Match Thread : Irish Wolfhounds V England Saxons Friday 30th Jan 2015

.ak

Don't think maccer got concussed. I know it looked like he went out cold but I think it was just his ribs

bilston

aimee1 wrote: »

I think henderson on the bench next week doesnt weaken us if McCarthy is out. We need Tuohy and Foley fit and available later in the year.

Fair chance Henderson would bench anyway.

We could have Cronin, Hendy and SOB to spring from the bench in the last 20 mins which would be nice to be able to do. I guess one of Fitzgerald, Earls or Payne could be on the bench as well.

Forget last night. The result andto an extent the performance were meaningless. The key was getting some players gametine and that was achieved. Things didn't go well for Madigan which is the concern but that doesn't mean he will play badly next week if selected.

RogerThis

Is there new interpretation of the laws for the scrum or did the ref go a bit rogue?

andymx11

Was it just me or did a lot of our players get held up in the tackle? There's were some instances when I thought the players should have went to ground earlier but pumped the legs when it just wasn't feasible. I think Earls was a repeat offender but don't quote me on that!

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A chance McFadden is out?

Let's face it, Irish selection policy is roughly the exact same as the post-3am Coppers shift selection policy. There's only a certain number of players left and we've got a 23 man squad to pick.

I know Coppers has a bit of a reputation, but 23 men IBF!? :pac:

slingerz

Highlight of last night has to be the unveiling of the ground. It's a fine job and a worthwhile base for Munster in Cork in fairness

.ak

The pitch seemed in pretty poor condition? Or was that my imagination?

Digifriendly

This match was geo-blocked on RTE 2 via Sky here in NI but not on Freeview. Strange indeed.

Interested Observer

.ak wrote: »

The pitch seemed in pretty poor condition? Or was that my imagination?

Was in great condition before kick off but it cut up really badly.

NiallBoo

RogerThis wrote: »

Is there new interpretation of the laws for the scrum or did the ref go a bit rogue?

Which bit did you have in mind?

Sh3m

I can't see how a scrappy wolfhounds game will influence Joe. These games always look exciting on paper and people expect this and that but more often than not produce a woeful disjointed game and bad performances. No way in hell Darcy is out of contention because of that game, if he isn't involved next week then he was never going to be. Also no way I can see how that game affects any decision Joe will make at 10. If he was giving Madigan game time at 10 with a view to starting him he's going to start.

Also disagree entirely with people saying Fitz came out of this looking good. I know it was only a bug or something but the amount of games that guy misses due to illness and injury and whatnot he's lost his edge on the likes of Earls. Earls was decent at 13 and has been playing well since he came back from injury. I personally would have Earls training with the starting squad rather than flip a coin as to whether Fitz will actually play or not and end up playing Earls anyway without having been training with the starting team. (Assuming Earls and Fitz are vying for the 11 shirt.)

Think Ryan was the only one really that put his hand up. He's a bit like Heaslip in a way, doesn't make the big carries or hits but his work rate is huge, tackle count is huge and still manages to carry effectively. I think when Joe is analysing that game Ryan will stand out. Henderson was good too but I think it was always expected he was going to be involved when match fit.

awec

NiallBoo wrote: »

Which bit did you have in mind?

There were a couple of times where I'm sure in a proper test match a penalty would have been given for wheeling etc.

The ref really tried to let the game flow and wasn't buying in to teams looking penalties for walking forward.

Interested Observer

Sh3m wrote: »

Also disagree entirely with people saying Fitz came out of this looking good. I know it was only a bug or something but the amount of games that guy misses due to illness and injury and whatnot he's lost his edge on the likes of Earls. Earls was decent at 13 and has been playing well since he came back from injury. I personally would have Earls training with the starting squad rather than flip a coin as to whether Fitz will actually play or not and end up playing Earls anyway without having been training with the starting team. (Assuming Earls and Fitz are vying for the 11 shirt.)

Again... what?

Fitz has played a lot more rugby this season than Earls, he's been playing bloody well all season, and it's only last weekend against Wasps that he gave a lesson on how to defend the 13 channel.

Sh3m

Interested Observer wrote: »

Again... what?

Fitz has played a lot more rugby this season than Earls, he's been playing bloody well all season, and it's only last weekend against Wasps that he gave a lesson on how to defend the 13 channel.

Neither Fitz or Earls will be playing 13 against Italy I don't think. As wingers they are both fairly equal imo. Going into the Italy game missing Sexton and with injury worries over Murray etc the last thing you want is last minute changes to the starting team. In that respect whether it matters to Joe or not I don't think yet another last minute pull out by Fitz improves his standing in relation to Earls who went well enough last night.

Interested Observer

Sh3m wrote: »

Neither Fitz or Earls will be playing 13 against Italy I don't think. As wingers they are both fairly equal imo. Going into the Italy game missing Sexton and with injury worries over Murray etc the last thing you want is last minute changes to the starting team which Fitz.

I don't necessarily think he'll be playing next week either, so that's fair enough. Though he's a very experienced player so I wouldn't have any concern over him if he did.

In that respect whether it matters to Joe or not I don't think yet another last minute pull out by Fitz improves his standing in relation to Earls who went well enough last night.

Fitz has played far better at 13 this season than Earls did yesterday. I really don't know what you're talking about here.

Sh3m

Interested Observer wrote: »

Fitz has played far better at 13 this season than Earls did yesterday. I really don't know what you're talking about here.

It doesn't matter what they did at 13 if they won't be playing 13. All that matters is that they are fit, playing well and starting options on the wing which they both should be. Imo fit and playing well as they both are they are equals as wingers. All I'm saying is that a last minute pull out by Fitz from a disaster of a game doesn't make him a winner. Not considering its as much an aspect of his career at this stage as good performances. When you have enough problems with injuries and missing players etc I'd be inclined to try lessen any possible further problems by benching Fitz and starting Earls given imo there's nothing between them as wingers.

NiallBoo

awec wrote: »

There were a couple of times where I'm sure in a proper test match a penalty would have been given for wheeling etc.

The ref really tried to let the game flow and wasn't buying in to teams looking penalties for walking forward.

The way he played it was much closer to the rules, but not like it's most commonly called.

Wheeling is completely legal. When a scrum turns through 90 degrees it should be blown up with the team who had been defending now getting the put-in.
"Intentionally wheeling" isn't against the rules. I think it's a term made up by commentators (but bizarrely has sometimes been used by refs) .

When a scrum wheels it's often blown up as being either the front-row pulling the opposition (As this would destabilize the scrum, but is very difficult to do with a scrum behind you - in reality this almost never happens, but it's often used as a justification to give a penalty) or for other offences which also usually are equally fictitious.

If a wheel was the result of boring in, lifting, forcing up or generally anything the ref thought was dangerous then it should be blown up for whatever that offence was, but that's as likely to have happened in scrum that stayed straight.

TL;DR - ususally, the ref followed the rules re: wheeling.

ps. I think it would be great if this type of reffing happened more often as it would bring it's a great way for a team to try and get advantage in the scrum.

Flipper22

awec wrote: »

There were a couple of times where I'm sure in a proper test match a penalty would have been given for wheeling etc.

The ref really tried to let the game flow and wasn't buying in to teams looking penalties for walking forward.

Yeah it was strange, he refused to give penalties at the srcum (except for crooked feeds!!) yet it seemed at times at the breakdown that you were safer without the ball. Strange refereeing performance really

Sh3m

NiallBoo wrote: »

The way he played it was much closer to the rules, but not like it's most commonly called.

Wheeling is completely legal. When a scrum turns through 90 degrees it should be blown up with the team who had been defending now getting the put-in.
"Intentionally wheeling" isn't against the rules. I think it's a term made up by commentators (but bizarrely has sometimes been used by refs) .

It can turn through 90 because a team drove it through to 90 or because they simply turned it 90 by receding at one side though. The latter is wheeling and illegal isn't it ? With the former being the legitimate way to force a scrum to 90 degrees and get the put in ?

Or are you saying both are legitimate ways to turn the scrum 90 ?

NiallBoo

Sh3m wrote: »

Or are you saying both are legitimate ways to turn the scrum 90 ?

Both legal.

The Rules wrote:

(a)
If a scrum is wheeled through more than 90 degrees, so that the middle line has passed beyond a position parallel to the touchline, the referee must stop play and order another scrum.
(b)
This new scrum is formed at the place where the previous scrum ended. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession at the time of the stoppage. If neither team win possession, it is thrown in by the team that previously threw it in.[\QUOTE]
This is everything in the rules about wheeling for adults (intentional wheeling is forbidden at youth level).

aimee1

Sh3m wrote: »

It doesn't matter what they did at 13 if they won't be playing 13. All that matters is that they are fit, playing well and starting options on the wing which they both should be. Imo fit and playing well as they both are they are equals as wingers. All I'm saying is that a last minute pull out by Fitz from a disaster of a game doesn't make him a winner. Not considering its as much an aspect of his career at this stage as good performances. When you have enough problems with injuries and missing players etc I'd be inclined to try lessen any possible further problems by benching Fitz and starting Earls given imo there's nothing between them as wingers.

one of the england 2nd rows had a stomach bug but started the game and lasted 10-15 minutes. Fitz dropped out so as not to compromise his team with something similar.

I think he will play 13, he has played there a lot in the last few moths and was outstanding last week against wasps.

Sh3m

aimee1 wrote: »

one of the england 2nd rows had a stomach bug but started the game and lasted 10-15 minutes. Fitz dropped out so as not to compromise his team with something similar.

I think he will play 13, he has played there a lot in the last few moths and was outstanding last week against wasps.

Yeah but he didn't come out looking any better or worse because of it is all I meant. There was no real winners in last nights game. Maybe its just me but every time I see his name down I say to myself "I'll believe it when I see him run out of the tunnel". I don't think a fresh reminder that he's the unluckiest player in the world will be much of a boost for his chances.

As for starting at 13 I originally thought he might have but when he was named on the wing for the Wolfhounds I assumed he was either looking at starting on the wing or benching.

vienne86

Sh3m wrote: »

Yeah but he didn't come out looking any better or worse because of it is all I meant. There was no real winners in last nights game. Maybe its just me but every time I see his name down I say to myself "I'll believe it when I see him run out of the tunnel". I don't think a fresh reminder that he's the unluckiest player in the world will be much of a boost for his chances.

As for starting at 13 I originally thought he might have but when he was named on the wing for the Wolfhounds I assumed he was either looking at starting on the wing or benching.

When he was named at wing, I thought he was being checked for bench cover.

aimee1

Sh3m wrote: »

Yeah but he didn't come out looking any better or worse because of it is all I meant. There was no real winners in last nights game. Maybe its just me but every time I see his name down I say to myself "I'll believe it when I see him run out of the tunnel". I don't think a fresh reminder that he's the unluckiest player in the world will be much of a boost for his chances.

As for starting at 13 I originally thought he might have but when he was named on the wing for the Wolfhounds I assumed he was either looking at starting on the wing or benching.

the point im making is Fitz is human like the rest of us and can pick up a bug anytime. Doesnt mean anything. He has been playing 13 and playing extremely well, only last saturday round about now he was giving a masterclass in defending that BOD would have been proud of.

POC pulled out of the scotland game a year ago with a similar issue, so I dont see the problem really

Interested Observer

Sh3m wrote: »

Yeah but he didn't come out looking any better or worse because of it is all I meant. There was no real winners in last nights game. Maybe its just me but every time I see his name down I say to myself "I'll believe it when I see him run out of the tunnel". I don't think a fresh reminder that he's the unluckiest player in the world will be much of a boost for his chances.

As for starting at 13 I originally thought he might have but when he was named on the wing for the Wolfhounds I assumed he was either looking at starting on the wing or benching.

If he's actually sick instead of having to pull out due to one of his many injuries, do you honestly think Schmidt is going to say "yeah, was going to pick Fitz but he might get sick again"?

I don't know why Fitz didn't play last night but if it was a bug it's not really rational to conflate that with his past injury problems.

If he didn't play because of some recurrence of an injury then I would be in agreement with you. Also worth pointing out Earls has an even worse injury record than Fitz over the last couple of seasons, believe it or not.

Bridge93

Sh3m wrote: »

I can't see how a scrappy wolfhounds game will influence Joe. These games always look exciting on paper and people expect this and that but more often than not produce a woeful disjointed game and bad performances. No way in hell Darcy is out of contention because of that game, if he isn't involved next week then he was never going to be. Also no way I can see how that game affects any decision Joe will make at 10. If he was giving Madigan game time at 10 with a view to starting him he's going to start.

Also disagree entirely with people saying Fitz came out of this looking good. I know it was only a bug or something but the amount of games that guy misses due to illness and injury and whatnot he's lost his edge on the likes of Earls. Earls was decent at 13 and has been playing well since he came back from injury. I personally would have Earls training with the starting squad rather than flip a coin as to whether Fitz will actually play or not and end up playing Earls anyway without having been training with the starting team. (Assuming Earls and Fitz are vying for the 11 shirt.)

Think Ryan was the only one really that put his hand up. He's a bit like Heaslip in a way, doesn't make the big carries or hits but his work rate is huge, tackle count is huge and still manages to carry effectively. I think when Joe is analysing that game Ryan will stand out. Henderson was good too but I think it was always expected he was going to be involved when match fit.

You are aware Earls has had injury trouble as bad as Fitzgeralds?

Sh3m

I had a long response wrote for all the above replies. But boards decided to log me out and then show me a blank screen and I lost it all. I haven't the time or energy to write it all again sorry.

errlloyd

Sh3m wrote: »

I had a long response wrote for all the above replies. But boards decided to log me out and then show me a blank screen and I lost it all. I haven't the time or energy to write it all again sorry.

If you press back in the browser it usually has the text.

Sh3m

errlloyd wrote: »

If you press back in the browser it usually has the text.

I did but it didn't bring me back to the write post page. I don't know what the story is.

Wang King

Bridge93 wrote: »

You are aware Earls has had injury trouble as bad as Fitzgeralds?

Earls has not had the same time out of the game as Fitz, at no point has Earls career been in doubt due to injury