Ireland v England 18&19 March - Grand Slam opportunities

First topic message reminder :

Ireland are going for Grand Slam wins on Saturday and Sunday this weekend with the seniors and U20s lining out in Dublin and Cork to face England.

After the slew of injuries in the Scotland, Ireland were looking at being down a good few players for their final match.

Bealham, Beirne, Henderson, McCarthy and Ringrose are all definitely out of the reckoning.  Rónan Kelleher may join them.   Sheehan and Doris might recover sufficiently from their knocks to be named in the squad.

Team named at 3.30pm Irish time.  

Porter, Sheehan, Furlong, Ryan, Baird, O'Mahony, Van der Flier, Doris
Gibson-Park, Sexton, Lowe, Aki, Henshaw, Hansen, Keenan
R: Herring, Healy, O'Toole, Treadwell, Conan, Murray, Byrne, O'Brien

England looking to change up things from their 23 last Saturday with Owen Farrell starting at 10, alongside Manu Tuilagi in midfield.  

Genge, George, Kyle Sinckler, Itoje, Ribbans, Ludlam, Willis, Dombrandt
Steward, Watson, Slade, Tuilagi. Arundell, Farrell, van Poortvliet
R: Walker, Vunipola, Cole, Isiekwe, Curry, Mitchell, Smith, Marchant.

Wouldn't have complained had it been only yellow but the more I look at it the less room for complaint Steward has. He knows the penalties associated with head contact and he comes from quite far out while Keenan does nothing unexpected or sudden except pick the ball up. Am sure there's no intent from Steward but he had enough time to avoid it and especially didn't have to jump in and turn his shoulder at the last minute.

Was a shame though, I think we need time-limited red cards so games aren't ruined inside the first half although I don't think the mooted 20 minutes is long enough

When you're a fairly average team playing the ranked 1 side here's your top game plan: do not get sent off. I thought we might have learnt that from last year. Maybe we need an IQ test as well as a fitness one.

TJ wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:Unbelievable, yellow card for that?!

He’s tipped him over the horizontal, not brought him down well and impact on his head. Definitely at least a yellow.

I would have said marginal pen only / yellow

And you’d have been wrong. The interpretation is that the ref has to look at how the player would have landed if they hadn’t been able to put an arm out; he was heading for a landing on his head, which would be an instant red, but mitigation is allowed if another player in involved. That’s been the interpretation since at least 2020/21.

theslosty wrote:Wouldn't have complained had it been only yellow but the more I look at it the less room for complaint Steward has. He knows the penalties associated with head contact and he comes from quite far out while Keenan does nothing unexpected or sudden except pick the ball up. Am sure there's no intent from Steward but he had enough time to avoid it and especially didn't have to jump in and turn his shoulder at the last minute.

Was a shame though, I think we need time-limited red cards so games aren't ruined inside the first half although I don't think the mooted 20 minutes is long enough

Nothing unexpected? There are at least three things that Steward couldn’t reasonably expect: 1) the ball isn’t passed but thrown forward onto the floor, 2) Keenan tries to play it and 3) he bends very low to pick it up, rather than kick it on. None of those happen in the normal course of play.

If you think Steward had time to avoid it you need to watch it again in real time. Steward’s doing well to turn away from it given the speed at which it happens.

It’s a red by the letter of the framework but Peyper could reasonably have allowed mitigation for the sudden change in height, for Steward’s effort to reduce the force or for the fact that it wasn’t head to head or head to shoulder contact (despite what he said on the ref mic), but head to elbow.

It’s that last point that bothers me most. Keenan runs head first into the elbow of a player who is trying to avoid contact. While it is head contact, that’s a strong indicator that it’s not a situation the framework is designed to cater for and needs to be looked at with a little sensitivity.

I was watching it at full speed and maybe it's the bias of having pre-knowledge of what is about to happen but the only mitigation is if Steward was fully convinced Keenan would kick. Hansen fluffs his offload in plenty of time for both players to react.

Anything accidental that happens in a split-second I'd have sympathy for but this one looks avoidable to me, just sloppy by Steward more than anything else

Poorfour wrote:

theslosty wrote:Wouldn't have complained had it been only yellow but the more I look at it the less room for complaint Steward has. He knows the penalties associated with head contact and he comes from quite far out while Keenan does nothing unexpected or sudden except pick the ball up. Am sure there's no intent from Steward but he had enough time to avoid it and especially didn't have to jump in and turn his shoulder at the last minute.

Was a shame though, I think we need time-limited red cards so games aren't ruined inside the first half although I don't think the mooted 20 minutes is long enough

Nothing unexpected? There are at least three things that Steward couldn’t reasonably expect: 1) the ball isn’t passed but thrown forward onto the floor, 2) Keenan tries to play it and 3) he bends very low to pick it up, rather than kick it on. None of those happen in the normal course of play.

If you think Steward had time to avoid it you need to watch it again in real time. Steward’s doing well to turn away from it given the speed at which it happens.

It’s a red by the letter of the framework but Peyper could reasonably have allowed mitigation for the sudden change in height, for Steward’s effort to reduce the force or for the fact that it wasn’t head to head or head to shoulder contact (despite what he said on the ref mic), but head to elbow.

It’s that last point that bothers me most. Keenan runs head first into the elbow of a player who is trying to avoid contact. While it is head contact, that’s a strong indicator that it’s not a situation the framework is designed to cater for and needs to be looked at with a little sensitivity.

I agree and would doubt the contact law would have anything like the Steward  situation in mind.  Just watched it over a few times because I wanted to see exactly what Steward was doing.  Clearly the referee applied the letter of the law.  

Here is the way I saw it:  Ireland moved the ball wide, and broke the gain line.  The gain line break is on Slade, btw.  As the ball was moving wide Steward started to walk up in coverage from fullback.  As he came up he seemed undecided whether to take the ball carrier who just broken the gain line or cover the player on the wing outside.  There was inside support.  

Then two things happened.   First the ball was an obvious knock forward and on the ground.  The runner was looking down to gather the ball and immediately picked it up and started taking a few steps, but not back at running height.  Steward, still undecided between the ball carrier or the player on the wing made the worst decision of all and froze in place.  The ball carrier was just starting to look up had no chance to change direction and probably relaxed a bit thinking the play was about to be blown dead.  Steward, still frozen in position and clearly not wanting any contact because the ball was about to be blown dead, could only steady himself for the contact, which was by then inevitable.   

The contact, to me, was completely unintentional.  Yet by law the right decision.   Yes, it would be good if referees felt they had latitude with these kinds of incidents, and felt World Rugby would have their back if they made a contextualised interpretation of the laws.  And I would include giving Steward a yellow as that.   Ultimately, though, the law was applied correctly, Steward should have committed to the outside man, and Slade should have taken the right guy and there would have been no line break....

if they made a contextualised interpretation of the laws.

the problem with that is that we would then get more inconsistant decisions as it becomes more subjective and less objective which is why there is a clear framework for the decisions to be made.

We would then get fans shouting about inconsistencies ie why was incident "A" a red card but incident "B" which looks similar a yellow?

All Steward had to do was put his hands out or step back.  Instead he steps/ turns into the player and drops his hands.  Step back it would have been "passive" and thus only a yellow.  Put his hands out it would have been an attempt at a legal tackle and mitigation could be applied leading to a yellow.  Instead he bodychecked him and hit his head.  Red card.

Edit: I am in favour of a red card being "play 20 mins with one player off, the red carded player cannot come back on after 20 mins but a replacement can"

All Steward had to do was put his hands out or step back

Watch this in real time and tell me at which point this is possible.......

When somebody shapes to kick, you naturally turn...this is exactly what Steward does. It's not physically possible to reshape this into a tackle in time.

here is the process to follow

https://resources.world.rugby/worldrugby/document/2021/03/10/e597c9c8-e852-4e19-875f-18e02e7f7e24/Head_Contact_Process_EN_v1.pdf

Low force with mitigation..........yellow at best.

Watch this in real time and tell me at which point this is possible.......

He had enough time to step and turn into the Irish player. thus he had enough time to put his hands up especially if he had stepped back or remained on the spot.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Low force with mitigation..........yellow at best.

You cannot have mitigation unless its an attempt at a legal tackle! follow the process!

medium risk could be argued but not IMO

TJ wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:Low force with mitigation..........yellow at best.

You cannot have mitigation unless its an attempt at a legal tackle!  follow the process!

medium risk could be argued but not IMO

The process can be applied to:
• High tackles
• Shoulder charges
• Dangerous cleanouts
• Head-to-head collisions
• Leading elbow / forearm

It was none of these so the process doesn't get under way to be fair.......

Dont think it was low force, the contact rattled the head off Keenan and left him dazed. Didnt want it to be a red, Stewart was unlucky, but when you have head contact like that you are rolling the dice.

He had his head lowered and ran into Steward who was pulling out. Dangerous precedent, players can basically force a red card. Just shows very little common sense and awareness of how the game is played.

A lot of that force was coming from Keenan, though. Steward was actively trying to get out of the way. Force is usually determined based on the force that the non-ball carrier is putting into it.

It was a shoulder charge in the end! Steward stepped into him.

Shoulder charge! Neither a shoulder nor a charge…FFS

Here is the clip of the incident

Steward jumps forward and drops his arms.  Watch it again.  Its accidental I am sure.  But that is irrelevant in the laws.  The laws were applied well.

Harsh as heck but correct in the laws
I put a link to the process above

https://youtu.be/OjNI-WXeT0A

As soon as I saw it I knew it was a red card.

Edit - if he has time to turn into the player he has time to turn away and / or put out his arms

Turning away wouldn’t make it any different? His head would still collide with the player.

Scottrf wrote:Turning away wouldn’t make it any different? His head would still collide with the player.

It would have made it a passive tackle so yellow card. Putting his hands out would have made it an attempt at a legal tackle so mitigation could have been applied. Yellow card. Being lower and putting his hands out would have meant its not even a penalty

Scottrf wrote:He had his head lowered and ran into Steward who was pulling out. Dangerous precedent, players can basically force a red card. Just shows very little common sense and awareness of how the game is played.

He was bent over and I agree that could have been mitigation but it wasnt mitigation when Aki got a red v England for a tackle in Billy V a couple of years ago despite Billy V leaning forward and down in the tackle and Aki almost being on his knees in the tackle.

I do understand why England fans are disappointed. I didn’t want it to be a red either. England can be proud of their team all the same and I expect it to be onwards and upwards for the from here.

Wasn't a red yesterday. Still not today.
What's the thought on the Genge pen. SH passes the ball then runs into Genge . What's he supposed to do there, jump out of the way?

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He had his head lowered and ran into Steward who was pulling out. Dangerous precedent, players can basically force a red card. Just shows very little common sense and awareness of how the game is played.

He was bent over and I agree that could have been mitigation but it wasnt mitigation when Aki got a red v England for a tackle in Billy V a couple of years ago despite Billy V leaning forward and down in the tackle and Aki almost being on his knees in the tackle.

I do understand why England fans are disappointed. I didn’t want it to be a red either. England can be proud of their team all the same and I expect it to be onwards and upwards for the from here.

Mitigation cannot be applied if there is no attempt at a legal tackle. Look at the process linked to above

TJ wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He had his head lowered and ran into Steward who was pulling out. Dangerous precedent, players can basically force a red card. Just shows very little common sense and awareness of how the game is played.

He was bent over and I agree that could have been mitigation but it wasnt mitigation when Aki got a red v England for a tackle in Billy V a couple of years ago despite Billy V leaning forward and down in the tackle and Aki almost being on his knees in the tackle.

I do understand why England fans are disappointed. I didn’t want it to be a red either. England can be proud of their team all the same and I expect it to be onwards and upwards for the from here.

Mitigation cannot be applied if there is no attempt at a legal tackle.  Look at the process linked to above

Not entirely true. As here you can see an accidental collision so when we talk of mitigation it's actually around adding context to the incident. Still not a red. Not even a pen.

As here you can see an accidental collision so when we talk of mitigation it's actually around adding context to the incident.

Ermmm - have you read the process I put in above? Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle

to make the decision its "just a rugby incident" is not mitigation. Its making a judgement on a different part of the process

TJ wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:He had his head lowered and ran into Steward who was pulling out. Dangerous precedent, players can basically force a red card. Just shows very little common sense and awareness of how the game is played.

He was bent over and I agree that could have been mitigation but it wasnt mitigation when Aki got a red v England for a tackle in Billy V a couple of years ago despite Billy V leaning forward and down in the tackle and Aki almost being on his knees in the tackle.

I do understand why England fans are disappointed. I didn’t want it to be a red either. England can be proud of their team all the same and I expect it to be onwards and upwards for the from here.

Mitigation cannot be applied if there is no attempt at a legal tackle.  Look at the process linked to above

The process can be applied to:
• High tackles
• Shoulder charges
• Dangerous cleanouts
• Head-to-head collisions
• Leading elbow / forearm


The whole process doesn't even get started as it was none of the above......in reality it shouldn't have even been a yellow. Thanks for sharing TJ and clearing this all up....justice for Steward!

TJ wrote:

As here you can see an accidental collision so when we talk of mitigation it's actually around adding context to the incident.

Ermmm - have you read the process I put in above?  Mitigation can only be applied if there is an attempt at a legal tackle

to make the decision its "just a rugby incident" is not mitigation.  Its making a judgement on a different part of the process

No I've read it and know the process. But in this case it's just a rugby incident so you don't have to consider that.

But in this case it's just a rugby incident so you don't have to consider that.

Valid view - and if you consider it just a rugby incident its play on

However given that Steward jumped into him and turned his shoulder dropping his arms then its not. If he had stood passive it would be.
If Steward had put his hands in front of him it would be an attempt at a legal tackle and even if there was still head contact mitigation could be applied

Sgt Pooly - its a shoulder charge - and that list anyway is "can be applied" not "only applied"

the only two options here are "rugby incident - play on" and "foul play - red card"

all IMO of course.

Peyper followed the protocol. You could see he was apologetic about having to send him off but its the correct decision IMO

Fair enough TJ....doing circles here.

I've looked a the process and have actually went from a yellow to a pen/nothing actually......all opinions end of the day.

Peyper had an absolute howler of a game yesterday but this can happen to the best of us.

TJ wrote:

But in this case it's just a rugby incident so you don't have to consider that.

Valid view - and if you consider it just a rugby incident its play on

However given that Steward jumped into him and turned his shoulder dropping his arms then its not.  If he had stood passive it would be.
If Steward had put his hands in front of him it would be an attempt at a legal tackle and even if there was still head contact mitigation could be applied

Sgt Pooly - its a shoulder charge - and that list anyway is "can be applied" not "only applied"

the only two options here are "rugby incident - play on" and "foul play - red card"

all IMO of course.

Peyper followed the protocol.  You could see he was apologetic about having to send him off but its the correct decision IMO

Hes trying to get out of the way as he's seen it's pretty much a dead ball given the knock on.

TJ wrote:

But in this case it's just a rugby incident so you don't have to consider that.

Valid view - and if you consider it just a rugby incident its play on

However given that Steward jumped into him and turned his shoulder dropping his arms then its not.  If he had stood passive it would be.
If Steward had put his hands in front of him it would be an attempt at a legal tackle and even if there was still head contact mitigation could be applied

Sgt Pooly - its a shoulder charge - and that list anyway is "can be applied" not "only applied"

the only two options here are "rugby incident - play on" and "foul play - red card"

all IMO of course.

Peyper followed the protocol.  You could see he was apologetic about having to send him off but its the correct decision IMO

A shoulder charge is Antonio vs England - a 20 stone man with speed hitting someone directly in the face with a shoulder. Yellow card somehow.

And yet we keep hearing the framework is there to avoid inconsistency ....

Heaf wrote:And yet we keep hearing the framework is there to avoid inconsistency ....

https://twitter.com/theofficialcox/status/1637158650451050497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1637158650451050497%7Ctwgr%5Eff3d9ca8ce1eb6422df046bb100f9cbe4af20032%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frugbyonslaught.com%2Fclear-cut-ireland-red-card-inexplicably-missed-immediately-in-front-of-referee%2F

This is not even a penalty or reviewed. Consistency in these decisions is a huge issue.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Heaf wrote:And yet we keep hearing the framework is there to avoid inconsistency ....

https://twitter.com/theofficialcox/status/1637158650451050497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1637158650451050497%7Ctwgr%5Eff3d9ca8ce1eb6422df046bb100f9cbe4af20032%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frugbyonslaught.com%2Fclear-cut-ireland-red-card-inexplicably-missed-immediately-in-front-of-referee%2F

This is not even a penalty or reviewed. Consistency in these decisions is a huge issue.

What is worse is he is looking directly at it from 2m away and must have seen exactly what happened.

Peyper and Jonker - that's all you need to know about that one ....

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Heaf wrote:And yet we keep hearing the framework is there to avoid inconsistency ....

https://twitter.com/theofficialcox/status/1637158650451050497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1637158650451050497%7Ctwgr%5Eff3d9ca8ce1eb6422df046bb100f9cbe4af20032%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frugbyonslaught.com%2Fclear-cut-ireland-red-card-inexplicably-missed-immediately-in-front-of-referee%2F

This is not even a penalty or reviewed. Consistency in these decisions is a huge issue.

This is 100% times worse than Stewards....that's a cheap, nasty shot.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Heaf wrote:And yet we keep hearing the framework is there to avoid inconsistency ....

https://twitter.com/theofficialcox/status/1637158650451050497?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1637158650451050497%7Ctwgr%5Eff3d9ca8ce1eb6422df046bb100f9cbe4af20032%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Frugbyonslaught.com%2Fclear-cut-ireland-red-card-inexplicably-missed-immediately-in-front-of-referee%2F

This is not even a penalty or reviewed. Consistency in these decisions is a huge issue.

This is 100% times worse than Stewards....that's a cheap, nasty shot.

I wouldn’t go that far, as Ryan was probably just focused on getting into the ruck and not paying enough attention to Ludlam’s head - but it’s certainly reckless head contact that was completely ignored, as was the high tackle on Watson.

The Steward red is a big call - strictly correct if you make no allowance for the circumstances. But if a ref and TMO are going to apply the laws that strictly in one situation then they need to be seen to do it in every situation, which they’ve clearly failed to do. When you make a decision on an incident that is on the edges of what the framework has been designed to handle but then ignore several that are very much within its bounds, there are serious questions about whether they’re fulfilling their obligations of fairness and player safety.

I don't know how Jonker is even still allowed to be involved with England games when it's crystal clear he's biased - he calls every minor opportunity to try to get at England (eg trying to ping Watson for obstruction when there was none) but NEVER calls anything against an England opponent. You'd think World Rugby would only need to look at his history to rule him out of ever being involved when England play. Mind you having said that look how long we had to put up with Steve Walsh.

Heaf wrote:I don't know how Jonker is even still allowed to be involved with England games when it's crystal clear he's biased - he calls every minor opportunity to try to get at England (eg trying to ping Watson for obstruction when there was none) but NEVER calls anything against an England opponent.  You'd think World Rugby would only need to look at his history to rule him out of ever being involved when England play. Mind you having said that look how long we had to put up with Steve Walsh.

England got lucky when Sexton was held up over the line. Farrell tackled Sexton when he wasn’t back 10 so that could have been a penalty try. The refereeing team after said that Itoje coming forward put him onside but that isn’t a thing. If you aren’t back 10 you have to continue retreating until you are.

Laws 12-14.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/law/20

Cheers for the link.

So this bit?

If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

Pretty sure a player coming forwards putting you on side is very much a thing .... as is not tackling players around the neck, like Watson was just before an Ireland try - with Mr J staying mysteriously quiet on the matter ....

I also have my suspicions that the bizarre call for Genge's 'tackle off the ball' when Gibson Park ran into him probably came from Jonker ... which lead to Ireland's first try ...

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheers for the link.

So this bit?

If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

Yeah that’s fair enough but there was actually plenty of time to retreat so I think England got lucky there. It happened around the 11 minute mark. Itoje and co all made it back with seconds to spare while Farrell remained in an offside position.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheers for the link.

So this bit?

If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

Yeah that’s fair enough but there was actually plenty of time to retreat so I think England got lucky there. It happened around the 11 minute mark. Itoje and co all made it back with seconds to spare while Farrell remained in an offside position.

No it means that there's jot enough to time to go back the full 10 before the tap. Farrell is going backwards until he's put onside. In that instance it's all OK. No pen try.

And in terms of that Farrell as captain was talking to the ref on the pretty harsh pen against George.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheers for the link.

So this bit?

If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

Yeah that’s fair enough but there was actually plenty of time to retreat so I think England got lucky there. It happened around the 11 minute mark. Itoje and co all made it back with seconds to spare while Farrell remained in an offside position.

No it means that there's jot enough to time to go back the full 10 before the tap. Farrell is going backwards until he's put onside. In that instance it's all OK. No pen  try.

He could easily have got back in time he was just standing there while his team mates were retreating. There was a delay of about four or five seconds before the penalty was taken. The ref initially called him offside but changed his mind because Itoje put him onside when the two of them tackled Sexton at the same time. The call could easily have gone the other way.

Equally I’m sure there were plenty of other calls that could have gone Irelands way but didn’t.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheers for the link.

So this bit?

If it is taken so quickly that opponents have no opportunity to retreat, they will not be sanctioned for this. However, they may not take part in the game until they have retreated 10 metres from the mark or until a team-mate who was 10 metres from the mark has moved in front of them.

Yeah that’s fair enough but there was actually plenty of time to retreat so I think England got lucky there. It happened around the 11 minute mark. Itoje and co all made it back with seconds to spare while Farrell remained in an offside position.

No it means that there's jot enough to time to go back the full 10 before the tap. Farrell is going backwards until he's put onside. In that instance it's all OK. No pen  try.

He could easily have got back in time he was just standing there while his team mates were retreating. There was a delay of about four or five seconds before the penalty was taken. The ref initially called him offside but changed his mind because Itoje put him onside when the two of them tackled Sexton at the same time. The call could easily have gone the other way.

Equally I’m sure there were plenty of other calls that could have gone Irelands way but didn’t.

As per the second comment. Farrell as captain is well within his rights to speak to the ref about the penalty just given.

He retires as he has to. And stops when no longer required by the law to do so. If it had gone the other way it would have just been wrong.

Conspiracy here,
conspiracy there,
If not for conspiracies
England would win all the silverware

England got the 50/50 call there, they also got away with being offside on numerous occasions. The ref in general was quite fair, it was a shame about the red but in general I do think England have work to do on their discipline. Blaming the ref isn’t going to fix that and Borthwick and Farrell to their credit made that point themselves in their post match interview. I think they both will drive England forward from here on in.