Ireland Fiji match thread

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Good game to watch.

Yeah it was but frustrating at the same time.

I think Fiji were a bit underestimated across the board.

Conway very much deserving. Not a perfect full back performance but played an excellent game and showed up everywhere. Himself and Conan were the backbone of the team.

Thought McCloskey had a good performance and mixed it all up well. Definitely worked his way back into contention.

Marmion was incredibly hard working and very physical in his play but will be disappointed in a few basic errors.

Carbery was pure quality at times but also forced his game once or twice. Both he and Marmion need more starts to bed in that confidence and composure in just doing the right things for extended periods.

Disappointed in Porter and McGrath. Also a bit disappointed in Dillane. Game passed Farrell by, unfortunately I don't think he's at this level.

Asus X540L

Why do I keep thinking Horgan is going to burst out with "you ain't nothing but a hound dog" anytime I see him?

Wegians89

Porter has a lot of work to do yet but hes still very young. Let him earn his strips at Leinster first rather then add more pressure. Conway, sweetnam, herring, Healy and Carbery all very good. Murphy expectedly looks lacking in match fitness he'll have gained a lot from that 80 shift. Ruck time was very poor

Burkie1203

First half was what i was expecting but 2nd half was awful. Looked like they were trying all the different training ground moves when they just needed to get the basics nailed down especially the breakdown

Of the starters
Conway, Sweetnam, McCloskey, Conan the big winners.

Jordi was anonymous.

Leinstertomas

connachta wrote: »

In the meantime Scotland was 2 meters from beating N-Z

Ah here I was avoiding that result to watch after!

AdamD

Why are we saying the Fijians 'arent conditioned'? They're all playing top level rugby across Europe

thomond2006

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yeah it was but frustrating at the same time.

I think Fiji were a bit underestimated across the board.

Conway very much deserving. Not a perfect full back performance but played an excellent game and showed up everywhere. Himself and Conan were the backbone of the team.

Thought McCloskey had a good performance and mixed it all up well. Definitely worked his way back into contention.

Marmion was incredibly hard working and very physical in his play but will be disappointed in a few basic errors.

Carbery was pure quality at times but also forced his game once or twice. Both he and Marmion need more starts to bed in that confidence and composure in just doing the right things for extended periods.

Disappointed in Porter and McGrath. Also a bit disappointed in Dillane. Game passed Farrell by, unfortunately I don't think he's at this level.

Porter isn't ready for this level. Needs more time to stew at Leinster.

Asus X540L

Eddie's hair looks solid. Steady Eddie as they call him. He looked to be going bald as an egg when he was with Ireland.

leakyboots

Scrappy stuff, good to grab the win. Healy has passed Jack McGrath based on the last 9 months, whatever is going on with JM he's a bit off the boil.

Conway has taken to international rugby like a fish to water, great to see. Sweetnam was tidy enough.

Hope Carberry isn't too badly injured. He needs a few more pounds on him, still plenty young though

MJohnston

AdamD wrote: »

Why are we saying the Fijians 'arent conditioned'? They're all playing top level rugby across Europe

Can we make a distinction between what the RTE panel are saying, and what rational people might say?

clsmooth

I thought Porter was quite solid. I wouldn’t be sticking him in the bench for a 6N game just yet but he’s on the right path.

1eg0a3xv7b82of

YEAH, like what horgan and osullivan know about rugby?

connachta

Leinstertomas wrote: »

connachta wrote: »

In the meantime Scotland was 2 meters from beating N-Z

Ah here I was avoiding that result to watch after!

I'm sorry

ionadnapokot

Anyone hear how JC is?
Arm broke?

Wegians89

ionadnapokot wrote: »

Anyone hear how JC is?
Arm broke?

Hopefully it's not that bad, wouldn't expect any news in it until Monday/Tuesday


Edit joe Schmidt just said looks like a fracture but to be confirmed

Burkie1203

Fractured arm for carbery

So translating what Joe just said, nothing displaced means there are no clean breaks as in no bones are fully broken. That means a potential 6 month recovery is probably reduced to 3 months.

After that it depends. If he has a break / fracture it'll be longer and upto the 3 and maybe beyond.

If it's bruising it's 2 - 4 weeks.

If it's muscle or ligaments it's hard to know but definitely better being his arm in that he can completely rest it.

In medical terms a fracture is a break so some of the above is probably mislabelled but generally a clean break is minimum of 6 months and anything below that is a good deal less.

Edit: Just saw Joe said a fracture, a fracture is effectively a break so 3 - 6 months it will be. When he said nothing displaced he must have meant no bones breaking skin or no bones out of place but from a recovery point of view I'm not sure that matters loads.

Will be the start of the six nations at best.

thomond2006

Carbery out of the Six Nations so. Dang.

It raises an interesting question regarding Sexton's backup next year. Keatley is in possession now but he's behind Bleyendaal who qualifies in January. Ross Byrne will get more opportunities with Leinster now too.

leakyboots

Is Keatley behind Bleyendaal? I'd have him ahead of him on form

tototoe

MJohnston wrote: »

Can we make a distinction between what the RTE panel are saying, and what rational people might say?

True. The commentary and discussion is brutal imo. Horgan is painful at times, never mind the two boys commentating

uptherebels

cython wrote: »

if that ref thinks that wasn't beyond the horizontal we need to attach spirit levels to the players :mad::(

No chance was that a card. I'm all for protecting players but making calls based on horizontal without looking at the entire tackle is bull****

cython

Deleted User wrote: »

So translating what Joe just said, nothing displaced means there are no clean breaks as in no bones are fully broken. That means a potential 6 month recovery is probably reduced to 3 months.

After that it depends. If he has a break / fracture it'll be longer and upto the 3 and maybe beyond.

If it's bruising it's 2 - 4 weeks.

If it's muscle or ligaments it's hard to know but definitely better being his arm in that he can completely rest it.

In medical terms a fracture is a break so some of the above is probably mislabelled but generally a clean break is minimum of 6 months and anything below that is a good deal less.

Edit: Just saw Joe said a fracture, a fracture is effectively a break so 3 - 6 months it will be.

I was always of the understanding that a break is a fracture, but a fracture is not necessarily a break, hence the term hairline fracture, which can simply be a crack in the surface of the bone or similar without being a break right through. Admittedly this is a pure lay understanding, but from having a number of breaks over the years!

I also know some orthopaedists subscribe to the idea of a clean break sometimes being an easier/cleaner healing process, in particular if there were to be surgical intervention as the limb can be gotten back into use a lot faster, and thus there isn't the same degradation of strength and function from immobilisation.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see what the medical team say in this particular instance, but we can hope for the best!

connachta

Deleted User wrote: »

So translating what Joe just said, nothing displaced means there are no clean breaks as in no bones are fully broken. That means a potential 6 month recovery is probably reduced to 3 months.

After that it depends. If he has a break / fracture it'll be longer and upto the 3 and maybe beyond.

If it's bruising it's 2 - 4 weeks.

If it's muscle or ligaments it's hard to know but definitely better being his arm in that he can completely rest it.

In medical terms a fracture is a break so some of the above is probably mislabelled but generally a clean break is minimum of 6 months and anything below that is a good deal less.

Edit: Just saw Joe said a fracture, a fracture is effectively a break so 3 - 6 months it will be. When he said nothing displaced he must have meant no bones breaking skin or no bones out of place but from a recovery point of view I'm not sure that matters loads.

Will be the start of the six nations at best.

So Keatley on the bench, Carty/Byrne/Harrahan  as cover for 6 nations... Not comforting...

cython

uptherebels wrote: »

No chance was that a card. I'm all for protecting players but making calls based on horizontal without looking at the entire tackle is bull****

Be that as it may, that isn't what was how it was decided in this instance. The ref dismissed the possibility of anything more than a penalty on the basis that it wasn't beyond the horizontal - have literally just seen a replay of the TMO discussion (who was entirely unconvinced by the ref's claim, by the way). There was no looking at the entire tackle, so the above is fairly irrelevant here.

DerTierarzt

Wanted McCloskey to go well, but think he did more wrong than right. Turned over going too high into contact. Offloaded to no-one into touch. But most exasperatingly for a man of his size, as second tackler on Nadolo his one arm across the upper chest tackle was shrugged off.

WeleaseWoderick

Second half wasn't great. Don't think any of the starting forwards went too well apart from a few bright moments from Ruddock and Conan. Very disappointing ruck protection throughout and Jordi wasn't really at the races today.

Carbery and Conway were my picks of the back line and not surprisingly so given they'd both likely be involved in a full strength Ireland team at this stage.

Healy and Furlong showed their class when they came on. Think Jack McGrath needs a small break at this point as he looks a little jaded.

All in all, we were the better team but only just so the scoreline was fair.

Same starting team as South Africa next week I'd imagine.

cython

cython wrote: »

I was always of the understanding that a break is a fracture, but a fracture is not necessarily a break, hence the term hairline fracture, which can simply be a crack in the surface of the bone or similar without being a break right through. Admittedly this is a pure lay understanding, but from having a number of breaks over the years!

I also know some orthopaedists subscribe to the idea of a clean break sometimes being an easier/cleaner healing process, in particular if there were to be surgical intervention as the limb can be gotten back into use a lot faster, and thus there isn't the same degradation of strength and function from immobilisation.

In any case, we'll have to wait and see what the medical team say in this particular instance, but we can hope for the best!

Yeah it's a bit confusing. A fracture should be just taken as a break, it's basically the same thing but some material is left attached.

A clean break can be lined up and pinned or plated so I can understand why it's easier to operate on but I don't know what this means for recovery.

I'd imagine Joey will be in surgery maybe tomorrow but probably Monday and will have the bone plated. If it's his forearm it's better as there are two bones and if only one needs to be plated that's a much better and easier recover. It is however fairly rare for a high impact forearm injury not to break both at the same time. Also it's not uncommon to lose rotation and dexterity in the wrist so he's gonna have a tough enough time with rehab as a distributor.

I doubt he broke the upper arm but if he has then fracture or break doesn't matter, he'll be out six months.

All that said, I remember Ben 10 doing similar in his first game for Leinster and being back fairly sharpish so it might not be too bad. Based on limited information I think we'll see him in the 3 - 6 window.

tooManyChoices

connachta wrote: »

So Keatley on the bench, Carty/Byrne/Harrahan  as cover for 6 nations... Not comforting...

I'm curious if we might see someone like Ross on the bench for next week because of this.

Not that I'm trying to knock Keatley down the pecking order, just that Schmidt could want give them a proper test to see exactly what he's got in reserve for February.

uptherebels

cython wrote: »

Be that as it may, that isn't what was how it was decided in this instance. The ref dismissed the possibility of anything more than a penalty on the basis that it wasn't beyond the horizontal - have literally just seen a replay of the TMO discussion (who was entirely unconvinced by the ref's claim, by the way). There was no looking at the entire tackle, so the above is fairly irrelevant here.

I know right its not like it's the refs call or anything. Shame on him

cython

uptherebels wrote: »

I know right its not like it's the refs call or anything. Shame on him

Assuming that is sarcasm, of course it's obviously the ref's call, and I don't contest that. However he has to be able to justify it too, and performances at this level will be assessed - anyone looking at that who takes his justification for not awarding more as being that the legs didn't go past the horizontal is gonna be asking for eye and balance tests for that ref on the back of it, as he's either blind or standing off kilter all the time!

Bazzo

tooManyChoices wrote: »

I'm curious if we might see someone like Ross on the bench for next week because of this.

Not that I'm trying to knock Keatley down the pecking order, just that Schmidt could want give them a proper test to see exactly what he's got in reserve for February.

Byrne hasn't even been in the squad so I doubt it.

Really poor performance tbh. Not worth picking out players as it was pretty much mediocrity all round. I'd expect an identical 23 to South Africa for Argentina bar one or two changes for injuries.

uptherebels

cython wrote: »

Assuming that is sarcasm, of course it's obviously the ref's call, and I don't contest that. However he has to be able to justify it too, and performances at this level will be assessed - anyone looking at that who takes his justification for not awarding more as being that the legs didn't go past the horizontal is gonna be asking for eye and balance tests for that ref on the back of it, as he's either blind or standing off kilter all the time!

If only the legs going past the horizontal on its own was a card in the first place.

Stheno

Bazzo wrote: »

Byrne hasn't even been in the squad so I doubt it.

Really poor performance tbh. Not worth picking out players as it was pretty much mediocrity all round. I'd expect an identical 23 to South Africa for Argentina bar one or two changes for injuries.

I'd be expecting our first 15 against Argentina

Bazzo

uptherebels wrote: »

If only the legs going past the horizontal on its own was a card in the first place.

To be fair the ref clearly said "His legs haven't gone past the horizontal" so he was the one setting the bar himself there. Healy's legs were miles past the horizontal.

uptherebels

Bazzo wrote: »

To be fair the ref clearly said "His legs haven't gone past the horizontal" so he was the one setting the bar himself there. Healy's legs were miles past the horizontal.

And if the legs go beyond the horizontal on its own is it a card?

awec

I was at the match and personally I thought it was a penalty and nothing more.

wp_rathead

First time in the Aviva today
Is a lovely Stadium but fcuk Mexican Waves.. 25 mins in and people doing Mexican waves..

Anyway, Fiji are fun to watch
Few dissapointing performances from Ireland players I really wanted to do well, McCloskey and Marmion being 2. Could well see Luke McGrath on the bench v Argentina (Maybe I'm being too harsh)
Conway, Sweetnam and Carbery were good, didn't realise Joeys injury was as serious
Healy and Furlong were brilliant when they came on

awec

McCloskey was disappointing but I was disappointed in how little we used him. Loads of times he was in the line and we didn't pass it to him to use his carrying. I don't know if it was bad positioning in his part, bad decisions at 10 or whatever but he was under used tonight IMO. His carrying is his biggest asset.

Still, I'm just not sure he's a player who is capable of playing at this level.

Buer

If he was on the pitch 15 minutes longer Cian Healy had to be MOTM. He had a superb 25 minutes. Completely legitimate try pinched from him too.

tooManyChoices

Bazzo wrote: »

Really poor performance tbh. Not worth picking out players as it was pretty much mediocrity all round. I'd expect an identical 23 to South Africa for Argentina bar one or two changes for injuries.

Yeah, the annoying reality about games like this is that the only people to go up in standing are guys like Dan Leavy and Rory O'Loughlin who now have slightly less competition for minor placings.

What I would like to see for next week is Conan starting. Stander is first choice, but both are good enough to do the job against Argentina and Conan really needs to get a game against a top team.

MJohnston

awec wrote: »

I was at the match and personally I thought it was a penalty and nothing more.

Wouldn't that be one of the worst places to judge that kind of thing from though?

awec

MJohnston wrote: »

Wouldn't that be one of the worst places to judge that kind of thing from though?

Probably. I was on my third Guinness by that point too, may also be a factor.

Bazzo

uptherebels wrote: »

And if the legs go beyond the horizontal on its own is it a card?

There's no hard and fast rule but if his legs go past the horizontal(they did, despite what the ref said) and he comes down on his shoulder(he did, despite what the ref said) that is a yellow card 9 times out of 10. The ref totally bottled the call. The TMO's reply when asked if he agreed "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yeah.......... hmmmmmm" says it all really.

None of that should take anything away from Fiji who really showed up today or Ireland who were pretty crap.

Bazzo

wp_rathead wrote: »

McCloskey and Marmion being 2. Could well see Luke McGrath on the bench v Argentina (Maybe I'm being too harsh)

Marmion wasn't great, though I think he mixed the good with the bad, but I think the fact that he was left on for 77 minutes says enough about where Joe rates him.

Everdene

Certainly not Marmion's best performance. But the breakdown was a mess - hard to be snappy when he was getting poor ball.

uptherebels

Bazzo wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule but if his legs go past the horizontal(they did, despite what the ref said) and he comes down on his shoulder(he did, despite what the ref said) that is a yellow card 9 times out of 10. The ref totally bottled the call. The TMO's reply when asked if he agreed "Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm yeah.......... hmmmmmm" says it all really.
None of that should take anything away from Fiji who really showed up today or Ireland who were pretty crap.

So that's a no then?

Buer

Bazzo wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule but if his legs go past the horizontal.

Officials were issued with a detailed directive which stipulated on this matter specifying the horizontal aspect. These directives don't appear in the law book and are guidance as to how referees should interpret the laws. It was originally issued in advance of RWC2011 which was why Rolland gave Warburton the red card.

Paul Smeenus

awec wrote: »

McCloskey was disappointing but I was disappointed in how little we used him. Loads of times he was in the line and we didn't pass it to him to use his carrying. I don't know if it was bad positioning in his part, bad decisions at 10 or whatever but he was under used tonight IMO. His carrying is his biggest asset.

Still, I'm just not sure he's a player who is capable of playing at this level.

He's a very decent third choice. I thought he was grand. Did you see how many times we were turned over at the breakdown? Our issues were the second row and the back row. Ruddock was grand. Conan got a couple of decent highlight reel moments, but we were getting taught a lesson at the rucks.

Bazzo

uptherebels wrote: »

So that's a no then?

Um no. If it was a no, I would have said no.

Buer wrote: »

Officials were issued with a detailed directive which stipulated on this matter specifying the horizontal aspect. These directives don't appear in the law book and are guidance as to how referees should interpret the laws. It was originally issued in advance of RWC2011 which was why Rolland gave Warburton the red card.

There have been many incidents in the past year or two where a player comes down on his shoulder and the tackler is issued a yellow. As with many of these directives they seem to be strictly enforced for a short period of time followed by a gradual softening to the rules. Under the directive it is probably ared card but you would very rarely see that now and most people would call it a harsh red. The person I was responding to I think is arguing it's not a card at all?

Zzippy

Marmion had a couple of poor box kicks, mixed with some good ones, thought his passing was pretty good, no taking steps before passing the ball. We were awful at protecting our own ball, forwards got blown off the ruck far too often, so he was getting dirty ball and having to dig for the ball a lot. He got no favours from his pack. The fact he was kept on for 77 mins, and Joe name checked him as one of the first names he mentioned after the game, suggests he's still well ahead in the Murray deputy charts.