A whiff of Cordite

[mildlyinterested]

has there been enough ROG content this week? or can they get in a bit more tomorrow?

[fourthirtythree]

has there been enough ROG content this week? or can they get in a bit more tomorrow?

Don't think so.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/ ... p-leinster

reaching the knockout stages of tournaments is, for him, the bare minimum: “It does my head in to see high-fiving in the streets and the notion that we will get there ‘eventually’. I want to win things now. Hopefully, we are eliminating that limited ambition bit by bit.”

Must have learnt from the many years he and his team spent celebrating themselves losing despite sending out a team of internationals against club sides.

[joooooe]

.

[Dave Cahill]

Well it turns out the media was right to be fawning over ROG

[riocard911]

Well it turns out the media was right to be fawning over ROG

Did he say something disparaging about Leinster over the weekend or is that urban legend?

[ronk]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... 3?mode=amp

GT makes a good point about the French record at home for HC semi finals and just how hard it is to win them.

Maybe it just wasn't our year

[riocard911]

The RTÉ Rugby Podcast this week is good, with Donal Lenihan and Birch analysing calmly and fairly what went wrong for Leinster in La Rochelle and debating where the provinces - the Eastern one particularly - go from here. Hugh Cahill is a total waste of space, though. Listening to him you'd think we were stuck in our own 22 the whole game with LAR playing champagne rugby for 80 minutes. In ainm Dé, at the 60th min. there was still only a one point difference between the teams. Matt Williams on OTB dialled down the hysterics too, fair play to him.

[SoupyNorman]

With Munster's loss and Leinster not winning with a bonus point, Eirsports talking that everything is still in Munster's hands. Looking at fixtures I wouldn't be too surprised if Benetton win out. Maybe less than 50-50 but still a strong chance. Not a single mention of that possibility though.

[Dexter]

With Munster's loss and Leinster not winning with a bonus point, Eirsports talking that everything is still in Munster's hands. Looking at fixtures I wouldn't be too surprised if Benetton win out. Maybe less than 50-50 but still a strong chance. Not a single mention of that possibility though.

They're obsessed with Munster's engrossing crusade for a trophy of any sort....

[alanair]

With Munster's loss and Leinster not winning with a bonus point, Eirsports talking that everything is still in Munster's hands. Looking at fixtures I wouldn't be too surprised if Benetton win out. Maybe less than 50-50 but still a strong chance. Not a single mention of that possibility though.

They're obsessed with Munster's engrossing crusade for a trophy of any sort....

My God, can you imagine .... Benetton V’s SA champs....? they’ll be coming home in body bags !!!

[Ruckedtobits]

A very good piece of rugby writing and research from The42. Apart from the quality of the writing, the message from Australian rugby and the warning to Irish rugby is clear. Be careful what you wish for

https://www.the42.ie/lesson-aussie-rugb ... 5-May2021/

[ronk]

If they think Nucifora is the solution then they have much bigger problems.

[Fireworks]

Interesting piece. There is a problem here of sports fighting for kids and not wanting to share them. The FAI had a recent document which told clubs that kids from 12 should only be playing soccer.

The research shows that the majority of kids should not specialise until 16 at the earliest and that playing a number of sports helps. It is referred to as Long Term Athletic Development.

Implement it properly here and every sport would benefit as the potential playing pool would increase as would their skills.

[sunshiner1]

Found it fascinating to see where they were and are now. Could easily see it happening in Ireland, you only have to look at Limerick Rugby and the amount of players they have in the Munster academy to see what can happen.

[fourthirtythree]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... 7?mode=amp

This article is a great laugh. It argues that he should be red carded because something could have happened, but didn't, because there was whiplash to Balacoune, unrelated to whether that was caused illegally, and because Julien Marchand is banned for a shoulder into the head, and people have been banned for stamping on peoples heads in the past. Therefore something something something oh no the judge has just laughed Giuliani out of court and directed him to a good martini bar.

Go for a drink Owen. Just come up with your argument before your fourth this time.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... 7?mode=amp

This article is a great laugh. It argues that he should be red carded because something could have happened, but didn't, because there was whiplash to Balacoune, unrelated to whether that was caused illegally, and because Julien Marchand is banned for a shoulder into the head, and people have been banned for stamping on peoples heads in the past. Therefore something something something oh no the judge has just laughed Giuliani out of court and directed him to a good martini bar.

Go for a drink Owen. Just come up with your argument before your fourth this time.

I mentioned the reaction to that tackle in the Munster thread earlier, I don't get it at all.

If people want to debate that in future tacklers should bend their hips or something then fine, but to say the officials got it wrong (other than the arm slipping up which is fair enough but that's not what's being debated by people), to want a legal tackle to be punished, and wanting the officials to work outside the protocols is really grinding my gears.

I hate outcome based decisions and don't want dangerous play going unpunished just because someone missed the target etc, but this was a proper wrap and he avoided head to head contact. If that kind of tackle has no place in the game then so be it, but there was absolutely nothing wrong with not deeming it to be dangerous play on Friday.

[fourthirtythree]

Precisely, which is how he twisted himself into a Möbius strip making the argument.

Lots of stuff which is legal causes injuries, lots of stuff which isn't, doesn't. Injuries and application of the law are different things. They are often conflated nonsensically. For example I suggestions of cleariuts being banned to prevebt concussion without evidence that this is where concussion happens. I'm pretty sure it isn't except when the clear out is an illegal as shot. It's much more common when both parties are moving, i.e. a tackle. Often a legal one. And often a low one which is dangerous for the tackler

[Dexter]

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/ ... 7?mode=amp

This article is a great laugh. It argues that he should be red carded because something could have happened, but didn't, because there was whiplash to Balacoune, unrelated to whether that was caused illegally, and because Julien Marchand is banned for a shoulder into the head, and people have been banned for stamping on peoples heads in the past. Therefore something something something oh no the judge has just laughed Giuliani out of court and directed him to a good martini bar.

Go for a drink Owen. Just come up with your argument before your fourth this time.

I saw this too and thought it was pretty strange. He quoted a law about dangerous play I think, but it seemed really subjective and nowhere near the "Henshaw is lucky to be still in the Lion's squad" headline.

[CiaranIrl]

I looked up the laws on it. Copied below. I am none the wiser about it. It's very unclear to me how this law could possibly be applied in any sort of consistent way.

13. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously. Dangerous tackling includes, but is not limited to, tackling or attempting to tackle an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders.


Process questions and considerations
1. Has head contact occurred? Head contact includes neck and throat area

2. Was there foul play?

Considerations:
Intentional
Reckless
Avoidable

3. What was the degree of danger?

Considerations include:
Direct vs indirect contact
High force vs low force

4. Is there any mitigation?

Considerations include:
Line of sight
Sudden and significant drop or movement
Clear attempt to change height
Level of control
Upright - passive vs dynamic
Mitigation will not apply for intentional or highly reckless acts of foul play

Trigger words for match officials:
Match officials may wish to use the non-exhaustive list of trigger words below to help them identify whether a player is at fault, the degree of danger involved and whether any mitigation should be applied.

PLAY ON
No fault
Sudden and significant drop in height by the ball carrier
Player had no time to readjust
Passive action
Involuntary collision
No leading arm when close to the body

PK YC
Low danger
Indirect contact
Low force
Low speed
Passive
No leading head / shoulder / forearm

RC
High danger
Direct contact
Lack of control
High speed
Upright and dynamic
Leading head / shoulder / elbow / forearm
Swinging arm
No mitigation for intentional or highly reckless act of foul play

Mitigation
Sudden / significant drop in height or change in direction from ball carrier
A late change in dynamics due to another player in the contact
An effort to wrap / bind and having no time to adjust

[blockhead]

Lets keep it simple. It was a bloody great tackle, a try saving tackle. Arms wrapped, below the shoulder line, what's not to like?