2024 Six Nations
Discussion
phil_cardiff said:
Kermit power said:
phil_cardiff said:
Kermit power said:
Evanivitch said:
Kermit power said:
As the saying goes "Tackling me high, leading with your shoulder and failing to attempt to wrap might break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
Yes, Marler can be a bit of an arse at times, but it's hardly going to damage anyone's health, is it?
Must be nice to have such privilege!Yes, Marler can be a bit of an arse at times, but it's hardly going to damage anyone's health, is it?
Never mind if you can't remember your kids' names before you're fifty thanks to all the concussive brain injuries just so long as nobody calls you a nasty word, eh?
Personally I'd fall on the side of making everyone be nice, but if that's not an option I'd rather nobody be sanctioned than have double standards based on who it's okay or not okay to insult.
Racial abuse is never acceptable, but neither is being told to "f
k off home you English wker" by a couple of pissed up Welsh blokes who you've not said so much as a word to just because you happen to be wearing an England shirt. That's not banter. It's abuse plain and simple, and the fact that some of the Welsh (and Scots) feel some sort of grievance about how their country was treated by England a long time ago is absolutely no f
king excuse whatsoever for that sort of aggressive individual abuse.The only real difference between the two if you're the individual on the receiving end is that if you're black there's a chance it may make the headlines, but if you're English it's just dismissed as "banter", and never mind if kids have been put off rugby for life by it, eh?
Evanivitch said:
Kermit power said:
Evanivitch said:
Kermit power said:
As the saying goes "Tackling me high, leading with your shoulder and failing to attempt to wrap might break my bones, but words will never hurt me".
Yes, Marler can be a bit of an arse at times, but it's hardly going to damage anyone's health, is it?
Must be nice to have such privilege!Yes, Marler can be a bit of an arse at times, but it's hardly going to damage anyone's health, is it?
Never mind if you can't remember your kids' names before you're fifty thanks to all the concussive brain injuries just so long as nobody calls you a nasty word, eh?
Words have consequences. If you can't understand the context of racial slurs and misogynistic comments for the wider game then clearly you've been failed by an expensive education.
Moving back to the discussion at hand, this started off debating Marler's comment to Lee.
Someone then decided to chuck in a strawman about a black player being racially abused on the pitch, even though there's no evidence of that happening in this day and age.
In the meantime, you see reports from pretty much every Wales vs England fixture of actual definite abuse levied against English fans by Welsh fans, purely because they're English. It is fortunately a small minority of Welsh fans who behave like that, but for as long as it's condoned as "just banter", with even the Six Nations themselves thinking it's acceptable to create a "humorous" ad with the message that England losing is more important than who actually wins, it's just going to get worse.
At what point does actual abuse against random English fans reach the same level of unacceptability as the highly improbable use of the N word by a player on the pitch?
Clearly verbal abuse isn't enough for you. Would verbal abuse directly aimed at a small child do it? Do punches have to be thrown, or is that okay so long as nobody actually ends up in hospital?
I'll say again, that I don't think any abuse is acceptable. I also don't think double standards are acceptable, but apparently you do because you don't think it's acceptable to abuse someone for the colour of their skin, but you couldn't care less about it if it's just because they're English.
basherX said:
1.4 million French died in WW1 compared to 0.8million Brits. About 220,000 French in WW2 compared to about 390,000 Brits
They did mutiny on The Western Front in 1917, but only after absolutely appalling losses having been led by a man, Nivelle, who had even less regard for his men’s lives than the British commanders did for theirs.
Evidently, they’re as st at surrendering as they are reputed to be at fighting.
Plus without the French mounting a very brave rearguard action, it's very unlikely that (m)any of the BEF would've made it off the beaches at Dunkirk.They did mutiny on The Western Front in 1917, but only after absolutely appalling losses having been led by a man, Nivelle, who had even less regard for his men’s lives than the British commanders did for theirs.
Evidently, they’re as s
t at surrendering as they are reputed to be at fighting. Having said that, for a French soldier to qualify for a full war pension in WW2, they had to be on active duty against the enemy for a minimum of 6 months....
The only French units who actually managed it? The Vichy French fighting for the Axis forces in Madagascar. I think it's pretty safe to assume that the French forces in question knew all about the pension rules, as they bravely resisted Allied invasion for six whole months, and then surrendered the following day!
Silverbullet767 said:
ferrisbueller said:
Excellent rant, but I think the ref. is an Aussie.
The TMO bd that called it.d ING bd fkING ENGLISH!!!Tell us you're Scottish without telling us you're Scottish!
Sport_Turismo_GTS said:
Hill92 said:
That Clarification made it clear that Law 8.14 (including earlier definitions) has always meant the kicker moving in any direction, including steps backwards and away from the ball as shown in the example video.
https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarificatio...
I’m not an expert on the laws of rugby, far from it. However, I think you have misunderstood this ruling/clarification.https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/clarificatio...
In the video, it is clear that the kicker moving backwards is part of his ‘approach to the ball’, so the charge down can legally commence at that point. For me, the step sideways by Ford is not part of his ‘approach to the ball’.
I’m happy to leave it there, but I’m sure there will plenty of ongoing analysis (by people who do know what they are talking about!) over the next few days.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
Regardless of legality, it really does the sport no favours.
A professional sportsman shouldn't be so in the dark as to what they can and cannot do - not the first time it's happened.
True, but that's on Ford, his club and his country, not on the ref or on rugby itself.A professional sportsman shouldn't be so in the dark as to what they can and cannot do - not the first time it's happened.
The really famous example - when the Italians didn't engage at the breakdown against England, thus preventing the formation of an offside line and allowing their players to be anywhere they wanted on the field of play - was totally different in that it exposed a complete lack of clarity in a law which had never previously been put to the test. Once it had, World Rugby very quickly brought in clarification.
Law 8.14 on the other hand is perfectly clear. Just because the vast majority of kickers (including Ford the vast majority of the time) get it right, that doesn't mean the opponent shouldn't be allowed to capitalise when they do get it wrong.
I don't believe for one moment that Ford actually was confused by the law either. He was just playing up to the Ref in the hope that he might persuade him into a decision.
A similar example was when Eben Etsebeth calmly trundled round the side of a caterpillar ruck, picked the ball up from Danny Care's feet and buggered off down the pitch with it. He perfectly understood the law, including the fact that players have to be bound into a ruck with at least one arm and shoulder, and as the rearmost England player only had his hand on the back of the player in front of him, as soon as the ball passed the back foot of that player in front, it had left the ruck and was fair game. Danny knew that law perfectly as well, but it still wasn't going to stop him appealing to the ref for an offside he knew hadn't happened.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
You are all yearning for a return of the RWC thread.
Where you can all beat up your pet Kiwi and bh about (how superior) southern hemisphere rugby.
I enjoyed yesterday. Drank far too much TT Landlord, didn't stand in the rain watching our seconds beat Newton Abbot (19-16 if you're interested) and will miss the match today as I'm at a birthday party in Solihull.
[url]Your seconds' league|Where you can all beat up your pet Kiwi and b
h about (how superior) southern hemisphere rugby.I enjoyed yesterday. Drank far too much TT Landlord, didn't stand in the rain watching our seconds beat Newton Abbot (19-16 if you're interested) and will miss the match today as I'm at a birthday party in Solihull.
https://www.englandrugby.com/fixtures-and-results/... appears pretty competitive once you get past the rather appropriately named Topsham!
I'm almost tempted to travel to New Cross (wherever that is!) To watch them host Topsham on March 16th, given that New Cross only lost by 2 points at Topsham, making them the only team to have lost to them by less than 15 this season!
Sadly for Topsham 2nds, though, they cannot become the first team to record a full season of bonus point wins (see below), but still an impressive season so far!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/32016992
ColdoRS said:
Nothing to add other than Scotland were robbed. Absolute disgrace, if the ball wasn't held up, where was it?
That said, Scotland should have put them away at the end of the first half when they had 2 or 3 penalties on the 5m line. Defending a 6 point lead against France for half an hour was never going to end well.
Whilst I'm inclined to agree about Scotland being robbed by the Ref (whose genealogy Silverbullet767 is presumably researching as we speak to prove he is descended from a long line of English sleeper agents originally sent to Aus as convicts for precisely this reason!) but it did also look in some of the angles as though the ball rotated a little without the body above seeming to rotate it, so was the ball carrier potentially separated from the ball after the initial 'grounding' on the foot? Again, highly unlikely, but still not 100%.That said, Scotland should have put them away at the end of the first half when they had 2 or 3 penalties on the 5m line. Defending a 6 point lead against France for half an hour was never going to end well.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Any other northern hemisphere team.
That's a bit rich considering that Ireland have beaten the All Blacks 5 times in 9 matches in the past decade, including 2 of the last 3.They've also beaten Australia in 5 of the 6 games they've played against them in the past 10 years and South Africa 5 times in 7 matches and Argentina 5 out of 6.
Add all that up and out of 28 games in the past ten years the result is Ireland 20, the Rugby Championship 8.
Don Veloci said:
Bit late to the party for a Saturday match....
Would rather have watched Finn stand still for however many minutes on one of the kick returns (Basically cheat the game out of the French and fans)** than see that yes/no finish again.
Slightly different take in that from where I was sitting they should used the width and finished the game right in front of me. I would expected of everybody for Finn to look right at least once.
I'm wondering in those circumstances how long it would be before the ref reminded Russell of one of the following laws:Would rather have watched Finn stand still for however many minutes on one of the kick returns (Basically cheat the game out of the French and fans)** than see that yes/no finish again.
- I'm guessing the French moving 5m would trigger a penalty and prevent such a loony stalemate
Slightly different take in that from where I was sitting they should used the width and finished the game right in front of me. I would expected of everybody for Finn to look right at least once.
9.7.d. A player must not intentionally waste time. Sanction = Free Kick.
9.27. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. Sanction = Penalty.
I suspect it would only be a valid tactics for maybe the last 10 seconds of a game at most.
Jordie Barretts sock said:
basherX said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Smollet said:
basherX said:
Exactly what are we supposed to do for the next two weeks?
Test cricket
Smollet said:
Don Veloci said:
How many English teams have got 1st team Scots to run into the ground next weekend?
4 and that's not an A side tournament 
I've got someone to support now!
I'd love to see them win the whole thing just to wave two fingers at the RFU and the Prem! Any time the question of relegation, promotion and stupidly large stadium capacities came up, they could just sit there going "scared, are you?" 
I reckon the minimum seating capacity for the Prem should be the average attendance of the least attended 3 clubs in the previous season. Oddly I can't find the 22/23 numbers anywhere on line, but for 21/22, that would've been Saracens (and given that their 8,339 average gate is boosted by all the people happy to fill out the Tottenham stadium to see Quins play I'm not sure if even their own fans like them??) Sale and Newcastle giving an average of 6,725 between them. Seems much fairer than insisting on 10,000 when none of those three clubs ever manage that?
Hill92 said:
Kermit power said:
Don Veloci said:
Bit late to the party for a Saturday match....
Would rather have watched Finn stand still for however many minutes on one of the kick returns (Basically cheat the game out of the French and fans)** than see that yes/no finish again.
Slightly different take in that from where I was sitting they should used the width and finished the game right in front of me. I would expected of everybody for Finn to look right at least once.
I'm wondering in those circumstances how long it would be before the ref reminded Russell of one of the following laws:Would rather have watched Finn stand still for however many minutes on one of the kick returns (Basically cheat the game out of the French and fans)** than see that yes/no finish again.
- I'm guessing the French moving 5m would trigger a penalty and prevent such a loony stalemate
Slightly different take in that from where I was sitting they should used the width and finished the game right in front of me. I would expected of everybody for Finn to look right at least once.
9.7.d. A player must not intentionally waste time. Sanction = Free Kick.
9.27. A player must not do anything that is against the spirit of good sportsmanship. Sanction = Penalty.
I suspect it would only be a valid tactics for maybe the last 10 seconds of a game at most.
10.4 An offside player may be penalised, if that player:
c. Was in front of a team-mate who kicked the ball and fails to retire immediately behind an onside team-mate or an imaginary line across the field 10 metres on that player’s side from where the ball is caught or lands, even if it hits a goal post or crossbar first. If this involves more than one player, then the player closest to where the ball lands or is caught is the one penalised. This is known as the 10-metre law and still applies if the ball touches or is played by an opponent but not when the kick is charged down.
10.7 Other than under Law 10.4c, an offside player can be put onside when:
a. An onside team-mate of that player moves past the offside player and is within or has re-entered the playing area.
b. An opponent of that player:
i. Carries the ball five metres; or
ii. Passes the ball; or
iii. Kicks the ball; or
iv. Intentionally touches the ball without gaining possession of it.
10.8 A player offside under Law 10.4c cannot be put onside by any action of an opponent, apart from a charge down.
DodgyGeezer said:
Kermit power said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
basherX said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Smollet said:
basherX said:
Exactly what are we supposed to do for the next two weeks?
Test cricketStella Tortoise said:
DodgyGeezer said:
Kermit power said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
basherX said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Smollet said:
basherX said:
Exactly what are we supposed to do for the next two weeks?
Test cricketdickymint said:
Kermit power said:
Stella Tortoise said:
DodgyGeezer said:
Kermit power said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
basherX said:
Jordie Barretts sock said:
Smollet said:
basherX said:
Exactly what are we supposed to do for the next two weeks?
Test cricketCivicDuties said:
Never mind not wanting to be seen as sore losers, they should be asking that the match be awarded to them, should an investigation conclude that an error was made. As it was the last movement of the game, and there could not possibly have been a restart, that would be entirely reasonable.
I'm inclined to agree, but I wonder if it would even be possible in reality. Just one thought is that bookies have presumably paid out some pretty colossal sums to bet winners on the original result, so what then happens if the result changes? All the new winners expecting their winnings, plus good luck trying to get back what has already been paid out, so how long before those bookies start paying the lawyers to find out if they have a case for compensation against the Six Nations?Gassing Station | Sports | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff