6N 2017: Scotland v Ireland, 4 February

First topic message reminder :

      
SCOTLAND v IRELAND 
4 February 2017
KO: 14:25
BT Murrayfield, Edinburgh

Referee: Romain Poite (France)
Touch judges: Jaco Peyper (South Africa) and Nick Briant (New Zealand)
TMO: Glenn Newman (New Zealand

Live on BBC, RTE, DMAX, FR2, ITV (H)

A. Head to Head

132 Played 132
66 Won 61 
5 Drawn 5
61 Lost 66
1,380 Points 1,475

B. Recent Form

19 March 2016
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
35 – 25 to Ireland

15 August 2015
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
28 – 22 to Ireland

21 March 2015
BT Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
10 – 40 to Ireland

2 February 2014
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
28 – 6 to Ireland

24 February 2013
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
12 – 8 to Scotland

10 March 2012
Aviva Stadium, Dublin
32 – 14 to Ireland

6 August 2011
Murrayfield, Edinburgh
10 – 6 to Scotland

27 February 2011
Murrayfield Stadium, Edinburgh
18 – 21 to Ireland

20 March 2010
Croke Park, Dublin
20 – 23 to Scotland

C. Teams

SCOTLAND 

15-Stuart Hogg; 14-Sean Maitland, 13-Huw Jones, 12-Alex Dunbar, 11-Tommy Seymour; 10-Finn Russell, 9-Greig Laidlaw (capt); 1-Allan Dell, 2-Fraser Brown, 3-Zander Fagerson, 4-Richie Gray, 5-Jonny Gray, 6-Ryan Wilson, 7-Hamish Watson, 8-Josh Strauss

Replacements: 16-Ross Ford, 17-Gordon Reid, 18-Simon Berghan, 19-Tim Swinson, 20-John Barclay, 21-Ali Price, 22-Duncan Weir, 23-Mark Bennett

IRELAND

15-Rob Kearney; 14-Keith Earls, 13-Robbie Henshaw, 12-Garry Ringrose, 11-Simon Zebo; 10-Paddy Jackson, 9-Conor Murray; 1-Jack McGrath, 2-Rory Best (captain), 3-Tadhg Furlong, 4-Iain Henderson, 5-Devin Toner, 6-CJ Stander, 7-Sean O'Brien, 8-Jamie Heaslip

Replacements: 16-Niall Scannell, 17-Cian Healy, 18-John Ryan, 19-Ultan Dillane, 20-Josh van der Flier, 21-Kieran Marmion, 22-Ian Keatley, 23-Tommy Bowe.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:People in 2016 don't like honesty in media...I for one am sick of hearing the "correct" answers over and over and over. I appreciate hearing someone giving their own honest opinion. I actually have more respect for Murray after this.

Have you watched US reality TV? You'd love it. Loads of people on there giving "honest opinions", just mouthing off whatever happens to enter their minds. You'll enjoy the political scene over the next four years as well. Tons of honest opinions knocking around these days on Twitter etc., and very few correct answers. This is the post-truth era, where "honest opinions" are better than "facts". People have had enough of "experts". Loads of role models for you to respect....

My own view is that the media is not the place for unfounded allegations, not the appropriate venue to smear other individuals. In the rugby context we have rules, have officials who enforce them and a citing process so that things otherwise missed in games can be addressed. Rather like the laws of the land, people are innocent until proven guilty and there's a process to be followed to determine guilt. Still, if you do all of that you'll be in danger of ascertaining fact, whereas "honest opinions" are just much more fun.

Not interested, thanks. I do appreciate, however, a person giving their account of what they thought happened in an honest manner, rather than appeasing to the status quo. They should be free to do so without fear of being silenced or ridiculed etc. Murray hasn't made unfounded allegations. He has stated that his standing leg was targeted throughout the game (fair, given that it did happen numerous times) and he complained to the officials during the game. He is, justifiably, questioning why that is happening and who is giving the orders for that to happen.

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty, but considering Murray was the "victim" in this scenario so to speak, he is perfectly entitled to give his account of what happened. He isn't making untrue or unjust accusations as far as I can see. He is saying that he was pissed off and afraid of sustaining a serious leg injury because of players targeting his leg, and perhaps raising awareness of it. Rightly so.

I also find it rich that people are using Trump as an example here. I'm not a fan of the man, personally, but given the recent "Trump in bed with Russia" headlines I find this apparent moral high ground rather amusing.

Cyril wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:People in 2016 don't like honesty in media...I for one am sick of hearing the "correct" answers over and over and over. I appreciate hearing someone giving their own honest opinion. I actually have more respect for Murray after this.

Aye. Murray is the Katie Hopkins of rugby.

Of course, honest opinions can and should be given respectfully. I don't see any problem with what Murray said and I think he was quite right to feel frustrated by what happened. Knee injuries are potentially career ending.

rodders wrote:Go easy now with the moral high ground, Trump is practically a Scots man....

Easy there, we all know if he spouted off in a Glasgow bar the way he spouts on TV, it wouldn't end well.

In any case, Scots already have their own way to react to the wee turd.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
I also find it rich that people are using Trump as an example here. I'm not a fan of the man, personally, but given the recent "Trump in bed with Russia" headlines I find this apparent moral high ground rather amusing.

Hopefully Russian satellites managed to catch Glasgow's tactics because a few folks seemed to have missed them on Sky Sports.

Maybe Trump ordered Murdoch to doctor the highlights footage, given his links with Scotland.

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
My own view is that the media is not the place for unfounded allegations

Unfounded allegations? you realize they recorded footage of the match?

If anything sums up the post -truth era we are in it is this

I don't think you've read what he said.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:People in 2016 don't like honesty in media...I for one am sick of hearing the "correct" answers over and over and over. I appreciate hearing someone giving their own honest opinion. I actually have more respect for Murray after this.

Have you watched US reality TV? You'd love it. Loads of people on there giving "honest opinions", just mouthing off whatever happens to enter their minds. You'll enjoy the political scene over the next four years as well. Tons of honest opinions knocking around these days on Twitter etc., and very few correct answers. This is the post-truth era, where "honest opinions" are better than "facts". People have had enough of "experts". Loads of role models for you to respect....

My own view is that the media is not the place for unfounded allegations, not the appropriate venue to smear other individuals. In the rugby context we have rules, have officials who enforce them and a citing process so that things otherwise missed in games can be addressed. Rather like the laws of the land, people are innocent until proven guilty and there's a process to be followed to determine guilt. Still, if you do all of that you'll be in danger of ascertaining fact, whereas "honest opinions" are just much more fun.

Of course people are innocent until proven guilty, but considering Murray was the "victim" in this scenario so to speak, he is perfectly entitled to give his account of what happened. He isn't making untrue or unjust accusations as far as I can see. He is saying that he was pissed off and afraid of sustaining a serious leg injury because of players targeting his leg, and perhaps raising awareness of it. Rightly so.

He is making accusations. He is accusing Glasgow of deliberately trying to injure him and the other Munster scrum half in the league game. He suggested that it was a deliberate tactic deployed on several occasions and that the Glasgow coaches had told the players to do it. He has absolutely no evidence to back that up. None.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
My own view is that the media is not the place for unfounded allegations

Unfounded allegations? you realize they recorded footage of the match?

If anything sums up the post -truth era we are in it is this

I don't think you've read what he said.

I skimmed it actually.

But the key points are that he believed the Glasgow players were not attempting to charge down his box kicks but take out his standing leg. This can be observed in the match so not sure what is in dispute, other than whether Townsend came up with the tactic or the players.

What is also not in dispute is how dangerous this is and one of the reasons 2 footed tackles and late tackles were eradicated in Soccer.

When the foot is planted and studs are in, any force to the inside of the leg especially can lead to ligament snaps or broken bones, which at worst can be career threatening and at best requires a lengthy time out of the game.

Not sure what is unfounded about any of that?

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
My own view is that the media is not the place for unfounded allegations

Unfounded allegations? you realize they recorded footage of the match?

If anything sums up the post -truth era we are in it is this

I don't think you've read what he said.

I skimmed it actually.

But the key points are that he believed the Glasgow players were not attempting to charge down his box kicks but take out his standing leg. This can be observed in the match so not sure what is in dispute, other than whether Townsend came up with the tactic or the players.

What is also not in dispute is how dangerous this is and one of the reasons 2 footed tackles and late tackles were eradicated in Soccer.

When the foot is planted and studs are in, any force to the inside of the leg especially can lead to ligament snaps or broken bones, which at worst can be career threatening and at best requires a lengthy time out of the game.

Not sure what is unfounded about any of that?

You should read all of it rather than skim it. It isn't overly long.

There are a few strands here:

1. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target his standing leg? Debatable. There are two incidents in question and both have been analysed to death on this thread. Debatable.
2. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target the standing leg of his colleague in the league game? No evidence has been provided to back this up. I didn't see the game.
3. Did Glasgow break the rules on either occasion? No, not unless you believe the tackles were late. No official and no-one at Munster appears to be reaching that conclusion and, to my knowledge, no citing has been made.
4. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target Murray's standing leg? No evidence whatsoever.
5. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target the other Munster scrum half in the league game? No evidence whatsoever.
6. Should the IRB consider introducing rules to prevent teams from targeting the standing leg? I'd be fine with that, although the devil would be in the interpretation (see 1 above).
7. Is the media the right place to accuse fellow rugby professionals of deliberately inflicting serious injury? No.
8. Should Murray have made his complaint through the official channels? Yes.
9. Why didn't he? I have no idea.

I hope that helps.

WP Nel ruled out of the 6N.

Baws.

Big hairy sweatty baws.

Scotland and Edinburgh Rugby prop Willem Nel has been ruled out of the forthcoming RBS 6 Nations with a neck injury it was confirmed today.

A MRI scan on Wednesday (18 January) at Spire Murrayfield Hospital revealed that the tighthead prop damaged an intervertebral disc in his neck during a significant collision in his club’s European Challenge Cup win over Harlequins at the Twickenham Stoop on Saturday (14 January).

Nel will now have a second specialist assessment at Spire this Monday (23 January) to consider his programme of recovery, including whether corrective surgery is required.

Well this was unexpected:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:Keep hearing how loser @ConorMurray_9 is whining about his leg. A real winner wouldn't need protection from forwards. No respect for the game. SAD.

IanBru wrote:Well this was unexpected:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:Keep hearing how loser @ConorMurray_9 is whining about his leg. A real winner wouldn't need protection from forwards. No respect for the game. SAD.

funnyExiledScot wrote:
1. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target his standing leg? Debatable. There are two incidents in question and both have been analysed to death on this thread. Debatable.
2. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target the standing leg of his colleague in the league game? No evidence has been provided to back this up. I didn't see the game.
3. Did Glasgow break the rules on either occasion? No, not unless you believe the tackles were late. No official and no-one at Munster appears to be reaching that conclusion and, to my knowledge, no citing has been made.
4. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target Murray's standing leg? No evidence whatsoever.
5. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target the other Munster scrum half in the league game? No evidence whatsoever.
6. Should the IRB consider introducing rules to prevent teams from targeting the standing leg? I'd be fine with that, although the devil would be in the interpretation (see 1 above).
7. Is the media the right place to accuse fellow rugby professionals of deliberately inflicting serious injury? No.
8. Should Murray have made his complaint through the official channels? Yes.
9. Why didn't he? I have no idea.

I hope that helps.

Everything is debatable.

For instance I could punch someone in the face and it could be debated whether I was aiming for it intentionally or was just a bad shot but it us pretty easy to come to a logical conclusion which is more likely.

No there is no rule on this, that was part of the issue - but that doesn't make it acceptable. At one point stamping on someone was fair game in a ruck.

If more than one player does something more than once, it is reasonable to infer it is a tactic. It is also not unreasonable to make a connection therefore with the person responsible for a teams tactics that they are involved.

I don't think there should be a rule as it would be unworkable, what is needed is to respect the core values of the game and not come up with a cynical tactic to badly hurt other teams players to win at all costs.

Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match? It's been done to death already. Start another topic.

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

I agree , lets keep this focused on Donald Trump.

funnyExiledScot wrote:There are two incidents in question and both have been analysed to death on this thread. Debatable.

There is more than that - Glasgow used it in the first box kick (20 seconds into the game) at the Champs Cup fixture in Thomond Park back in October.

https://youtu.be/hiwswjpiZJI?t=1m7s

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

IanBru wrote:Well this was unexpected:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:Keep hearing how loser @ConorMurray_9 is whining about his leg. A real winner wouldn't need protection from forwards. No respect for the game. SAD.

That's the spirit.

I loved his take down of John McCain. "Real war heroes don't get captured".

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

funnyExiledScot wrote:

IanBru wrote:Well this was unexpected:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:Keep hearing how loser @ConorMurray_9 is whining about his leg. A real winner wouldn't need protection from forwards. No respect for the game. SAD.

That's the spirit.

I loved his take down of John McCain. "Real war heroes don't get captured".

That is funny in fairness....

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
1. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target his standing leg? Debatable. There are two incidents in question and both have been analysed to death on this thread. Debatable.
2. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target the standing leg of his colleague in the league game? No evidence has been provided to back this up. I didn't see the game.
3. Did Glasgow break the rules on either occasion? No, not unless you believe the tackles were late. No official and no-one at Munster appears to be reaching that conclusion and, to my knowledge, no citing has been made.
4. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target Murray's standing leg? No evidence whatsoever.
5. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target the other Munster scrum half in the league game? No evidence whatsoever.
6. Should the IRB consider introducing rules to prevent teams from targeting the standing leg? I'd be fine with that, although the devil would be in the interpretation (see 1 above).
7. Is the media the right place to accuse fellow rugby professionals of deliberately inflicting serious injury? No.
8. Should Murray have made his complaint through the official channels? Yes.
9. Why didn't he? I have no idea.

I hope that helps.

Everything is debatable.

For instance I could punch someone in the face and it could be debated whether I was aiming for it intentionally or was just a bad shot but it us pretty easy to come to a logical conclusion which is more likely.

No there is no rule on this, that was part of the issue - but that doesn't make it acceptable. At one point stamping on someone was fair game in a ruck.  

If more than one player does something more than once, it is reasonable to infer it is a tactic. It is also not unreasonable to make a connection therefore with the person responsible for a teams tactics that they are involved.

I don't think there should be a rule as it would be unworkable, what is needed is to respect the core values of the game and not come up with a cynical tactic to badly hurt other teams players to win at all costs.

Ah, you mean like the Irish choke tackle.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12040/9731799/simon-easterby-says-irelands-choke-tackle-technique-is-within-the-law

"We've got to play within the law, and as long as we're disciplined and play within the law, then that's all we can ask of the players, and that's what we'll coach time and time again. I really don't have an opinion on what he said."

Simon Easterby on the technique pioneered by Ireland defence coach, Les Kiss

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

Your post assumes that the Glasgow players were actually targeting his standing leg deliberately. If this is true, I don't think his whining to the press will make them stop!!

IanBru wrote:Well this was unexpected:

@realDonaldTrump wrote:Keep hearing how loser @ConorMurray_9 is whining about his leg. A real winner wouldn't need protection from forwards. No respect for the game. SAD.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:
1. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target his standing leg? Debatable. There are two incidents in question and both have been analysed to death on this thread. Debatable.
2. Did the Glasgow players deliberately target the standing leg of his colleague in the league game? No evidence has been provided to back this up. I didn't see the game.
3. Did Glasgow break the rules on either occasion? No, not unless you believe the tackles were late. No official and no-one at Munster appears to be reaching that conclusion and, to my knowledge, no citing has been made.
4. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target Murray's standing leg? No evidence whatsoever.
5. Did the Glasgow coaches instruct the players to deliberately target the other Munster scrum half in the league game? No evidence whatsoever.
6. Should the IRB consider introducing rules to prevent teams from targeting the standing leg? I'd be fine with that, although the devil would be in the interpretation (see 1 above).
7. Is the media the right place to accuse fellow rugby professionals of deliberately inflicting serious injury? No.
8. Should Murray have made his complaint through the official channels? Yes.
9. Why didn't he? I have no idea.

I hope that helps.

Everything is debatable.

For instance I could punch someone in the face and it could be debated whether I was aiming for it intentionally or was just a bad shot but it us pretty easy to come to a logical conclusion which is more likely.

No there is no rule on this, that was part of the issue - but that doesn't make it acceptable. At one point stamping on someone was fair game in a ruck.  

If more than one player does something more than once, it is reasonable to infer it is a tactic. It is also not unreasonable to make a connection therefore with the person responsible for a teams tactics that they are involved.

I don't think there should be a rule as it would be unworkable, what is needed is to respect the core values of the game and not come up with a cynical tactic to badly hurt other teams players to win at all costs.

Ah, you mean like the Irish choke tackle.

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12040/9731799/simon-easterby-says-irelands-choke-tackle-technique-is-within-the-law

"We've got to play within the law, and as long as we're disciplined and play within the law, then that's all we can ask of the players, and that's what we'll coach time and time again. I really don't have an opinion on what he said."

Simon Easterby on the technique pioneered by Ireland defence coach, Les Kiss

Shaun Edwards criticism of the Choke tackle was that it ENCOURAGED high tackles. Completely different to the Glasgow tactic.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

Your post assumes that the Glasgow players were actually targeting his standing leg deliberately. If this is true, I don't think his whining to the press will make them stop!!

It will make the rugby authorities do something about it - like for instance what they are doing now with the high tackle.

Again, your error is the assumption of there being a "Glasgow tactic". You have a small number of highly debatable clips from which to assume that the Glasgow coaches have asked players to deliberately injure Murray.

I raised the choke tackle debate because of Easterby's response - you play within the laws of the game. He didn't seem to bothered about the spirit of it, which I assume is Murray's beef.

This is just Irish whinging, pure and simple.

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

Your post assumes that the Glasgow players were actually targeting his standing leg deliberately. If this is true, I don't think his whining to the press will make them stop!!

It will make the rugby authorities do something about it - like for instance what they are doing now with the high tackle.

Perhaps he should have made his complaints to the authorities then, without the unfounded accusations. It tells you something about his character.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, your error is the assumption of there being a "Glasgow tactic". You have a small number of highly debatable clips from which to assume that the Glasgow coaches have asked players to deliberately injure Murray.

I raised the choke tackle debate because of Easterby's response - you play within the laws of the game. He didn't seem to bothered about the spirit of it, which I assume is Murray's beef.

This is just Irish whinging, pure and simple.

Glasgow are the only team who do this (according to Murray), but if you like, we'll call it something else.

Does the number of clips available make any difference? This particular tactic is dangerous. Can you explain what they are trying to achieve with it, if it isn't to injure the scrumhalf, standing on one leg having kicked the ball.

I'll repeat again, Edwards problem with the choke tackle was it encouraged people to tackle high, not that it injured people and the intent isn't to injure anyone so within the spirit of the game.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

Your post assumes that the Glasgow players were actually targeting his standing leg deliberately. If this is true, I don't think his whining to the press will make them stop!!

It will make the rugby authorities do something about it - like for instance what they are doing now with the high tackle.

Perhaps he should have made his complaints to the authorities then, without the unfounded accusations. It tells you something about his character.

1. Munster has complained to the authorities. I imagine they told Munster that they can't do anything about it, and that is why he spoke up which might mean World Rugby will introduce a law to stop this.
2. Plenty of evidence available (all you need is one clip of it happening).
3. Ah, his character.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, your error is the assumption of there being a "Glasgow tactic". You have a small number of highly debatable clips from which to assume that the Glasgow coaches have asked players to deliberately injure Murray.

I raised the choke tackle debate because of Easterby's response - you play within the laws of the game. He didn't seem to bothered about the spirit of it, which I assume is Murray's beef.

This is just Irish whinging, pure and simple.

Ok, let's take out intent and focus purely on the action.

Tackling a players standing leg when he is kicking is potentially very dangerous, this is what Murray is highlighting.

As it happens, he has stated it has only happened to him during Glasgow games, infer from that what you will...

There is no real gain bar "applying pressure" as you will never catch a SH in possession if they kick from the base. Should this be accepted if the consequences of this tactic is more knee injuries for scum halfs?

FES, I think you need to take emotion, and colour of jersey of both sides out of the equation.

In light of the above I think the best thing to happen would be for Glasgow to phone up Connor Murray to personally apologize. Afterwards they can then let the media know that they weren't really sorry...

GLove39 wrote:In light of the above I think the best thing to happen would be for Glasgow to phone up Connor Murray to personally apologize. Afterwards they can then let the media know that they weren't really sorry...

This is getting quite unbelievable. Not one of the clips I have seen show any of the Glasgow players deliberately trying to hurt Murray - apply pressure, yes. Could the tackles be described as marginally late - possibly.

You could look through 10 Munster games and 10 Glasgow games and find clips to suite whatever narrative you wanted. I think Munster are a wonderful club, but two of their players have tried to drag Glasgow through the dirt this season, inferring that they cheat to get players sent off, and now suggesting that the players go out to injure fellow professionals in a pre-mediated fashion. Its total BS and doesn't stand up to any scrutiny.

What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

EST wrote:What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

No card?!!

This reminds me of the furore and reaction by some fans to Sexton being tackled by a Scottish player and then protesting when his head banged off the ground.  

Crybaby, playacting, whinging, etc seems to be the general response.

So is this likely to be a feature in the upcoming test match between Scotland and Ireland?   Apparently, they'll be playing each other in the Six Nations which starts in two weeks time.

Scottrf wrote:

EST wrote:What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

No card?!!

Should have been a red. Was at the game and furious he did it.

However, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is deflection.

Pot Hale wrote:This reminds me of the furore and reaction by some fans to Sexton being tackled by a Scottish player and then protesting when his head banged off the ground.  

Crybaby, playacting, whinging, etc seems to be the general response.

So is this likely to be a feature in the upcoming test match between Scotland and Ireland?   Apparently, they'll be playing each other in the Six Nations which starts in two weeks time.

Not sure about that Hale, seem to remember we were all pretty chilled about the Sexton incident...
https://www.facebook.com/glove39/videos/1273376879344391/

This is Murray's quote in full. Where is the accusation that the intent of the tactic was to injure? Could someone please highlight this bit because I can't see it.



“I’m properly p*ssed off about that. I don’t see any benefit in charging down someone’s standing leg. I only see it as a danger or as a potential to get injured.

“I don’t think it’s a good tactic. You could put another label on that type of tactic, but they did it to us at Thomond Park, they got our scrum-half Te (Aihe Toma) with it in the league game and they almost got me a couple of times.

“So, luckily my leg came out of the ground and I managed to fall over, but if my leg stayed in the ground — especially in that surface — you’re looking at syndesmosis, you’re looking at cruciate (ligament).

“I’m not blaming the players. I don’t know who told them to do it but it’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous and thankfully I didn’t get injured but if I had have been injured I would have been going on more of a rant.”

No they’re the only team I’ve across that did it. I just can’t see a way of that being legal or any way that could lead to a charge down or a tackle.

“The ball is long gone from my hands and I just think it’s really dangerous and it will end up with someone getting properly injured by it.

“It could be a cruciate and you’re out for six to nine months and from an attempted ‘charge down’?


“I’ve no problem with teams going after you in a different way like happened in the game, but that type of tackle I just don’t think it’s fair. It’s not safe.”

Please show where is talks about the INTENT to injure. He is saying the consequences of the tactic are increased risk to the SH. I think Murray knows it's about getting in his face, but he is highlighting that whilst not against the laws per say (bar late tackle), there are dangers to the tackled player.

Scottrf wrote:

EST wrote:What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

No card?!!

Flannery was cited and suspended.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Why is this interminable Poopie about Murray infesting this thread about the Scotland v Ireland match?   It's been done to death already.  Start another topic.

Its relevant because apart from Glasgow being full of Scotland internationals, Glasgow & Scotland share a Defence Coach - we don't want Ireland having to put up with this Poopie in the first game of the 6Ns. I suspect that is why Murray spoke up about it now.

Yeh, and the Scotland players will definitely be nicer to him now!

I'd imagine he won't care about how nice the players are if it means he remains fit.

Your post assumes that the Glasgow players were actually targeting his standing leg deliberately. If this is true, I don't think his whining to the press will make them stop!!

It will make the rugby authorities do something about it - like for instance what they are doing now with the high tackle.

Perhaps he should have made his complaints to the authorities then, without the unfounded accusations. It tells you something about his character.

You're right - it does show something about his character. That he isn't going to be scared by modern PC pussyfooting and he is willing to talk openly and honestly about how he viewed the situation. He believes it was a tactic to target his leg, and it is silly to suggest there is no evidence. The evidence was that his standing leg was targeted a number of times throughout the game. I mean, it is visible evidence.

Whether or not you agree with his conclusion is another story. But it isn't an unfounded comment. I mean, I would be pretty pissed off in his shoes as well. Knee injuries are no joke.

I don't think Glasgow went out trying to seriously injure Murray, it was a tactic designed to disrupt his game but all the same if the timing is slightly off a scrum half is going to tear his cruciate - I just hope World Rugby do something about it before that happens. We all agree that we don't want our game to go soft but all the same I don't see much admirable in tackling a player knowing the ball has gone.
There was one incident with Zebo in which the Glasgow lock (possibly Swinson) charged straight for Zebo's trailing ankle - it was obvious Zebo was going to kick but no attempt to charge down was made. I'm glad Zebo is alright given how delicate the ankle area is.

Murray's comments are quite cutting so I can understand the emotional response from Glasgow fans - but leave out the comments about "Irish whinging". Quite frankly Murray doesn't have much to whinge about when Munster won the match and he had another good game.

Moving on, the Irish defence does occasionally struggle against teams that play with a lot of width, think Argentina, Australia - and the Scots do worry me in that regard. However, Payne aside Ireland have almost a clean bill of health - and as such I'd make them pretty heavy favourites.

the-goon wrote:This is Murray's quote in full. Where is the accusation that the intent of the tactic was to injure? Could someone please highlight this bit because I can't see it.



“I’m properly p*ssed off about that. I don’t see any benefit in charging down someone’s standing leg. I only see it as a danger or as a potential to get injured.

“I don’t think it’s a good tactic. You could put another label on that type of tactic, but they did it to us at Thomond Park, they got our scrum-half Te (Aihe Toma) with it in the league game and they almost got me a couple of times.

“So, luckily my leg came out of the ground and I managed to fall over, but if my leg stayed in the ground — especially in that surface — you’re looking at syndesmosis, you’re looking at cruciate (ligament).

“I’m not blaming the players. I don’t know who told them to do it but it’s dangerous. It’s very dangerous and thankfully I didn’t get injured but if I had have been injured I would have been going on more of a rant.”

No they’re the only team I’ve across that did it. I just can’t see a way of that being legal or any way that could lead to a charge down or a tackle.

“The ball is long gone from my hands and I just think it’s really dangerous and it will end up with someone getting properly injured by it.

“It could be a cruciate and you’re out for six to nine months and from an attempted ‘charge down’?


“I’ve no problem with teams going after you in a different way like happened in the game, but that type of tackle I just don’t think it’s fair. It’s not safe.”

Please show where is talks about the INTENT to injure. He is saying the consequences of the tactic are increased risk to the SH. I think Murray knows it's about getting in his face, but he is highlighting that whilst not against the laws per say (bar late tackle), there are dangers to the tackled player.

The implication is pretty clear.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Ah, you mean like the Irish choke tackle.

Nope not like the choke tackle. The purpose of choke tackle is to turn the ball over or at least slow it down by keeping the ball off the ground. It is fair and not dangerous despite the name, which refers to the ball not a players neck and has been done in rugby league for years.

Diving at a players standing leg whilst they kick the ball has no legitimate outcome on a rugby field, it's only purpose to cause injury or create the fear of being injured.

It's on par with taking a player out in the air, a total cheap shot.

GLove39 wrote:
The implication is pretty clear.

The implication is right.

jeez man.

This has certainly cleared up one thing! One man see's something as blue, the other sees something are green!

no wonder folk couldn't make their minds up if that dress was gold or blue!

the-goon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

EST wrote:What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

No card?!!

Should have been a red. Was at the game and furious he did it.

However, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is deflection.

It's not a deflection, its the hypocrisy of Flannery that I am highlighting.

Anyway, that's enough on this from me.  As far as I can make out its an absolute nothing incident, if you can show me more than the few scattered examples you have highlighted (all of which are highly dubious), then I don't think Glasgow have any case to answer.

I'll be going to the Scotland V Ireland game with a group of my mates, half of whom are from Ireland - it's sure to be a great laugh, and thats the way i'd prefer to keep my relationship with the Irish rugby team and its supporters.

Is the Irish being up in arms about their players being (potentially) hurt yet defending them to the last if they hurt other players anything new ?

Sin é wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:Again, your error is the assumption of there being a "Glasgow tactic". You have a small number of highly debatable clips from which to assume that the Glasgow coaches have asked players to deliberately injure Murray.

I raised the choke tackle debate because of Easterby's response - you play within the laws of the game. He didn't seem to bothered about the spirit of it, which I assume is Murray's beef.

This is just Irish whinging, pure and simple.

Glasgow are the only team who do this (according to Murray), but if you like, we'll call it something else.

Does the number of clips available make any difference? This particular tactic is dangerous. Can you explain what they are trying to achieve with it, if it isn't to injure the scrumhalf, standing on one leg having kicked the ball.

I'll repeat again, Edwards problem with the choke tackle was it encouraged people to tackle high, not that it injured people and the intent isn't to injure anyone so within the spirit of the game.

1. I'm saying that I don't think it was a deliberate and orchestrated tactic, therefore I'm saying that they weren't trying to achieve anything.

2. You can repeat it as many times as you like, but it makes little sense. Edwards said the choke tackle was dangerous because it led to a greater number of high tackles (which are against the rules, dangerous and can cause serious neck injuries). The response from Easterby was not to dispute the increased danger, but that choke tackles themselves are legal, and that the only role of the players and coaches is to play by the rules.

It's actually a very neat analogy to the Murray scenario, whereby Glasgow are accepted to be playing by the rules with Murray complaining potentially dangerous consequences. There are differences though: (1) Ireland used the "choke" deliberately, whereas there's no evidence that Glasgow have orchestrated deliberate tactics; (2) upon being challenged about the tactic, Ireland responded by clearly stating the position: choke tackles are within the rules of the game, so jog on, whereas Glasgow haven't responded to Murray's media allegations.

For the avoidance of doubt, I think Les Kiss and Easterby are perfectly correct. I have no issue with the choke tackle per se. I do have an issue with high tackles and late tackles (and chop tackles, and believe they should be punished (they are). I also have no issue should the IRB wish to bring in rules preventing the standing leg being tackled, albeit I think the enforcement of the rule could prove tricky in certain circumstances. It's really all in the timing of the tackle.

I do have a beef with Murray's approach to this. I'm just pleased Glasgow have seen fit to ignore him.

EST wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

EST wrote:What about this example, is this targeting the standing leg?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jniAZEJn7fU

No card?!!

Should have been a red. Was at the game and furious he did it.

However, this has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is deflection.

It's not a deflection, its the hypocrisy of Flannery that I am highlighting.

Anyway, that's enough on this from me.  As far as I can make out its an absolute nothing incident, if you can show me more than the few scattered examples you have highlighted (all of which are highly dubious), then I don't think Glasgow have any case to answer.

I'll be going to the Scotland V Ireland game with a group of my mates, half of whom are from Ireland - it's sure to be a great laugh, and thats the way i'd prefer to keep my relationship with the Irish rugby team and its supporters.

Why is Flannery a hypocrite?

Flannery, who pleaded guilty and acknowledged the offence deserved a red card, has been banned until 29 March, ruling him out of Ireland's fixtures against England, Wales and Scotland.

An independent disciplinary panel found the offence, which forced Palisson from the field with a dead leg, had been reckless rather than deliberate.