Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Italy vs Ireland match thread, 24-2-2019.

Options
12223242628

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    troyzer wrote: »
    It's all on Murray, completely fair steal.

    People are just surprised it was a 9 melting the ruck but there was no ruck. He came straight through the gate and nobody was in the way.

    Murray throwing his hands up is unforgivable. I'd have hooked him then and there.


    There had to have been a ruck at least, ever since they changed the definition of a ruck due to the England Italy game, you don't even need an opposing player to ruck against for it to be a ruck.

    I'll watch it again, I remember it being very sparse.

    There was a ruck but it was badly set up which meant you could walk straight through it. You're allowed to tackle the 9 with the ball once you go through the gate. That's literally what rucking is.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    troyzer wrote: »
    There was a ruck but it was badly set up which meant you could walk straight through it. You're allowed to tackle the 9 with the ball once you go through the gate. That's literally what rucking is.

    Murray should have assessed the cover and got rid far quicker. He'd still be standing thinking if yer man hadn't come through. They have to sort him out soon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    troyzer wrote: »
    There was a ruck but it was badly set up which meant you could walk straight through it. You're allowed to tackle the 9 with the ball once you go through the gate. That's literally what rucking is.

    I think once the ruck is over you are allowed to tackle the nine if you start from behind the hindmost foot.

    Rucking would be stepping over the ball, not using your hands


  • Registered Users Posts: 21,162 ✭✭✭✭Water John


    Not sure its the one ye are talking about but I think it was the case that Murray's hand was pulled dislodging the ball, so it was neither a steal or a tackle.
    His hand was slapped down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I don’t know if 100% true but It was on another forum the ref was in Super rugby last week and had a stinker, a NZ fan was laughing that his punishment was to ref a 6 nations match

    POM was all over the Italians in the lineout, the one in which he stole the Italian's when they were in our 22 and got great praise for leading from the front from TV3's commentators he would have been penalised every other time.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 22,263 ✭✭✭✭Akrasia


    Clegg wrote: »
    Almost done in what respect?

    Current world player of the year is all washed up


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭Brewster


    troyzer wrote: »
    Well then the ARs are blind.

    In any given game there are dozens of instances of blatant offside that are never called. If it's in the interests of "the flow of the game" then it's bollocks. Defenses have enough advantages as it is without being able to tackle the carrier a split second after they get the ball by cheating.

    At times it does look like this, simply pointing out that they are involved in policing the offside line, but perhaps not often enough....


  • Subscribers Posts: 41,138 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    Water John wrote: »
    It's the linesman's role IWT. The guy next to the ruck on each side stay clearly on side and the outside players flat or behind him. Sorry for the derail but feel it's stifling the game.

    The problem is the new law variations.

    If the attacking team can put one man over the ruck to form the offside line, then where is the off side line for the defense?
    Technically, it's the hind foot of the attacker.... If no defender rucked. Thus it appears as though the defending team are all up off side going by the location of the tackler.

    The new variations are a mess in my opinion. Not being able to use you hands when there's no one standing at a ruck is stupid, cos you can't touch the nine either


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23 SKILFUL


    All creddt to conor o shea


  • Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Water John wrote: »
    Am I wrong in thinking most defence lines at the ruck are offside and thus closing the gap, which makes the line difficult to break? They are not behind the hindmost foot.
    Wouldnt say most.
    troyzer wrote: »
    Yeah. Offside lately is so badly enforced.

    I think World Rugby need to start looking at ARs being given the right to blow up when they see offside. The ref simply has too much to keep their eye on at once. How can they realistically officiate a mess at the breakdown and also watch what's going on in the defensive line at the same time? They're bound to miss something.
    Blow up how? Theyre on the mic to ref all the time. The ARs are always chatting to ref and talking about trends/infringements.
    troyzer wrote: »
    Well then the ARs are blind.

    In any given game there are dozens of instances of blatant offside that are never called. If it's in the interests of "the flow of the game" then it's bollocks. Defenses have enough advantages as it is without being able to tackle the carrier a split second after they get the ball by cheating.
    If it isnt material/directly relevant then why penalise?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 569 ✭✭✭Hands Like Flippers


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    The problem is the new law variations.

    If the attacking team can put one man over the ruck to form the offside line, then where is the off side line for the defense?
    Technically, it's the hind foot of the attacker.... If no defender rucked. Thus it appears as though the defending team are all up off side going by the location of the tackler.

    The new variations are a mess in my opinion. Not being able to use you hands when there's no one standing at a ruck is stupid, cos you can't touch the nine either

    I'm not sure if you are on about the same thing but for some reason nowadays a lot of defenders are told by the ref not to step through a ruck even if they could easily do so. The attacking 9 therefore is under no pressure. If the attacking team can't be bothered to service a ruck properly then the defenders should be able to counter ruck through the gate. They can then go for the ball if they stay on their feet or hit the 9 if he has picked it up.

    Far too many rucks are too slow now with scrum halves turning the ball upside down and dribbling it back etc. Almost as tedious to watch as many scrums now.

    There was a classic years ago where the Munster 9 was told to use it and didn't bother and the two Munster forwards in the ruck were vertical with their backs turned (probably wondering why their 9 was taking too long) and big Nick Williams smashed the ruck, knocked the forwards over and the ref gave Ulster the scrum. There are far too many conferences at the back of rucks. The use it or lose it rule should be pressed more. Would lead to much less of this awful box kicking (see start of Eng Wales game) .


  • Registered Users Posts: 24,295 ✭✭✭✭lawred2


    Rewatch, there was feck all depth in the ruck. Barely a ruck.
    Murray should have been more aware

    Regardless he'd picked the ball up. He was fair game.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,024 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Akrasia wrote: »
    It could be the thrower not knowing his calls

    It's unlikely. Cronin was finisher for the last two games and at training camps all month so he well knows the calls. Mind you, so too should most of the pack.


  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    It's unlikely. Cronin was finisher for the last two games and at training camps all month so he well knows the calls. Mind you, so too should most of the pack.

    How long is Toner out for?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,093 ✭✭✭Brewster


    Best, Hendo and Ryan will finish the tournament. Lineout should be fine.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Current world player of the year is all washed up

    I feel that Sexton was world player of the year due to basically winning everything (and deservedly so). I don't know that it was his best ever season from an individual performance point of view.

    That said, I don't watch all of his matches, nor have I ever looked at his stats comparing year-on-year.


  • Registered Users Posts: 39 Joma4good


    I think we’re being far too harsh on sexton and Murray(2 tries in last 2 games) there both below there recent best but our game plan of multiple phase crash running forwards breaking the defensive line is well known by all our opposition. When teams physically counter that tactic it’s hard to blame it all at the halves performance, when we’re knocking teams back we’re fine and can get good penetration especially with a change of direction from earls for the try or someone like ringrose, but once we’re static as an attacking unit Murray is copping flack for not bringing runners on to the ball fast enough I’d say that isn’t a single player issue. We look a bit sluggish in our carries, poss because we know we’re trucking it straight into traffic again and again, eventually we get some success with it but it must be a fatiguing task, both for the carrier and the scrum half having to reset from every ruck.
    We’re quick to forget how some of the calls for established players to be dropped has worked out. Dropping quality players for the new option at this point would have a very unsettling effect on the team. If let’s say JS were to give both Murray and Sexton only the first half against France (or dropped according to some) and bring on Carbery and Cooney for the second half and they’re performances weren’t great where do we go from there? Keep calm, we’ve had a fair bit of injury disruption this year, don’t think it’s going to do anyone any good to jump on the Murray out and Sextons nearly finished bandwagon.


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,024 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    TimHorton wrote: »
    10 is a problem, Carty gets 2 mins and knocks on , Where do go when Sexton/Carberry are out - Is Byrne the answer ??

    Getting a little ahead here but it could well be with a little bad luck afoot, yeah. A few years ago there was Madigan, Jackson, JJ Hanrahan and Keatley to look to as well. Of these Jackson and Madigan went from being jokes to serious long term options at Fly Half. All four are now out of contention for recalls barring a serious disaster and change of heart all round.

    Ross Byrne is an excellent prospect as is Carberry but they are not ready yet. Carty is good but he too needs a lot of work to get him there. It takes but one or more to be injured and sudden there's problems afoot. And before you say that no it will never happen that you'll lose 3 Fly Half's then go ask Stephen Donald.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Did Conway do anything


  • Registered Users Posts: 13,024 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    How long is Toner out for?

    It's until about April. At best he'll make the H Cup semi final or the last few Pro 14 group games.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,011 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Regardless he'd picked the ball up. He was fair game.

    I don't think it's that simple, you would catch most scrum halves at the back of a ruck with the ball before they pass if you leap for them,or smash and grab an arm when the timing is right, I don't think that is allowed, I have seen a lot of penalties for "playing the nine".

    He can't have been part of the ruck or offside.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,224 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    Joma4good wrote: »
    I think we’re being far too harsh on sexton and Murray(2 tries in last 2 games) there both below there recent best but our game plan of multiple phase crash running forwards breaking the defensive line is well known by all our opposition. When teams physically counter that tactic it’s hard to blame it all at the halves performance, when we’re knocking teams back we’re fine and can get good penetration especially with a change of direction from earls for the try or someone like ringrose, but once we’re static as an attacking unit Murray is copping flack for not bringing runners on to the ball fast enough I’d say that isn’t a single player issue. We look a bit sluggish in our carries, poss because we know we’re trucking it straight into traffic again and again, eventually we get some success with it but it must be a fatiguing task, both for the carrier and the scrum half having to reset from every ruck.
    We’re quick to forget how some of the calls for established players to be dropped has worked out. Dropping quality players for the new option at this point would have a very unsettling effect on the team. If let’s say JS were to give both Murray and Sexton only the first half against France (or dropped according to some) and bring on Carbery and Cooney for the second half and they’re performances weren’t great where do we go from there? Keep calm, we’ve had a fair bit of injury disruption this year, don’t think it’s going to do anyone any good to jump on the Murray out and Sextons nearly finished bandwagon.

    Murray has been : laboured, ponderous and slow. He's been awful.
    There should be no excuses. Sexton also has been very mediocre.
    A change might light a fire under them.
    Worst case scenario: we are embroiled in a slugfest with the Boks in the rwc qf and Murray is awful. J.S leaves him in?
    Think it's time to give another lad a chance, at least til Murray gets it together.
    I wonder how many of us thought the repercussions of the Jackson trial?
    I know I didn't. I have also never wished Murray to be subbed, ever, until these past 3 matches.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,544 ✭✭✭Ardillaun


    Give the strength of the opposition, that must rank as our worst performance in this 6N. Murray looked less animated than usual, not that he’s a massively demonstrative lad at the the best of times, sort of flat, and his play has not been great. SOB also did not have a big impact on the game. Rugby has become a process of constant reincarnation after injury and one never knows if players will be quite as good when they return. Let’s hope those two improve. Cronin was bad at lineout time but Scannell wasn’t great either. Apart from POM, the jumpers didn’t seem to be on the same wavelength as the hookers. We miss Toner.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,212 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Did Conway do anything

    Not really.

    We could barely get the ball from 9 to 10 tho. We did manage to get the ball to the 13 channel a few times to put Earls away with one lovely move.


  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    lawred2 wrote: »
    Regardless he'd picked the ball up. He was fair game.

    Yeah but shallow ruck allowed for legal closing down


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,212 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    Joma4good wrote: »
    I think we’re being far too harsh on sexton and Murray(2 tries in last 2 games) there both below there recent best but our game plan of multiple phase crash running forwards breaking the defensive line is well known by all our opposition. When teams physically counter that tactic it’s hard to blame it all at the halves performance, when we’re knocking teams back we’re fine and can get good penetration especially with a change of direction from earls for the try or someone like ringrose, but once we’re static as an attacking unit Murray is copping flack for not bringing runners on to the ball fast enough I’d say that isn’t a single player issue. We look a bit sluggish in our carries, poss because we know we’re trucking it straight into traffic again and again, eventually we get some success with it but it must be a fatiguing task, both for the carrier and the scrum half having to reset from every ruck.
    We’re quick to forget how some of the calls for established players to be dropped has worked out. Dropping quality players for the new option at this point would have a very unsettling effect on the team. If let’s say JS were to give both Murray and Sexton only the first half against France (or dropped according to some) and bring on Carbery and Cooney for the second half and they’re performances weren’t great where do we go from there? Keep calm, we’ve had a fair bit of injury disruption this year, don’t think it’s going to do anyone any good to jump on the Murray out and Sextons nearly finished bandwagon.

    Murray's basics are all over the place. Something clearly not right and his attitude when he got mugged by Tebaldi spoke volumes. Yes he scored two tries but that means nothing really. Your 9 is a pivotal position and if your 9 is all over the shop it impacts everything. Cooney has come on very late a few times and made a noticeable difference. We did play without Murray in November too.

    The lack of leadership on the field yesterday from the two VCs in Bests absence was also noticeable.

    A very large kick up the hole dropping might light a fire under 3 or 4 others


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    Murray's basics are all over the place. Something clearly not right and his attitude when he got mugged by Tebaldi spoke volumes. Yes he scored two tries but that means nothing really. Your 9 is a pivotal position and if your 9 is all over the shop it impacts everything. Cooney has come on very late a few times and made a noticeable difference. We did play without Murray in November too.

    The lack of leadership on the field yesterday from the two VCs in Bests absence was also noticeable.

    A very large kick up the hole dropping might light a fire under 3 or 4 others

    I would be absolutely astonished if Schmidt doesn't drop Murray at least from the starting XV. He is not improving. This isn't about playing himself into form after a long term injury. He has 645 minutes so far this season which isn't much less than someone like Jamison Gibson Park at 800 who isn't playing test rugby.

    It's becoming obvious to me now that he was probably fit and healthy to go for most of November but he was utterly ****e in training and Joe sat him down hoping for an improvement by the Six Nations.

    It's not right, if you're playing really badly three games in a row then you have to be dropped. It's only fair on the other scrumhalves and it's the toe up the hole that Murray needs. What's the point letting him be **** out there and further lose confidence? His goal should be to light the place up in the Pro14 and aim to be excellent against Edinburgh in a month.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,879 ✭✭✭Christy42


    I don't think Cooney was any better coming on. I could see an argument for Marmion depending on how he comes back from injury.

    We naturally play slowly for most of the game anyway. Murray tends to pick and choose when to inject pace, generally after a few phases which was a rare scenario yesterday.

    I am curious about the lack of box kicking. Why not kick if you can't hold onto the ball anyway? The steals were also terrible play from Murray.

    Far closer to the core of the issue was Sexton who really struggled to get Italians out of position and with a lot of his basics, restarts especially.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,199 ✭✭✭troyzer


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I don't think Cooney was any better coming on. I could see an argument for Marmion depending on how he comes back from injury.

    We naturally play slowly for most of the game anyway. Murray tends to pick and choose when to inject pace, generally after a few phases which was a rare scenario yesterday.

    I am curious about the lack of box kicking. Why not kick if you can't hold onto the ball anyway? The steals were also terrible play from Murray.

    Far closer to the core of the issue was Sexton who really struggled to get Italians out of position and with a lot of his basics, restarts especially.

    The lack of box kicking was clearly planned from the get go.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 67,141 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Christy42 wrote: »
    I don't think Cooney was any better coming on. I could see an argument for Marmion depending on how he comes back from injury.

    We naturally play slowly for most of the game anyway. Murray tends to pick and choose when to inject pace, generally after a few phases which was a rare scenario yesterday.

    I am curious about the lack of box kicking. Why not kick if you can't hold onto the ball anyway? The steals were also terrible play from Murray.

    Far closer to the core of the issue was Sexton who really struggled to get Italians out of position and with a lot of his basics, restarts especially.

    Cooney was at least quicker getting it away and he was looking around him for options and marshaling.
    Murray has the look of a robot on a low battery at the minute.


Advertisement