England v Ireland; Six Nations Round 3

First topic message reminder :

              

ENGLAND vs  IRELAND

Date: Saturday 27th February 2016
Venue: Twickenham
Kick Off: 16:50 (GMT)
Referee: Romain Poite (FFR)
Asst Refs: Nigel Owens (WRU), Alexandre Ruiz (FFR)
TMO: Shaun Veldsman (SARU)
TV Coverage: Live on ITV, RTE, FR2


Head to Head

Played - 119
Wins - 65/47
Draws - 7
Points - 1443/1037


Current Form

England:
W 40-9 v Italy
W 15-9 v Scotland
W 60-3 v Uruguay

Ireland:
L 9-10 v France
D 16-16 v wales
L 20-43 v Argentina


Recent Meetings

05/09/15 England 21 Ireland 13
01/03015 Ireland 19 England 9
22/02/14 England 13 Ireland 10
10/02/13 Ireland 6 England 12
17/03/12 England 30 Ireland 9



Teams

England


1 Joe Marler (Harlequins, 39 caps)
2 Dylan Hartley (captain, Northampton Saints, 68 caps)
3 Dan Cole (Leicester Tigers, 58 caps)
4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 1 cap)
5 George Kruis (Saracens, 12 caps)
6 Chris Robshaw (Harlequins, 45 caps)
7 James Haskell (Wasps, 64 caps)
8 Billy Vunipola (vice captain, Saracens, 23 caps)
9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 54 caps)
10 George Ford (Bath Rugby, 19 caps)
11 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps)
12 Owen Farrell (vice captain, Saracens, 37 caps)
13 Jonathan Joseph (Bath Rugby, 18 caps)
14 Anthony Watson (Bath Rugby, 17 caps)
15 Mike Brown (vice captain, Harlequins, 45 caps)
Replacements
16 Jamie George (Saracens, 5 caps)
17 Mako Vunipola (Saracens, 30 caps)
18 Paul Hill (Northampton Saints, 1 cap)
19 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 44 caps)
20 Jack Clifford (Harlequins, 2 caps)
21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 56 caps)
22 Elliot Daly (Wasps, uncapped)
23 Alex Goode (Saracens, 20 caps)


Ireland


15. Rob Kearney (UCD/Leinster) 68
14. Andrew Trimble (Ballymena/Ulster) 60
13. Robbie Henshaw (Buccaneers/Connacht) 17
12. Stuart McCloskey (Ballynahinch/Ulster)*
11. Keith Earls (Young Munster/Munster) 47
10. Jonathan Sexton (St Mary's College/Leinster) 58
9. Conor Murray (Garryowen/Munster) 44
1. Jack McGrath (St. Mary's College/Leinster) 27
2. Rory Best (Banbridge/Ulster) Captain 91
3. Mike Ross (Clontarf/Leinster) 56
4. Donnacha Ryan (Shannon/Munster) 36
5. Devin Toner (Lansdowne/Leinster) 33
6. CJ Stander (Munster) 2
7. Josh van der Flier (UCD/Leinster)*
8. Jamie Heaslip (Dublin University/Leinster) Vice Captain 82

Replacements
16. Richard Strauss (Old Wesley/Leinster) 14
17. Cian Healy (Clontarf/Leinster) 56
18. Nathan White (Connacht) 10
19. Ultane Dillane (Corinthians/Connacht)*
20. Rhys Ruddock (St Mary's College/Leinster) 7
21. Eoin Reddan (Old Crescent/Leinster) 68
22. Ian Madigan (Blackrock College/Leinster) 27
23. Simon Zebo (Cork Con/Munster) 22

I would take anything Eddie Jones says with a grain of salt if I was you. Your head might explode otherwise.

LondonTiger wrote:The citing officer can do 3 things:

1) cite a player if he believes the offence warranted a sending off
2) Apply a retrospective YC
3) Take no action

He is not meant to cite someone just so they can step before the beak.

My own view was that Brown was lucky not to get a YC - but 3 independent and neutral officials with a better knowledge of the laws and the desired interpretations disagreed with me.

Obviously a stud in the eye if intentional deserves a red card. No reason whatsoever he couldn't be cited. Come on pull yourself together man.

I repeat a player can only be cited if the citing officer believes he should have been sent off. He obviously did not think that.

"My own view was that Brown was lucky not to get a YC - but 3 independent and neutral officials with a better knowledge of the laws and the desired interpretations disagreed with me."

Yeah, the same officials that believe Hartley can levitate and make his own body move forwards in a double movement whilst lying flat on his face underneath his team mates.

This debate really has got a lot of heels dug in. Wait and see how it turns around when the boot is on the other foot (not necessarily Brown's). The Irish will plead innocence whilst the English will bay for blood. It's always the same, mark my words

You do realise that "double movement" is just a term for holding on the ball after a tackle? Doesn't really matter whether he moved himself forward or not (they judged he had used his right knee I believe). If he's holding on to the ball while his team drag him across the line...it's a penalty.

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

For goodness sake, I was giving you examples of duty of care. The point being that you can do something quite legally, and yet still fall foul of the law, depending on whether or not you are reckless. Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?

Picked up this interesting snippet:

Clarification 7 2015
Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 15,16,22
Date: 9 September 2015
Request
We are concerned at the increasing practice of an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.

This is happening mainly when the ball is won at the breakdown/tackle/ruck and has been picked up by a player. An opponent then kicks the ball from that player’s hands. (This opponent may have legally come through the breakdown, or may still be in the breakdown.)

We do not consider that this action is either:

(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

It is also foreseeable that injuries will occur. It presents difficulties in interpretation and consistency for the referee:
If contact is made with the hands of the player it can be considered foul play – this is difficult to see and to decide.
If the ball is dropped, referees are ruling a knock-on, whereas the player in possession has neither lost possession of the ball, nor has he knocked it forward.

We can find some guidance in the following Laws (22 & 16) which deal with kicking the ball from a player’s possession in the field of play who is reaching out to score, albeit a tackled player:

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22(f) above.

We consider that it is logical for the rationale in Law to cover the scenario which we have outlined above in relation to the breakdown, and that the Law intends that it is not legal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The designated members agree that it is illegal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances. An example of this action can be seen below. The sanction for this action should be a penalty against the offending team.

HammerofThunor wrote:You do realise that "double movement" is just a term for holding on the ball after a tackle? Doesn't really matter whether he moved himself forward or not (they judged he had used his right knee I believe). If he's holding on to the ball while his team drag him across the line...it's a penalty.

Was the term 'double movement' not used by commentators to describe a tackled player actually moving the ball towards the try line, once tackled? I don't think I've ever seen a player accused of a double movement for simply lying on the ball, once tackled.

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

For goodness sake, I was giving you examples of duty of care. The point being that you can do something quite legally, and yet still fall foul of the law, depending on whether or not you are reckless. Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?

Picked up this interesting snippet:

Clarification 7 2015
Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 15,16,22
Date: 9 September 2015
Request
We are concerned at the increasing practice of an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.

This is happening mainly when the ball is won at the breakdown/tackle/ruck and has been picked up by a player. An opponent then kicks the ball from that player’s hands. (This opponent may have legally come through the breakdown, or may still be in the breakdown.)

We do not consider that this action is either:

(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

It is also foreseeable that injuries will occur. It presents difficulties in interpretation and consistency for the referee:
If contact is made with the hands of the player it can be considered foul play – this is difficult to see and to decide.
If the ball is dropped, referees are ruling a knock-on, whereas the player in possession has neither lost possession of the ball, nor has he knocked it forward.

We can find some guidance in the following Laws (22 & 16) which deal with kicking the ball from a player’s possession in the field of play who is reaching out to score, albeit a tackled player:

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22(f) above.

We consider that it is logical for the rationale in Law to cover the scenario which we have outlined above in relation to the breakdown, and that the Law intends that it is not legal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The designated members agree that it is illegal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances. An example of this action can be seen below. The sanction for this action should be a penalty against the offending team.

The Irish complaining about irregularities at the breakdown.

The irony.

Munchkin wrote:...Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?.

You can't do anything you want at ruck time but, so long as you are doing what you are allowed to do, with no intention to do anything else, then duty of care is not a consideration.

By all means, argue that it should be a consideration, but it's not currently in the laws.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?.

You can't do anything you want at ruck time but, so long as you are doing what you are allowed to do, with no intention to do anything else, then duty of care is not a consideration.

By all means, argue that it should be a consideration, but it's not currently in the laws.

Reckless play is, and Brown was reckless. That's been my whole point. Now, you might disagree that it was reckless, that's fair enough if that's your opinion, but reckless play can be cited, even at the ruck.

Jimpy wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

For goodness sake, I was giving you examples of duty of care. The point being that you can do something quite legally, and yet still fall foul of the law, depending on whether or not you are reckless. Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?

Picked up this interesting snippet:

Clarification 7 2015
Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 15,16,22
Date: 9 September 2015
Request
We are concerned at the increasing practice of an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.

This is happening mainly when the ball is won at the breakdown/tackle/ruck and has been picked up by a player. An opponent then kicks the ball from that player’s hands. (This opponent may have legally come through the breakdown, or may still be in the breakdown.)

We do not consider that this action is either:

(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

It is also foreseeable that injuries will occur. It presents difficulties in interpretation and consistency for the referee:
If contact is made with the hands of the player it can be considered foul play – this is difficult to see and to decide.
If the ball is dropped, referees are ruling a knock-on, whereas the player in possession has neither lost possession of the ball, nor has he knocked it forward.

We can find some guidance in the following Laws (22 & 16) which deal with kicking the ball from a player’s possession in the field of play who is reaching out to score, albeit a tackled player:

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22(f) above.

We consider that it is logical for the rationale in Law to cover the scenario which we have outlined above in relation to the breakdown, and that the Law intends that it is not legal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The designated members agree that it is illegal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances. An example of this action can be seen below. The sanction for this action should be a penalty against the offending team.

The Irish complaining about irregularities at the breakdown.

The irony.

A useful contribution. That's for such an enlightening comment. Genius....

Well said rugger fan. I suspect that once the Irish have gotten over being beaten it will all die down. Just like the poc incident when he nearly decapitated a player who was on the ground with a kick to the head. Many of the Irish weren't screaming like stuck pigs then.

Munchkin wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

For goodness sake, I was giving you examples of duty of care. The point being that you can do something quite legally, and yet still fall foul of the law, depending on whether or not you are reckless. Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?

Picked up this interesting snippet:

Clarification 7 2015
Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 15,16,22
Date: 9 September 2015
Request
We are concerned at the increasing practice of an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.

This is happening mainly when the ball is won at the breakdown/tackle/ruck and has been picked up by a player. An opponent then kicks the ball from that player’s hands. (This opponent may have legally come through the breakdown, or may still be in the breakdown.)

We do not consider that this action is either:

(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

It is also foreseeable that injuries will occur. It presents difficulties in interpretation and consistency for the referee:
If contact is made with the hands of the player it can be considered foul play – this is difficult to see and to decide.
If the ball is dropped, referees are ruling a knock-on, whereas the player in possession has neither lost possession of the ball, nor has he knocked it forward.

We can find some guidance in the following Laws (22 & 16) which deal with kicking the ball from a player’s possession in the field of play who is reaching out to score, albeit a tackled player:

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22(f) above.

We consider that it is logical for the rationale in Law to cover the scenario which we have outlined above in relation to the breakdown, and that the Law intends that it is not legal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The designated members agree that it is illegal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances. An example of this action can be seen below. The sanction for this action should be a penalty against the offending team.

The Irish complaining about irregularities at the breakdown.

The irony.

A useful contribution. That's for such an enlightening comment. Genius....

And 'That's' (sic) for continuing to flog this dead horse of a non-issue. Pointless.

Watch out Jimpy. They'll start calling you thick soon. Then you'll know you've really hit the sore spot.

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?.

You can't do anything you want at ruck time but, so long as you are doing what you are allowed to do, with no intention to do anything else, then duty of care is not a consideration.

By all means, argue that it should be a consideration, but it's not currently in the laws.

Reckless play is, and Brown was reckless. That's been my whole point. Now, you might disagree that it was reckless, that's fair enough if that's your opinion, but reckless play can be cited, even at the ruck.

Dangerous play falls under law 10. Reckless is not a word used in that regulation, and therein lies the problem.

A ruck occurs when the ball is on the floor. Players can no longer use their hands, they have to use their feet. You can ruck players out the way, and you can kick for the ball. If you want Brown's actions to be deemed dangerous, then you need to redefine what is allowed at a ruck. If you want his actions to be deemed reckless, then you need to argue for a duty of care clause in the current ruck laws.

englandglory4ever wrote:Watch out Jimpy. They'll start calling you thick soon. Then you'll know you've really hit the sore spot.

Something about 'kettle and pot' there eg4. Anyway, seems to be you that's taken it a bit thick

I take it back, though. I'm sure you're not thick. Heat of battle, and all that

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Watch out Jimpy. They'll start calling you thick soon. Then you'll know you've really hit the sore spot.

Something about 'kettle and pot' there eg4. Anyway, seems to be you that's taken it a bit thick

I take it back, though. I'm sure you're not thick. Heat of battle, and all that

Haha, no I'd say he probably is to be honest.

<Walks in hoping to read some insightful thoughts in to the game, skims through 5 pages of pointless argument, walks back out again >

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?.

You can't do anything you want at ruck time but, so long as you are doing what you are allowed to do, with no intention to do anything else, then duty of care is not a consideration.

By all means, argue that it should be a consideration, but it's not currently in the laws.

Reckless play is, and Brown was reckless. That's been my whole point. Now, you might disagree that it was reckless, that's fair enough if that's your opinion, but reckless play can be cited, even at the ruck.

Dangerous play falls under law 10. Reckless is not a word used in that regulation, and therein lies the problem.

A ruck occurs when the ball is on the floor. Players can no longer use their hands, they have to use their feet. You can ruck players out the way, and you can kick for the ball. If you want Brown's actions to be deemed dangerous, then you need to redefine what is allowed at a ruck. If you want his actions to be deemed reckless, then you need to argue for a duty of care clause in the current ruck laws.

Yes, I agree with you on the terminology. It's a bit like the use of 'double movement', described a few comments up. Dangerous play is correct, but it's more a question of semantics, methinks.
My point is that there is no need for any duty of care clause specific to the ruck, because law 10 is, or should be, adequate enough to cover for this particular incident. In saying that, the law does need clarified, and perhaps the issue with hacking the ball does need to be considered with regard to head injuries.

Hoonercat wrote:<Walks in hoping to read some insightful thoughts in to the game, skims through 5 pages of pointless argument, walks back out again >

Thanks for your insightful thoughts on the game.

The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball. Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball. The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball. Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it. Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release. I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness. In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally). At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks. Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts. I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

GunsGerms wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Watch out Jimpy. They'll start calling you thick soon. Then you'll know you've really hit the sore spot.

Something about 'kettle and pot' there eg4. Anyway, seems to be you that's taken it a bit thick

I take it back, though. I'm sure you're not thick. Heat of battle, and all that

Haha, no I'd say he probably is to be honest.

No I'm not thick. ( or tick in Irish). I know a good kick to the head when I see one and POCs was a beauty.

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:<Walks in hoping to read some insightful thoughts in to the game, skims through 5 pages of pointless argument, walks back out again >

Thanks for your insightful thoughts on the game.

Here's a thought. England won. Time to move on.

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

Despite the obvious sensitivity about eyes and faces in general, faces do cut easily and facial injuries can look worse than they actually are. More dangerous things happen that are not as visible.

And to be honest I still don't understand what Brown should have done in that situation instead.

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

This is a funny post. I'm almost starting to feel sorry for Mike Brown's stud as it could have been damaged on Conor Murray's eye.

Hoonercat wrote:<Walks in hoping to read some insightful thoughts in to the game, skims through 5 pages of pointless argument, walks back out again >

Best comment of the last 5 pages

No I'm not thick. [b]( or tick in Irish).

:shock:Racist!!!!!  
I'm Irish and I don't pronounce it like that.......we were the original slaves you know and are still very sensitive

It was a ruck in my eyes law 10 doesn't come into it.

Munchkin wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:Watch out Jimpy. They'll start calling you thick soon. Then you'll know you've really hit the sore spot.

Something about 'kettle and pot' there eg4. Anyway, seems to be you that's taken it a bit thick

I take it back, though. I'm sure you're not thick. Heat of battle, and all that

That's ok. I'm sure you're not simple too.  

Jimpy wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

Hoonercat wrote:<Walks in hoping to read some insightful thoughts in to the game, skims through 5 pages of pointless argument, walks back out again >

Thanks for your insightful thoughts on the game.

Here's a thought. England won. Time to move on.

Is it just me or is there a disproportionate number of really dozy individuals in the England team? I'm thinking Robshaw, Haskell and Farrell in particular.

Rugby Fan wrote:A ruck occurs when the ball is on the floor. Players can no longer use their hands, they have to use their feet. You can ruck players out the way, and you can kick for the ball. If you want Brown's actions to be deemed dangerous, then you need to redefine what is allowed at a ruck. If you want his actions to be deemed reckless, then you need to argue for a duty of care clause in the current ruck laws.

Trampling a player falls under 10.4 (b). You don't need to change anything for it to be deemed an offense.

They're not dozy. They're just really competitive rugby players who play right up to the line. Sometimes the go over it. Only really pedantic refs pick them up. Because they're really nice guys. Oh f it. You're right they are dozy.

lostinwales wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

Despite the obvious sensitivity about eyes and faces in general, faces do cut easily and facial injuries can look worse than they actually are. More dangerous things happen that are not as visible.

And to be honest I still don't understand what Brown should have done in that situation instead.

True, especially when kicked by men wearing rugby boots

Yaaaaaaaaaawwwwwnnnnnn..........

Wow - how to have a argument in a tea cup

As a Scotsman, I will try to sum up what I think the main points are

Lots of people think the opposition are arrogant for hoping / thinking their team might be SLIGHT favourites while very few have said the definitely expect to win - but to say the other team are good is patronizing to their gran

Everyone thinks that Brown was a naughty boy, expect he wasn't, but he has been, although he hasn't - although he may have been clumsy and could have got cited - but didn't

The English coach says some silly things, and as he has been the English coach for a few weeks, that means all English are saying silly things and arrogant - even through the coach is Australian, - but it must be the English that have changed him so he says silly things - even though he said the same silly things when coaching Japan

One team has played different opposition that the other - so that team is 100% better than the other - or 100% worst - and the stats prove it - while they also don't

Everyone who has some confidence is dis-respecting everyone else - and most people think a comment about a team is disrespecting the opposition, they players, their grannies and the roads in said country


The citing commission is always against your country, even if they go in favour of you - as it is a cunning plan - that goes for the ref - as they only seen one person at a time, and depending on the colour of the shirt - they see it clearer - except when they don't


Everyones second row is world class, but some are worldclassier than the others, although there are only one worldclassiest player and he is 100 feet tall (and knits)

Ok - right got it

Carry on, I now understand

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a ruck in my eyes law 10 doesn't come into it.

Cheap shot.

Poorfour wrote:

exile jack wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:

exile jack wrote:News just in from Twickers that 'Happy Feet' Brown signed up by Riverdance for their next world tour.Starring in the section of the show called 'On Yer Head,Mate' fellow performers will wear protective head gear to prevent accidental and non-intentional contact with their craniums.

Murray the diver is touted to become the next world champ at Diving. He's also really good at mud wrestling on the floor with pigs. Says he never let's go no matter what happens..

As I view the video Brown makes at least 5 attempts to kick the ball and rakes Murray once.Presumably he knew where both the ball and Murray's head were or else he's kicking out and raking regardless.Either way he's doing something dangerous and not worrying about the risks and possible results(stitches near the eye rather than eye loss).Your suggestion that the mitigating circumstances were Murray was acting illegally is probably the same argument Guirado used when he damaged Kearney's AC joint and finished his season.Both Kearney and Murray now know that having the ball can lead to serious injury without any risk of sanction to the perpetrator.It's a funny old but increasingly dangerous game that must be worrying quite a few parents.

It all comes down to interpretation. I'm going from what I saw on the screens in the stadium, but there were two distinct phases. First Brown's foot comes over with the toe pointed forwards and kicks at the ball. Then he lifts his ankle up and scrabbles at the ground several times behind the ball.

A lot depends on why you think he made that second movement. He wasn't connecting with the ball. It's not a strong position to have your foot in. He wasn't trying to connect with Murray's head (because otherwise he could have just swung his heel or studs back into Murray's face, which didn't happen as far as I could see). It looks very much to me as if he's being pushed back by the Irish counter-rucker (Best?) - which I think was confirmed on replay - and trying to hold his ground without his foot being pushed back into Murray. He can't lift his foot out without risking hitting Murray, he can't put it flat (a much stronger position to hold it in) because Murray's moved his head forward, he can't move it forward because he's being pushed backwards by someone in a stronger position.

If you then look at that in the context of the first movement, he's kicked the ball, not dislodged it and made contact with Murray (who has during the kick started to move his head closer to the ball) on the backswing. Realising he's made contact is the trigger for him changing his foot position.

Interpreted like that, his actions are the opposite of reckless. It was certainly good enough for Poite, the TMO, Nige (who I am sure would have intervened if he thought he'd seen something different - he'd already done so at least once in the match) and the citing commissioner to take that interpretation.

Reckless is charging in without any regard to player safety, as Jared Payne can tell you. But that doesn't require you to give up contesting the ball fairly (as the changes to the contact in the air rules this year have shown), as long as you're showing some regard for safety. There is enough in what I saw to suggest that Brown was - certainly far more than in the other examples shown.

Poorfour,we can agree that it is a question of interpretation based on the incident that each of us saw either live or via many TV replays.If the IRFU feel very strongly about the incident they can refer it to World Rugby for review.Btw I saw the game in a Dublin bar and the post-match consensus was that Ireland had done well to come within 11 points because a top 3 SH side would have been 20-30 points up at half-time.

Is this still going? Flip me. I thought it was the Ireland-Wales game that usually resulted in this sort of nonsense. What happened?

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

Looks like Murray recoils the ball when he was kicked in the face, not before. Brown continues to kick aimlessly at the ball.

Must admit I am surprised he got away with it. Very surprised.

Jimpy wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rugby Fan wrote:

Munchkin wrote:...Because it still come down to duty of care. A player is entitled to lift an opponent, for example, but that player must ensure that his opponent is brought safely to ground. A player is entitled, under current law, to hack at the ball, but it is also required that the player is not reckless..

You are conflating the laws for tackling and mid air collisions with the laws for ruck. There is no duty of care concept for laws in a ruck. You are either doing what you are supposed to do with your feet in a ruck or you aren't.

For goodness sake, I was giving you examples of duty of care. The point being that you can do something quite legally, and yet still fall foul of the law, depending on whether or not you are reckless. Of course there is a duty of care ar ruck time. Do you honestly think that players can behave as they wish simply because they happen to be involved in a ruck?

Picked up this interesting snippet:

Clarification 7 2015
Union: IRFU
Law Reference: 15,16,22
Date: 9 September 2015
Request
We are concerned at the increasing practice of an opponent kicking the ball out of the hands of a player who has picked up the ball.

This is happening mainly when the ball is won at the breakdown/tackle/ruck and has been picked up by a player. An opponent then kicks the ball from that player’s hands. (This opponent may have legally come through the breakdown, or may still be in the breakdown.)

We do not consider that this action is either:

(i) A fair contest for the ball.
or
(ii) Can be considered a legal means of dis-possessing a player.

It is also foreseeable that injuries will occur. It presents difficulties in interpretation and consistency for the referee:
If contact is made with the hands of the player it can be considered foul play – this is difficult to see and to decide.
If the ball is dropped, referees are ruling a knock-on, whereas the player in possession has neither lost possession of the ball, nor has he knocked it forward.

We can find some guidance in the following Laws (22 & 16) which deal with kicking the ball from a player’s possession in the field of play who is reaching out to score, albeit a tackled player:

Law 22
(e) Tackled near the goal-line. If a player is tackled near to the opponents’ goal line so that this player may immediately reach out and ground the ball on or over the goal-line, a try is scored.

(f) In this situation, defending players who are on their feet may legally prevent the try by pulling the ball from the tackled player’s hands or arms, but must not kick the ball.

Law 15.6 (j) – This Law is very similar to 22(f) above.

We consider that it is logical for the rationale in Law to cover the scenario which we have outlined above in relation to the breakdown, and that the Law intends that it is not legal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances.

Clarification in Law by the Designated Members of the Rugby Committee
The designated members agree that it is illegal to kick the ball from the hands of a player in possession in any circumstances. An example of this action can be seen below. The sanction for this action should be a penalty against the offending team.

The Irish complaining about irregularities at the breakdown.

The irony.

A useful contribution. That's for such an enlightening comment. Genius....

And 'That's' (sic) for continuing to flog this dead horse of a non-issue. Pointless.

Don't be so boring. It's a bit of fun .......... on a day there's not much else to do.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a ruck in my eyes law 10 doesn't come into it.

Cheap shot.

Ha theres always 1!

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is this still going? Flip me. I thought it was the Ireland-Wales game that usually resulted in this sort of nonsense. What happened?

The English won't admit they're wrong

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was a ruck in my eyes law 10 doesn't come into it.

Cheap shot.

That's quality

maestegmafia wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

Looks like Murray recoils the ball when he was kicked in the face, not before. Brown continues to kick aimlessly at the ball.

Must admit I am surprised he got away with it. Very surprised.

Kicks aimlessly at the ball eh? Think you're wanting to imply something against Brown yet worded it badly?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

nlpnlp wrote:The fact is though that Brown was not kicking the ball out of Murray's hands as he had not picked up the ball.  Murray had been tackled, was lying on the floor and had to release the ball.  The fact is brown came through the middle of the ruck quite legally and perfectly safely kicked at the ball.  Murray then pulled the ball back towards him to stop Brown being able to kick it.  Brown continued to kick at the ball - I believe in the heat of the moment not realising that as Murray had pulled the ball back towards his body the ball was now much closer to his head - and unfortunately as his foot came back to kick at the ball again it came into contact with Murray.

It should have been a penalty for England for Murray holding onto the ball, but Ireland already had a penalty for Care lying on the tackled player to slow down the release.  I think there was no intent to cause injury by Brown and no recklessness.  In the same way as there is generally no recklessness in players making a hard tackle, or hitting a ruck (legally).  At this level of rugby it can be a tough sport - you get a few knocks and give a few knocks.  Brown has been scrutinised in slow motion by the referee, the video official and the citing officer and found not guilty on all counts.  I appreciate that there will be some on here who think they know more than the referee, video official and citing officer, but fortunately their opinion counts for nothing.

Now how Hooper got away on field with that assault on Mike Brown in the World Cup I do not know.

Looks like Murray recoils the ball when he was kicked in the face, not before. Brown continues to kick aimlessly at the ball.

Must admit I am surprised he got away with it. Very surprised.

Kicks aimlessly at the ball eh? Think you're wanting to imply something against Brown yet worded it badly?

That it's a good thing he isn't taking kicks because by the looks of it he couldn't hit a barn door with a banjo?  

Anyway Murray wasn't tackled and didn't dive, as a few have said.  

He arrived at the ruck.
Bent down to pick the ball up and play it, as scrumhalves tend to do when they're 5m out with the opposition scrambling.
Got dragged to the ground by Haskell, who was off his feet trying to play the ball (and had a bit of a scratch at Murray's face).
Presented the ball behind him. Brown then kicked it half out of his hands, into his chest, then tried to backheel it and missed.

Some of the revisionism is hilarious.

Munchkin wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is this still going? Flip me. I thought it was the Ireland-Wales game that usually resulted in this sort of nonsense. What happened?

The English won't admit they're wrong

Sorry Rory, this is the Wales vs England thread.
PS...always liked your track 'On These Boards'....
snigger....

gregortree wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is this still going? Flip me. I thought it was the Ireland-Wales game that usually resulted in this sort of nonsense. What happened?

The English won't admit they're wrong

Sorry Rory, this is the Wales vs England thread.
PS...always liked your track 'On These Boards'....
snigger....

Google Rory Gallagher song list.

Munchkin wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is this still going? Flip me. I thought it was the Ireland-Wales game that usually resulted in this sort of nonsense. What happened?

The Irish won't admit they're not as knowledgeable as the French, Saffer and Scottish officials involved

to be fair when have your countrymen ever backed down, especially when wrong?