish player followed by Henshaw.

No, I wouldn't say ROG was a good footballer. Neither would Doug Howlett have been because he couldn't kick. Great rugby player though.

I just don't rate Payne for his passing and particularly his kicking and he isn't particularly good under a high ball (just ok). He has a good offload though.

edit: I'd also include athleticism as being a feature of a good footballer.

And so the snake bites its own tale...

Again, straight on to his hands to support his body weight. 100% penalty to Scotland.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Again, straight on to his hands to support his body weight. 100% penalty to Scotland.

Only on S4C chunky, the rest of the world understand the rules.

Submachine wrote:This thread needs to be put out of my misery.

You can't end the thread now. I still don't know whether it's Earls or Payne.

It's like watching 'Lost'. You need to commit to the long haul to finally get the answer.

George Carlin wrote:

Submachine wrote:This thread needs to be put out of my misery.

You can't end the thread now. I still don't know whether it's Earls or Payne.

It's like watching 'Lost'. You need to commit to the long haul to finally get the answer.

If it were lost then Earls would be Walt - built up to be something special then failed to do very much.

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

George Carlin wrote:

Submachine wrote:This thread needs to be put out of my misery.

You can't end the thread now. I still don't know whether it's Earls or Payne.

It's like watching 'Lost'. You need to commit to the long haul to finally get the answer.

I'm waiting for the twist, I think it'll turn out to be neither of them.

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Any aul fella can learn off a rule book. You seem to have spent some time with one . In all seriousness, what makes a good ref is knowing how to make it all flow together. I disagree with the idea that a good ref is the one who applies the law without thought. Rugby is a bit of a messy game when it comes down to it, and a 100% literal interpretation of the rules will probably never result in the best rugby. I highly doubt referees are encouraged to stick to the letter of the law. In my opinion it's more like the spirit of it. The fact that Owens and Barnes (completely contrasting styles) are both on the Elite Panel is proof of that I think.

Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

rodders wrote:Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

Remember, this is still an Irish/Scottish thread. Our tartan brethren won't recognise many of these words.

Submachine wrote:

rodders wrote:Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, wisdom is knowing not to put it in a fruit salad.

Remember, this is still an Irish/Scottish thread. Our tartan brethren won't recognise many of these words.

Ahem, I think you'll find we do...

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Nigel Owens is the best ref in the world. You are just sad you can't have him ref wales games.

wolfball wrote:

Nigel Owens is the best ref in the world. You are just sad you can't have him ref wales games.

Believe me, I am glad he is nowhere near Wales matches. Watching him screw up Scarlets Ospreys matches is bad enough. He's a very average referee who ahsn't got a clue. So wings is by letting everything go, and recompenses for this by being stern with players. He's a showman. An entertainer. A wannabe celebrity.

kunu wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Any aul fella can learn off a rule book. You seem to have spent some time with one . In all seriousness, what makes a good ref is knowing how to make it all flow together. I disagree with the idea that a good ref is the one who applies the law without thought. Rugby is a bit of a messy game when it comes down to it, and a 100% literal interpretation of the rules will probably never result in the best rugby. I highly doubt referees are encouraged to stick to the letter of the law. In my opinion it's more like the spirit of it. The fact that Owens and Barnes (completely contrasting styles) are both on the Elite Panel is proof of that I think.

This is all well and good if every referee was the same. Because all teams woudl be refereed the same way. But it isn't. So some teams benefit and others don't. And the "messy game" you speak of becomes messier.

So one team constantly refereed by a particular referee benefits when they play teams with him refereeing. Like Nigel Owens and Ireland.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Any aul fella can learn off a rule book. You seem to have spent some time with one . In all seriousness, what makes a good ref is knowing how to make it all flow together. I disagree with the idea that a good ref is the one who applies the law without thought. Rugby is a bit of a messy game when it comes down to it, and a 100% literal interpretation of the rules will probably never result in the best rugby. I highly doubt referees are encouraged to stick to the letter of the law. In my opinion it's more like the spirit of it. The fact that Owens and Barnes (completely contrasting styles) are both on the Elite Panel is proof of that I think.

This is all well and good if every referee was the same. Because all teams woudl be refereed the same way. But it isn't. So some teams benefit and others don't. And the "messy game" you speak of becomes messier.

So one team constantly refereed by a particular referee benefits when they play teams with him refereeing. Like Nigel Owens and Ireland.

So by definition if the opposition to a specific team always does better because of certain refs interpretation, you also have a problem with that? Or are they merely, reffing correctly as they are penalising teams you have the world's largest chip on your shoulder about?

wolfball wrote:

So by definition if the opposition to a specific team always does better because of certain refs interpretation, you also have a problem with that? Or are they merely, reffing correctly as they are penalising teams you have the world's largest chip on your shoulder about?

If teams are getting refereed by referees who either enhance their likelihood of winning or decrease it, then yes it's not good for the game.

This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

kunu wrote:

Notch wrote:

My opinion isn't the way it is because it suits Irish Rugby- it's because if you apply every law that stringently it actually becomes borderline impossible to see 10 phases strung together without a penalty. Every scrum and breakdown you could find something to penalise if you take it to that extreme.

Absolutely right. For God's sake Judges don't even look at laws that literally. A ref should look to play the game in such a way that allows the laws to work in harmony, and for the laws to benefit the game itself. A referee who deliberately goes out to poke holes in the law during a game is at risk of ruining it. The laws won't be changed because there's absolutely no need to.

So basically penalise referees who are doing their job better than others.

Any aul fella can learn off a rule book. You seem to have spent some time with one . In all seriousness, what makes a good ref is knowing how to make it all flow together. I disagree with the idea that a good ref is the one who applies the law without thought. Rugby is a bit of a messy game when it comes down to it, and a 100% literal interpretation of the rules will probably never result in the best rugby. I highly doubt referees are encouraged to stick to the letter of the law. In my opinion it's more like the spirit of it. The fact that Owens and Barnes (completely contrasting styles) are both on the Elite Panel is proof of that I think.

This is all well and good if every referee was the same. Because all teams woudl be refereed the same way. But it isn't. So some teams benefit and others don't. And the "messy game" you speak of becomes messier.

So one team constantly refereed by a particular referee benefits when they play teams with him refereeing. Like Nigel Owens and Ireland.

The point is, it has to be interpreted as legal for the game run smoothly.

Take another rule for example - A literal interpretation of the rules says the tackled player must immediately release the ball when he's on the deck. Not one player does that, and rarely does a referee bother with it. If it is literally interpreted, the breakdown would be weighed too heavily in favour of the defending side. The result is, referees allow the tackled player an extra second or so of holding on before they'll ping for not releasing. Their interpretation will rely on the phase of play, and the pressure the defence are under, and I'm ok with that. It's all about reading the situation.

Similarly, if you ping a player for clumsily touching the ground while he's in a clear dominant position, you're weighing the breakdown too heavily in favour of the attacking team. You've got to give some leeway, and cut the big fellas some slack.

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

I'd say show me similar evidence to the figures that Nigel Owens reffing Ireland v France throws up.

In 21 Tests reffed by Barnes, Ireland have won 4.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

I'd say show me similar evidence to the figures that Nigel Owens reffing Ireland v France throws up.

There is a poster on this forum called GunsGerms. He's your man. You two have the capacity to entertain each other for hours on end

In fact I would suggest you almost deserve each other!

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

I'd say show me similar evidence to the figures that Nigel Owens reffing Ireland v France throws up.

There is a poster on this forum called GunsGerms. He's your man. You two have the capacity to entertain each other for hours on end

But he didn't say it - you did.

Another interesting Nigel Owens stat, This decade:

Ireland's average points gap v All Blacks WITH Nigel Owens reffing: 12pts (3 games);

Ireland's average points gap v All Black WITHOUT Nigel Owens reffing: 41pts (3 games)

Yeah, and I have better things to do with my time. I don't care enough to spend the afternoon wrestling with a pig, and knowing all I'm going to get is dirty. Just pointing out the hypocrisy that when Ireland get a referee who doesn't suit their style of play we're whinging but when another team gets a referee who doesn't suit their style of play they should write to World Rugby to complain.

The answer is the same for all teams. Don't whinge, don't complain, suck it up and adapt.

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

Did that mean every union wrote in when they found out Steve Walsh was officiating their match??? I can imagine he got lots of flowers when he retired from various unions!

I think that we need to get back into whether Earls is better than Payne.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Notch wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:This is why I have such a bee in my bonet about the France v Ireland match, and Nigel Owens getting such a key game when his history in the fixture is very concerning. I'm very surprised France haven't written to World Rugby sggesting they don't want Owens refereeing them. But then I guess that would be deemed as churlish.

And if Ireland wrote to World Rugby to complain about getting Wayne Barnes in the recent Six Nations game what would you say about that?

I'd say show me similar evidence to the figures that Nigel Owens reffing Ireland v France throws up.

There is a poster on this forum called GunsGerms. He's your man. You two have the capacity to entertain each other for hours on end

But he didn't say it - you did.

Another interesting Nigel Owens stat, This decade:

Ireland's average points gap v All Blacks WITH Nigel Owens reffing: 12pts (3 games);

Ireland's average points gap v All Black WITHOUT Nigel Owens reffing: 41pts (3 games)

How many of each were in the NH?

I'm guessing the 60-nil drubbing on the last tour has skewed things a bit.

Or we could all agree, that if the coaches and players respected the laws and they were not constantly trying to find ways to break them the refs job would be easier and the game itself would be a whole lot better.

George Carlin wrote:I think that we need to get back into whether Earls is better than Payne.

Well Sine would say so but everyone else, including Earl's immediate family would say otherwise.

LordDowlais wrote:Or we could all agree, that if the coaches and players respected the laws and they were not constantly trying to find ways to break them the refs job would be easier and the game itself would be a whole lot better.

Do you think Ireland do this?

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Or we could all agree, that if the coaches and players respected the laws and they were not constantly trying to find ways to break them the refs job would be easier and the game itself would be a whole lot better.

Do you think Ireland do this?

Yes. But I also think every team does this, not just Ireland. But certain unions encourage it more than others.


edit:- What I mean is that Ireland will go into a game with a tactic to cheat at the breakdown and in the scrum. But as I have said they are not on their own, every side goes onto the field with a "tactic" to flaunt the laws. Some teams are different in their approach than others.

Notch wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:Or we could all agree, that if the coaches and players respected the laws and they were not constantly trying to find ways to break them the refs job would be easier and the game itself would be a whole lot better.

Do you think Ireland do this?

Rugby is about playing in the grey areas of the law surely. When was the last time a player ran back and said "sorry guv that was a forward pass" or if a player got injured and left a gaping hole.

Meeuws in 2003 vs. AUS.
Care in 2011 vs. Wales.

Can remember many more.