Japan 2019 - Pool A Ireland Japan Russia Samoa Scotland

First topic message reminder :

Team	Played	Won	Drawn	Lost	Tries	PF	PA	+/-	BP	Points
Japan	3	3	0	0	9	87	41	+46	2	14
Ireland	3	2	0	1	11	74	22	+52	3	11
Scotland	3	2	0	1	13	98	27	71	2	10
Samoa	3	1	0	2	7	53	81	-28	1	5
Russia	3	0	0	3	1	19	125	-106	0	0

Japan 30-10 Russia              
Ireland 27-3 Scotland  
Russia 9-34 Samoa                        
Japan 19-12 Ireland                          
Scotland 34-0 Samoa
Ireland 35-0 Russia
Japan 38-19 Samoa
Scotland 61-0 Russia  

                                       
                     
12 October 2019         Ireland v Samoa                         Fukuoka Hakatanomori Stadium, Fukuoka
13 October 2019         Japan v Scotland                         International Stadium Yokohama, Yokohama


Two games left. If Ireland get a TBP win on Saturday they qualify for the quarter finals irrespective of the result on Sunday. Any other result and they need to wait and see what happens between Japan and Scotland.
Any win for Japan and they will top the group (in fact a draw or losing with two bonus points will guarantee the same)
Most interesting scenario is if Ireland win without a bonus point - opening up a chance for Scotland to top the group if all 3 teams end up on 15pts and Scotland are able to keep their points difference ahead of Ireland.

Lagon wrote:Everyone hasn't. Aki?

I was being too extreme. Most for both, although Aki is obviously a product of the SH.

Its not that simple at 2 metres. In fact, it's near impossible. Giant against midget trying to get below head of said midget. Red card for giant.

Yes he is, and more importantly is of PI roots, and it is the PI sides that are getting hit by this, either directly, by getting carded, or indirectly by having obsessed coaches, media and everyone who wants to ‘help’ them that they are thinking twice about how they tackle. As BOD says, the game is changing, no more big hits, they’re not worth the penalties. There is always fallout from poorly designed rules, this will be one.

Miaow, it was the space and time to react, not forgetting the mayhem of spilled ball. How many reds and destroyed games can we look forward too?

Lagon wrote:Miaow, it was the space and  time to react, not forgetting the mayhem  of spilled ball. How many reds and destroyed games can we look forward too?

Enough for teams to develop new strategies on the matter. Everyone’s ‘relearning’ how to tackle differently.

Can they? Ok for touch rugby. Is that what you want?

Everyone - BoD included - is getting a bit carried away. Big hits aren't 'gone'. This is, quite literally, reactionary - never a good thing, and never the best moment or mindset for reasoned debate. He's paid to talk platitudes on TV. It's not gospel.

Here's the thing - the ball carrier's head can hit the defender's chest. That's still legal. You'll never, ever see it punished where a defender basically 'wraps up' or 'consumes' the attacker (I forget the term they use at the top level for it, but basically like a passive tackle where you use their momentum to bring them down). It's only an issue when it becomes shoulder or arm to the head. Think about the action required for that to actually happen - it's not a huge range of actions and 'space' the defender is aiming at for that contact to occur. The defender has to be typically aiming for the upper chest and higher to end up smashing the shoulder and/or arm around the chin and above.

Think about this for a moment. Think about how 'high' you actually be to commit a red card offence.

I'll repeat what I said over the page - the first lesson I was taught in rugby is that you can always get lower as a tackler than the attacker can as a carrier.

I'm going to ask again - how does carrying low stop the defender? And how, if your shoulder and arm is above their shoulder line, are you failing? Because the only issues so far have been swinging arms from the Kiwis where the player is low, Australians and Samoans putting in clothesline tackles at speed, some really cheap red card shots from the USA and maybe Argentina as well, and then a really overzealous penalty v Josh Adams where the arm is wrapping around at no force. We'll leave Kerevi alone for now as he's not the defender.

It is very, very rare - and hard - to 'try' to hit fairly and around the solar plexus, only to end up hitting the head. Every penalty there, bar Josh Adams', could be mitigated and avoided by the choice of the defender - the height they chose to tackle at.

This is one poster, T, parroting the narrative in his own country, which is basically using the most ridiculous scenario - players deliberately carrying head first, which I've heard trotted out by several Kiwi talking heads now - with the most ridiculous outcomes - 'no one will be able to tackle anything any more' - to justify a. their own foul play and b. not wanting to adapt and become more skills based. Some posters aren't seeing past that, it seems.

Again, let's reiterate. Rugby is not the game it was 10 years ago. It's closer to NFL these days with the force in collisions. You cannot keep the laws as they are. You cannot keep the tactics as they are.

Go and talk to Shontayne Hape. Look at the 4 French players who died this year. It is becoming a ridiculously dangerous sport IN SPITE of the laws 'going soft'. Just think about that for a moment - the law changes aren't actually working. World Rugby still hasn't sorted this issue of head injuries out. We're still having players lose months of playing team each season with head injuries and concussion problems. This, as it stands, still isn't enough - there has to be adaptation elsewhere, too.

The trial law of tackling low was abandoned as, unsurprisingly, it led to an increase in head injuries. If you force low tackles each time, guess what, it's not safe. There needs to be jeopardy for both players in not knowing who's going high and who's going low and the various choices in between - for the sake of knees and hips to the head of the defender, and the sake of arms and shoulders to the head of the attacker. Players have to get used to adapting - red cards can become yellows, penalties, or even nothing if they choose to adapt. Clearly there are some countries that take the issue of player welfare more seriously than others, as the NH is showing adaptation can be done - the SH are the dinosaurs and need to catch up. The Samoans can still keep going for the big hit if they want, but only if it's fair and legal - which hasn't exactly been a priority of the Islanders' over the years. Not sure why that's a dreadful loss to the game - look at the Samoans, who have been an absolute shower this year and look totally disorganised, and their attempts to take the Russian 15 out of the match in the first game. 2 red cards would have been barely justice - again, let's not kid ourselves that the 'big hit' isn't also the 'match ending hit'. Not we know that the consequences extend far beyond the game itself, I have literally zero sympathy for retaining the 'big borderline hit' for the sake of player safety. None. You can still hit fairly and legally and 'big' - you just have to adapt.

The current laws are quite clearly the best situation - if in doubt, go 'soft' as you can and just 'ride' the tackle (kinky). Don't follow through and smash them. Again, the NH teams have mostly adapted to this and the rate of cards/penalties is excellent compared to the SH. It can be done. You then look for an edge elsewhere. Or, you don't, you fail to adapt your technique and your overall team tactics, you talk about 'manning up', and you get players red carded. Honestly sounds like just about the best situation to me, personally - the only issue was WR going soft in the first week against the Samoans and Australia.

Lagon, I see your point and I feel this then becomes a wider tactical issue regarding 'the gainline', defensive set ups, gang tackling/maul-carrying where players barge the carrier from behind. All sorts of things that have been ignored, basically, but are clearly dangerous with bigger/stronger men - choke tackle, too. Same goes for the way the tackle laws are just abandoned within 5m of the tryline - no arms, head contact etc. The game is changing every 6 months at the moment and it's very, very hard for the laws to catch up. The scrum laws have helped teams stop the endless pursuit of 'bigger is better' across the field, but this is a tough issue we need to get right. It's not easy, but there needs to be a wider discussion about what to 'save' in rugby, and what to get rid of, particularly with regard to defence. In particular, I'd like to see a minimisation of the gang tackle etc.

Taylorman wrote:

Lagon wrote:Miaow, it was the space and  time to react, not forgetting the mayhem  of spilled ball. How many reds and destroyed games can we look forward too?

Enough for teams to develop new strategies on the matter. Everyone’s ‘relearning’ how to tackle differently.

Precisely. As I said, some have learnt, some have willfully ignored and are crying foul. Adapt or die.

Why on earth am I arguing against you? I was supporting your argument.

Rugby then adapts to hurt the opposition other ways. Its rugby.

Oi. Stop whinging on about tackles and if they are high or not. I’m trying to see if the game is on or off!!!

Hopefully it's on. I'm right with you.

Sorry tiger. Agreed - it is to do with your group tbf.

Actually the time is due about now.

miaow wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Lagon wrote:Miaow, it was the space and  time to react, not forgetting the mayhem  of spilled ball. How many reds and destroyed games can we look forward too?

Enough for teams to develop new strategies on the matter. Everyone’s ‘relearning’ how to tackle differently.

Precisely. As I said, some have learnt, some have willfully ignored and are crying foul. Adapt or die.

Well that’s two world cups, Juniors included, where multiple, matches have been lost as true competitions. Several at the U20s, several here. How many now? 7?

That’s ridiculous. Three times as many as the typhoon itself wiped out, so in terms of impact, a category 15.and the main event hasn’t even started!

How many more world cups have to be played before the entire rugby playing world has to suffer through multiple non contests.

You know, when you try to think, you really do do it poorly.

'True competition'.

What on earth are you on about?

majesticimperialman wrote:ok,ok. keep your hair on.

I’m sure you’re a good poster on the sly, but try and use google or sky sports or whatever for most of your questions. I’m not wound up, but your posting seems to be asking questions you can source from elsewhere, or trying to be clever and wind up, when it doesn’t really suit you.

Girls, take it easy.

Now watching the highlights. Addicted...

Lagon wrote:Girls, take it easy.

A phrase you've presumably never had to say out loud?

I've lived a very complex life.

Out loud to team mates? No, I value my life.

I'm not sure you're allowed a second go at a comeback tbh. Particularly not when it took 4 minutes to think it up haha.

Fair enough. In mitigation I'm watching the Ireland match on utv

Just highlights by the way.

Funnist thing is the worst head collision I have seen desired a red and didnt get one...Liam on Biggar. Surely if we're saying that this is a safety and recklessness issue then it should apply to any player hitting any other player

Pie wrote:Funnist thing is the worst head collision I have seen desired a red and didnt get one...Liam on Biggar. Surely if we're saying that this is a safety and recklessness issue then it should apply to any player hitting any other player

If anyone was going to get a card in that incident then it would be Biggar.

The Oracle wrote:

Pie wrote:Funnist thing is the worst head collision I have seen desired a red and didnt get one...Liam on Biggar. Surely if we're saying that this is a safety and recklessness issue then it should apply to any player hitting any other player

If anyone was going to get a card in that incident then it would be Biggar.

Why it wasn't Liam got knocked senseless