Sir Clive Woodward: I read an article recently quoting Paul O'Connell, who I have huge respect for, saying that the Lions is bigger than playing for Ireland. I disagree. I played for the Lions and I never saw it as bigger than playing for England

www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cf...=4&objectid=11778201

FACECUTTR wrote: I do agree with you and think it is a joke that there are so many offences being passed over without proper sanctioning. I think you have the right idea with 3 different leels but how long will refs and TMOs spend looking at possible dangerous plays during the match. Could the time increase which would ruin the game or stay the same.

I think you will find that the officiating group already spend an age over a single solution. What I propose is that there are defining limits. It should truly take less time to come to a decision. Its a simple yes/no on one criteria, a simple yes/no on next criteria, and next criteria. So no longer is the referee taking full responsibility but still making the right decision

I do agree with you and think it is a joke that there are so many offences being passed over without proper sanctioning. I think you have the right idea with 3 different leels but how long will refs and TMOs spend looking at possible dangerous plays during the match. Could the time increase which would ruin the game or stay the same.

FACECUTTR wrote: I think it's down to how people interpret the incident. 3 different people could have 3 different results.

If you listen to referees there is a singular criteria for awarding nothing, yellow card and red card. And that singular criteria comes down to how dangerous the tackle was. So as you say that can be open to interpretation. What I suggest is that if there is multiple criteria then it becomes less focused on interpretation. Its just an idea. You mention interpretation. That interpretation is based on, as I see it, that single criteria. Did he land on his shoulders, did he land on his head? But if you introduce multiple criteria then the outcome becomes less uncertain. Just my viewpoint.

I think it's down to how people interpret the incident. 3 different people could have 3 different results.

Wonder how folks wold react to the following type of system to dealing with serious rugby offences.

So lets suggest a scoring system as follows
0-3 for duty of care where a score of 3 shows least duty of care
0-3 for intent where a score of 3 shows the most intent

On this scoring system the scores as follows have the following penalty
0 no penalty
1 or 2 yellow card
3 and above red card

So lets take examples from South Africa and Autumn Internationals

Stander on Lambie: duty of care terrible but no intent: 3+0=red card
Le Roux on Tiernan: duty of care very poor but no intent 2+0=yellow card
Robbie vs ABs: duty of care poor and minor intent 1+1=yellow card
Zebo vs ABs: duty of care poor and some intent 1+2=red card
Mumm vs Furlong: duty of care poor and definite intent 1+3=4 red card

So based on my scoring system those are the results. Do you agree with the scoring system? Do you agree with the results?

Conor Lowndes in the Irish 7s squad
(Along with Fionn Carr)

To hell with the result, Kearney now has back-to-back concussions 7 days apart and who knows how long he'll be out. Idiotic decision to play him.

dobby wrote:

Fast twitch wrote: Makeshift backline inevitible after selecting so many injured players. Head knock for Kearney - gone. Payne only able for 40mins, Trimble was unlucky but that's rugby. Fair play to Marmion who was defensively better than Earls, Zebo and Carberry. He also had the nous to run the clock down with 2 mins to go when stepping in for Murray, but normal service was then resumed and we kicked the ball back to them for a sweaty finish.

what 'grinds my gears' (family guy expression) about that is joe's unwillingness to change any position unless the player is unable to walk. Australia are a former shadow of the team that they used to be. The Irish pack was immense again tonight. They are simply very good. But for god sake if kearney and payne were already carrying knocks why continue with them. It shows a huge lack of trust in the ability of their potential replacements. And yet you have ringrose who reaches new heights each week when given the opportunity. Think Joe has to do a bit of soul searching on this.

That is the frustrating thing. Kearney and Payne both doubtful beforehand and Zebo injured last week. So why not start with Tiernan? They could have lost that game today because of that.

Fast twitch wrote: Makeshift backline inevitible after selecting so many injured players. Head knock for Kearney - gone. Payne only able for 40mins, Trimble was unlucky but that's rugby. Fair play to Marmion who was defensively better than Earls, Zebo and Carberry. He also had the nous to run the clock down with 2 mins to go when stepping in for Murray, but normal service was then resumed and we kicked the ball back to them for a sweaty finish.

what 'grinds my gears' (family guy expression) about that is joe's unwillingness to change any position unless the player is unable to walk. Australia are a former shadow of the team that they used to be. The Irish pack was immense again tonight. They are simply very good. But for god sake if kearney and payne were already carrying knocks why continue with them. It shows a huge lack of trust in the ability of their potential replacements. And yet you have ringrose who reaches new heights each week when given the opportunity. Think Joe has to do a bit of soul searching on this.

Makeshift backline inevitible after selecting so many injured players. Head knock for Kearney - gone. Payne only able for 40mins, Trimble was unlucky but that's rugby. Fair play to Marmion who was defensively better than Earls, Zebo and Carberry. He also had the nous to run the clock down with 2 mins to go when stepping in for Murray, but normal service was then resumed and we kicked the ball back to them for a sweaty finish.

The Australia game isn't over yet but Schmidt deserves criticism for his squad selection.
To pick Kearney was silly considering what happened last week. It's put the whole back line into disarray now.

RogueXV wrote:

dobby wrote: I would rather be last in this group rather than accepting defeat from england. Its just pride. I want us to be better than england. Joe is more into statistics

As long as he is working to be better than England and get to the final in Japan in less than 3 years than a lot will be forgiven.

There is a lot of talent in this Irish team. What struck me is that Heenan couldn't have picked a worse time to become IQ within Irish rugby. Other things that struck me is how Bundee prospered beside a player like Robbie (and Craig these days) and yet Payne simply hasn't. Its fantastic to see Ringrose doing well, always had high regard for him. It does bug me a bit that Tiernan doesnt get a lookin when the game of international rugby is about breaking lines and RK isn't on the same level when it comes to that.

I appreciate Joe looks at defence before he looks at attack. It is most frustrating.

I wonder if Tiernan might end up featuring on Saturday for Ireland. Zebo and Kearney haven't trained fully up to this point. I know Pat announced selections last year that were never going to stick to throw the opposition off the scent, and I suspect Joe is up to it as well. We'll see. Heading up for the game anyway, so looking forward to it. Looking forward to our game tomorrow first of course

Kearney , Zebo just passed fit, very close to be in for TOH
Dillane Marmion and Bealham on the bench though

dobby wrote: I would rather be last in this group rather than accepting defeat from england. Its just pride. I want us to be better than england. Joe is more into statistics

As long as he is working to be better than England and get to the final in Japan in less than 3 years than a lot will be forgiven.