Ireland v Samoa 5.45pm

First topic message reminder :

At that good man Gibbo's request and because the other thread was humongous !

COME ON IRELAND!!!!


Live on rte 2 and bbc NI. Hopefully that means rte won't scramble the signal. Have it on record there just incase.

Saint
Ging to try and avoid the Wales score and pick it up on iplayer later

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

profitius wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Mickado wrote:

profitius wrote:I think Heaslip is a solid dependable player who'll guarantee you a solid performance. In international rugby that should not be underestimated. I think he is far from being a guaranteed starter nowadays. I'm looking forward to Jack Conan breaking into the Leinster team. He is a powerful ball carrier and athletic player who will put pressure on Heaslip.

Think Jordi Murphy will have something to say about that.

Good and all as Conan may be. (He is just back from injury) He hasn't a single rabo cap yet, never mind HC. Give the guy a chance.
jordi Murphy is pure class and a bit further along. He is also only a year older than Conan with 27 senior caps inc a couple of HC.

I'm allowed to make a prediction, jen!  

Of course you are. Just pointing out that it is based mostly on potential.

Shifting it back a few years. Brendan Macken and Andrew Conway should be the new Bod and Denis Hickie by now........

True. Very true. And about 60% of Ulster players were touted to play for Ireland back then.  And they're still at it!

SOB, Jenno, Heaslip.  That's the ticket. Now that's a basterd backrow. Possibly the best combo of all. And it works at the highest level. Proven in triplicate.

Won't happen, but Id love to see it for just 20 mins against the AB's. The last 20, to seal it when we're winning.

I'm sure this has been discussed above (but I've not read the whole thread, sorry) but just seen that Pisi has been cited for his tackle on Bowe. What happened?

He will probably get a week or two off for it. Just a basic tip tackle. It was lessened in the sense he didn't drop him from a great height and tommy had his arm out so it wasn't a high impact tackle but he didn't bring him down safely and in truth it was a shocking bit of indiscipline

Standulstermen wrote:He will probably get a week or two off for it. Just a basic tip tackle. It was lessened in the sense he didn't drop him from a great height and tommy had his arm out so it wasn't a high impact tackle but he didn't bring him down safely and in truth it was a shocking bit of indiscipline

Thanks for the info

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

profitius wrote:

Jenifer McLadyboy wrote:

Mickado wrote:

profitius wrote:I think Heaslip is a solid dependable player who'll guarantee you a solid performance. In international rugby that should not be underestimated. I think he is far from being a guaranteed starter nowadays. I'm looking forward to Jack Conan breaking into the Leinster team. He is a powerful ball carrier and athletic player who will put pressure on Heaslip.

Think Jordi Murphy will have something to say about that.

Good and all as Conan may be. (He is just back from injury) He hasn't a single rabo cap yet, never mind HC. Give the guy a chance.
jordi Murphy is pure class and a bit further along. He is also only a year older than Conan with 27 senior caps inc a couple of HC.

I'm allowed to make a prediction, jen!  

Of course you are. Just pointing out that it is based mostly on potential.

Shifting it back a few years. Brendan Macken and Andrew Conway should be the new Bod and Denis Hickie by now........

Not me. Macken was outperformed by Eoin Griffin when they played U20 for Ireland. Hes a good athlete but not a good rugby player (maybe good enough for Rabo standard).


Conway's problem is he is made of glass so has never got a run of games. Early days for him yet.

A solid outing, lots of positives goign into next week, McGrath had a very good game, personally I was hiping he would go up against Census Johnson, but it wasn't to be.


There's some promising props in Connacht I know of they have a promsing young tighthead and second row at the u-20 level.

Census Johnson just keeps rolling around in my mind when I come onto this thread.

Cen-sus Johnson. Never mind what the player brings to the name - the name itself is not to be messed with and probably has a prison record all its own.

Good news for Leinster, George Pisi banned for 6 weeks

Standulstermen wrote:Good news for Leinster, George Pisi banned for 6 weeks

6 weeks! Is there a vid of it? Posts above suggested it wasn't that bad.

Cyril wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Good news for Leinster, George Pisi banned for 6 weeks

6 weeks! Is there a vid of it? Posts above suggested it wasn't that bad.

It really wasn't that bad, a yellow card tops and nothing more.

Blimey, 6 weeks really is a crazy call.  Extremely harsh on Pisi.

I didn't think it was. Mid range = 8 weeks, + 2 as a deterrent the. Reduced by 4 on mitigation.

I suppose it was a tip tackle. Pisi plead guilty but didn't think it was a red

6 weeks seems a bit harsh. My first, and lasting, impression was of someone going through the motions of a tip tackle, but stopping half-way through, and not driving the opponent into the ground.

No more than a yellow card for me.

Sorry but that is just wrong - 6 days maybe but that's it

It really is tricky to try to guess what ban they will issue for those tackles but 6 weeks seems harsh right enough.

It was however a clear tip and he was very lucky to only receive a Yellow by the letter of the law.
I agree that Pisi seemes to try to pull Bowe back from hitting the ground too hard. It looked much worse than the tackle by Afoa in the HEC quarter in Thomond 2 seasons ago. Did he get 3 weeks for that?

We do need to protect players from this type of tackle though.

Its a deserved ban. Players have known for years now that they cannot do that. Bowe was being dropped on his head and had to put his own arm out to stop it from happening. If they don't stamp it out theres a chance someone could get seriously injured from those types of tackles.

profitius wrote:Its a deserved ban. Players have known for years now that they cannot do that. Bowe was being dropped on his head and had to put his own arm out to stop it from happening. If they don't stamp it out theres a chance someone could get seriously injured from those types of tackles.

The chances of someone getting seriuosly injured in a tackle like that are none and F... all.

Maybe not a pro. However there are plenty of teenagers in wheelchairs because of bad tip tackles. I have met at least two. Kids tend to copy pros so shoukd pros be allowed do it?

aucklandlaurie wrote:

profitius wrote:Its a deserved ban. Players have known for years now that they cannot do that. Bowe was being dropped on his head and had to put his own arm out to stop it from happening. If they don't stamp it out theres a chance someone could get seriously injured from those types of tackles.

 The chances of someone getting seriuosly injured in a tackle like that are none and F... all.
 

Maths isn't your strong point I'd say!

Laurie,

That is just not true. The point of the ruling against dangerous tip tackles is to try to discourage any player from placing an opponent in just a vulnerable position. Yes, Pisi did appear to try his best to rectify the situation but it was too late. We need to reinforce the idea that picking someone up like that is a no go area.

To suggest that such a tackle has no chance of causing injury is just nonsense.

mrs P

Not exagerating bit there are we?
Why line up three words in a row "dangerous tip tackles"?
To suggest that I'm not being truthful is not very impressive either.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say?

Lining up three words????

Do you mean, "making a sentence"?

And, I stand by my statement that it is not true to say that there is no chance of injury from turning someone through almost 180 degrees and having them fall on their head, neck or shoulder.

I reckon the Doc has seen enough of it, to voice her opinion strongly.

I have to agree. Its the intent. Even half-arsed. Neck injuries happen so easily in those positions. Its dangerous and it must be hammered by the powers that be, at every given opportunity. It should be cut out of the game like the cancer that it is.

MrsP wrote:Laurie,

That is just not true. The point of the ruling against dangerous tip tackles is to try to discourage any player from placing an opponent in just a vulnerable position. Yes, Pisi did appear to try his best to rectify the situation but it was too late. We need to reinforce the idea that picking someone up like that is a no go area.

To suggest that such a tackle has no chance of causing injury is just nonsense.

Mrs P:

George Pisi was banned for six weeks for a "tip tackle" not a "dangerous tackle" not a "dangerous tip tackle" (if such a thing exists). your phraseology is emotive with the sole purpose of prosecuting your opinion and nothing more.

Im not overly worried about your accusation that Im not being truthful, but dont discount the possibility that I might know a tiny weeny bit about what Im saying.

It's not my phraeseology, it's the IRB's.

They define such a tackle as "dangerous play". That is why he was sanctioned on the pitch and off it.

He wasnt sanctioned off the pitch for a dangerous tackle.

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

I was not being emotive. I was using the terminology of the Rugby laws. The IRB are the ones who have declared this as dangerous. If you have evidence to the contrary I would suggest you present it to the IRB.

This tackle was by no means the worst of it's type but the IRB would seem to be trying to get players to understand that lifting a player so that his/her head/shoulders/neck come down first is not acceptable.

I am well aware of 10.4 (j).

Just because the IRB in their definitions describe what is "Dangerous play", does not mean that the tackle by Pisi was Dangerous and the panel agreed it wasnt.

The whole thing is a storm in a tea cup.

 

So...Pisi was found to have been guilty of a "Tip tackle" which is defined as "Dangerous Play" by the IRB, and judged to have been worthy of a Red Card, but it was not a Dangerous Tackle?

If it wasn't dangerous why was it deemed worthy of a Red Card and a ban?

And this is the basis on which you have called my use of the term "dangerous" as emotive?

Thats correct.

The way to look at it is that you have to ask yourself is it, what we called in the old days a "spear Tackle" or a "tip Tackle".and you can then argue that there was no danger, if all the prerequisite criteria are not present for it to be a spear tackle.

The laws were better for the first 130 odd years of rugby when we only talked of "foul" and " dangerous" play/tackles.

Dangerous play in the context of a "Tip tackle " only exists in law but not in fact. you can be red carded and banned for offending/reoffending for offences that arent neccessarily "Dangerous play".

The term "Dangerous" is the correct technical term for this sort of tackle and that was the sense in which I used it. If you have a problem with the nomenclature you should address it to the IRB, not accuse others of being emotive.

The IRB may well have used the term "Dangerous" for tackles that they see as potentially dangerous.

Although "Spearing" is more likely to cause injury I cannot see how anyone could consider picking a player up and dropping him on his head/neck/shoulder as not dangerous. The aim would seem to be to remove that sort of tackle from the game. There really is no need for it in a match. We did have the farce of some players being cited for tackles where no lifting actually occured but this seems to have been clarified now and I have seen far fewer of those instances when a tackled player is knocked off ther feet, whistled or cited.

The idea that the tackler must take responibility for their actions is a good one I feel.

I don't know if the findings of the hearing will be published. It would be interesting to read how Pisi tried to argue the tackle was a "Tip Tackle", which is classed as Dangerous Play, and not a Dangerous Tackle?

I should add that, far from being emotive, I actually feel for Pisi. As I stated earlier, he did seem to try to undo the tip but it was too late to stop Bowe from going down head/shoulder first. I don't think there was any intention to cause injury at all and he seemed to wave an apology to Bowe as he left the pitch. He also seems to have been given a longer ban than I would have expected compared to other instances.

But it was a Dangerous Tackle.

Good to hear that George Pisi's brother and the other guy are recovering after their head clash.

I agree, cant help but think that its more important to worry about the incidents where players are genuinely hurt,and put steps in place to address the safety of those players, rather than just calling every tackle dangerous...it achieves absolutely nothing.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I agree, cant help but think that its more important to worry about the incidents where players are genuinely hurt,and put steps in place to address the safety of those players, rather than just calling every tackle dangerous...it achieves absolutely nothing.

Players have been hurt in "dangerous tip tackles" and the steps put in place to adress the safety issue is to outlaw that kind of tackle and attach bans for offenders.

But I think that is what the IRB have tried to do.

Players were being injured in Spear tackles and the best way to eliminate them from the game is to say,

"If you pick him up you are responsible for bringing him back down properly, safely and not head first."

I still maintain that even dropping a player in these circumstances is dangerous.

Submachine wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I agree, cant help but think that its more important to worry about the incidents where players are genuinely hurt,and put steps in place to address the safety of those players, rather than just calling every tackle dangerous...it achieves absolutely nothing.

Players have been hurt in "dangerous tip tackles" and the steps put in place to adress the safety issue is to outlaw that kind of tackle and attach bans for offenders.

Very funny....

By the way does it seem right that Tusi could be back playing before George?

MrsP wrote:But I think that is what the IRB have tried to do.

Players were being injured in Spear tackles and the best way to eliminate them from the game is to say,

"If you pick him up you are responsible for bringing him back down properly, safely and not head first."

I still maintain that even dropping a player in these circumstances is dangerous.

But a player can fall from a much higher height from the top of a lineout,and land on his head could that not result in a more severe injury or is the severity of the injury unimportant, so long as coloured cards are being waved about and players are getting suspended then thats all that matters?

Laurie, I think everyone agrees that it's a harsh sanction, that the tip was unintentional and no harm was done but you made the point about putting steps in place to ensure player safety. These are those preventative measures. What steps would you suggest?

But steps have been taken to try to make lineout jumpers safer.

Opposition players are not allowed to do anything that would cause a jumper to fall that way.

I don't really understand what you mean by,

"...or is the severity of the injury unimportant, so long as coloured cards are being waved about and players are getting suspended then thats all that matters?"

What matters is the potential for injury. Whether someone was injured or not should not be used as a measure of guilt in foul play. It is sometimes used in deciding the length of a suspension though.

Are you suggesting we only sanction those guilty of foul play when an injury occurs?

Submachine wrote:Laurie, I think everyone agrees that it's a harsh sanction, that the tip was unintentional and no harm was done but you made the point about putting steps in place to ensure player safety. These are those preventative measures. What steps would you suggest?

 Your right, there was absolutely no malice let alone danger in the tackle, because the offence and its sanctions only exist in law. the IRB pass this of to the gullible that its in the interests of safety but it acually achieves absolutely nothing.

 If the IRB really wanted to address all these  injuries resulting from Spear tackles. (which we get very few, if any down here in New Zealand) they would legislate against something that actually happens and is a common denominator in these tackles, for example the technique used in the tackle. If they approached it simply by saying like "it is illegal to have first contact, with the hands between the legs of the ball carrier" then you would find that there would be no spear tackles. but they seem to prefer coloured cards and suspensions because a lot of the Rugby public think that is doing something for player safety.

On a side note if the IRB were concerned about player safety they mightconsider limiting the number of games that its top players play in a year...but thats another story.

"it is illegal to have first contact, with the hands between the legs of the ball carrier"

 

It's not where the tacklers hands start that is the problem, it's how the tackled player is brought to ground which causes the injury.

Are you saying that a player can not be injured by being lifted and dropped on their head/shoulders/neck? Because that is patently nonsense.

Are you saying that the tackle by Pisi should not even have been a penalty?

Laurie, the decision is based on how safely the player is brought to ground.

To illustrate the difference:

1) Brian O'Driscoll was driven into the ground (and broke his collar bone and out from rugby for about 6 months).
2) Warburton just dropped him.
3) Pisi just dropped Tommy.

If Warburton and Pisi had seen them safely to ground, they would not have been suspended.

I was replying to Submachine's invitation to give my suggestions.

The technique used throughout the entirety of the tackle is most important, you appear to be addressing this issue purely from the posssible consequences of the tackle.

I dont see this tackle by Pisi as dangerous, and to that end it will be interesting to read the reasons for the decision when they are released.

Laurie,

Having told us that you are aware of Law 10.4 (j) is it not pretty clear what the panel will say?

ie. Pisi "Lifted a player from the ground and dropped that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground which is dangerous play. "

I am interested in why Pisi's team would argue that the tackle was a tip tackle and not dangerous.

And, yes, I am looking at this from the potential consequences of the tackle. Of course I am. Why would I look at anything else if I want to protect players from injury?

To put it simply Dangerous Play is dangerous Play, "tip tackles" are just something manufactured in law, under the Dangerous play provisions.ie subsection (j).

Perhaps you might have more luck in protecting the players from injury, if you look at the technique used throught the entirety of the tackle, rather then just the possible outcomes.

But they don't get injured by how they are picked up. They get injured by how they hit the ground.

It matters not a jot whether they are picked up with the tacklers arm around his legs or one between his legs. If he gets dropped on his head from a height he is at risk of injury no matter how the tackle started. Similarily, if the tackler uses a technique which could lead to lifting but does not lift and drop the player there should no injury.

The problem is the end of the tackle, not the start. If it starts badly but ends safely then there should be no card.

I ask again. How can dropping someone on their head/neck not be considered dangerous play?

To be honest, bit surprised at this debate.

I mean, six weeks is a harsh enough one but given how proactive the IRB have been on tip tackles and letting everyone know to avoid them and making it very clear that any tip tackle where the player is not brought down safely will be harshly punished... don't think there can be any complaints, logically. If you're a test rugby player and you don't know about the rules on tip tackles at this stage that's pretty much your own fault. They've been banging this drum for several years.

As for the debate on the rule itself- just don't understand how dropping a guy on his head can be argued as not being dangerous play. I just don't get it Laurie? It's long been known that if you are responsible for picking an opponent up you're responsible for getting him down safely. It's by no means a new thing. Is dropping a player on his head unsafe? I'd have to say it is to be honest. Unsafe play should be minimised wherever possible.

If you're tackling properly you won't have an issue.

I think Notch we just see it from different perspectives, you see danger where I dont.

Mrs P, whenever I see these tackles, I look to where the tacklers hands are, are not both Pisi's hands between Bowes thighs? address that and the "tip" will not occur. then you dont have to worry about the 10.4 (j).

All Im doing is putting the horse in front of the cart.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I think Notch we just see it from  different perspectives, you see danger where I dont.

This is what I'm really struggling with to be honest- you don't see danger in dropping someone on their head?

Notch wrote:

aucklandlaurie wrote:
I think Notch we just see it from  different perspectives, you see danger where I dont.

This is what I'm really struggling with to be honest- you don't see danger in dropping someone on their head?

I didnt see George Pisi drop Tommy Bowe on his head.

He had no control over how Tommy Bowe landed.