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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

General Rugby Discussion 3

18788899092

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 455 ✭✭bingobango12


    Haven’t worn one for a good few years. In my early 30s so know the risk but had 1 and a half teeth knocked out with one in as a 17 year old. Probably 25/30% of my team play without one. I can’t communicate properly/as clearly as I want to is my reason.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,706 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    The vast majority of times I have heard these stories retold in pubs or wherever the vast majority of people in the vicinity think these people are muppets.

    I don't remember anyone growing up being envious of all those private schoolboy soggy biscuit stories.

    And we all managed to bond just fine without putting dildos in each other.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Soggy biscuit and dildos were never part of it in the teams I was involved in. So not sure why you quoted me.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,339 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    How boring is the 2nd Season of full contact from an Irish view? Haven't even featured in the first 3 episodes. Nothing on us hammering France rd 1



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It's a total snoozefest. I presume the Irish and French camps told them to take a hike but they could surely have made something watchable with what they have instead of 8 episodes of Marcus Smith driving his car and George North whinging about how he deserves to wear the Welsh jersey while reminding us 100 times how vitally important this wooden spoon clash is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Was at a show the other night and Alan Quinlan said its not returning for a third season. Apparently the access given by some of the teams has been shocking with Ireland the worst for restricting access. Even Gerry Thornley was saying that the IRFU seem to think that journalists are competing with irishrugby.ie and give the absolute bare minimum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,339 ✭✭✭✭AbusesToilets


    Yea, watching the worst Welsh team in history makes for riveting viewing. I wish they could do an All or Nothing style show, follow a team through the whole tournament.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    The French have used decent size print for the names on jerseys this year. Last year they hadd comically small print. It was like they didn't want to do it but we're forced so they did it with the smallest print they could get away with.

    Makes total sense to help the casual fan to follow the game with names. It's the showcase for people who don't usually watch rugby.

    Hope Ireland do likewise and use decent size names on the jersey.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,135 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    Not a fan of names on rugby jerseys.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,792 ✭✭✭ersatz


    Maybe the Netflix production was always going to suck but the unions may have missed a trick here in terms of growing the game/audience. At the same time I haven't seen one of these sports fly on the wall series that's been worth watching (even if lots of people enjoy them), and Im sure it's a pain in the arse having cameras around all the time. Then apparently a bunch of lads did cooperate, spent personal time and ended up not making the cut. Business wise I think Netflix have run out of road on this type of show and are going to focus on live sport.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,397 ✭✭✭OldRio


    The first series of 'Last chance U' was good. Unfortunately it went downhill very quickly after that.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Yep, I agree with you, they really have. Drive to Survive has hugely increased the popularity of Formula 1. Pretty much every season has been great with some brilliant off the cuff and unexpected moments with a lot of people speaking their minds.

    Compare that to the rugby one and you've Andrew Porter being interviewed in a gym where there's an irfu media officer hidden in the background (can be seen in a mirror) clearly font) controlling the output. It was doomed from the start with that sort of control.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Italy away in murrayfield are in their alternative jersey. Am I mad for thinking the home team usually uses the alternative jersey in international matches?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,910 ✭✭✭StevenToast


    Stuart Lancaster given the bullet...

    Munster?

    "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." - Fletcher



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 203 ✭✭tmc1963




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Fair Enough. Thanks

    I wondered if Scotland choose a blue alternative jersey so Italy and France would have to change.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I could be wrong but I think they made several changes for this year. Teams can't play in red and green any more (there may be other clashes in this category), away kits have to be predominantly white if the home kit is not (I might have this arseways) and the visitors change kit.



  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 8,540 ✭✭✭fitz




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Yeah that's true for Ireland Wales. They usually play in green and red, but one will play in alternative colours this year.



  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    Mapimpi gets caught eye gouging players in two successive matches and gets… 3 weeks suspension.

    Ridiculous stuff.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Repeating what I said in the URC thread, the practice of discounts or mitigation due to remorse/apology is outrageous. Apologising for being caught should not cut bans in half.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Ntamack's hearing starts at 10 today.

    As Bernard Jackman says, they'll consider how he walks old ladies across the street in Tulouse and brought biscuits to the hearing, attend tackle school and he'll be back in time for the Ireland game. I'll be shocked if he's not back for Ireland.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭niallm77


    POllard leaving tigers this summer and they are rumoured to be after Owen farrell



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Ntamack ban was halved from six weeks to three weeks because he acknowledged his foul play (minus another week for tackle school). What a joke.

    World Rugby’s approach to player safety is absolutely laughable.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    Lots of Tigers nearer the end than the beginning. Shilcock & Volavola won't strike terror in their opponent's hearts.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    So he misses 6N v England + Toulouse v ASM + Toulouse v Bayonne

    & is available thereafter



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    No, back for the Bayonne game technically.

    How a six week ban is so easily reduced to three is farcical.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    Yep, not a meaningful ban for what was a premeditated & dangerous action. Always suspected that having a dedicated Foul Play official would lead to softer on field decisions & this is a fine example of it. France couldn't avail of the 20min RC replacement in this instance, whereas Junior Kpoku got a straight RC, was replaced after 20mins and still only got a 3 week ban !.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Not at all.

    Tom O'Toole receive a ban three times as long for his offence against Ulster.

    Madness.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,860 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I don't want to get into comparing offences. But O'Toole's offence did injur the player and can end careers. Ask Dan Leave.

    O'Toole also got half his ban suspended. If the standard is to suspended half the ban, then they should just make the ban half as long and actually impose it fully.

    What's the thinking behind suspending half the ban as standard?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    It's clearly not unreasonable for the panel to have some latitude with sanctions as not all 'foul play' offences are equally serious. It's also not possible to sanction players more severely depending on the outcome of that particular foul play. Any action adjudged to be foul play needs to be sanctioned heavily in order that all players understand the seriousness of foul play. All these measures are designed to protect players and only serious sanctions will convince players not to commit them. In particular, premeditated foul play need the most serious sanctions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    How injured a player is shouldn't factor into it. Getting lucky or unlucky that the player has or hasn't an iron jaw shouldn't mitigate what you've done at all.

    The Tom O'Toole incident was unfortunate. Ntamack's was not unfortunate in the slightest.

    I agree entirely though that a ban should be a ban with no stupid mitigants. This nonsense of a player coming in with a sad face to acknowledge that they did indeed smash another player in the face with their shoulder and it was bold being somewhat of a reason to not punish them is laughable.

    Players should be sent to tackle school regardless and it shouldn't be a mitigatant at all.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,219 ✭✭✭Blut2


    Half off "because he acknowledged his foul play" is an utter joke. His foul play was blatantly obvious, on camera, for all the world to see.

    Missing only 2 weeks for a dangerous tackle, to the head, at the top level, goes completely against the whole idea of player welfare aimed at reducing concussions from dangerous tackles. Which is supposedly the key goal at the moment.

    6 weeks, including the rest of the 6N, would have been a proportionate ban.



  • Subscribers Posts: 42,455 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat


    TOTs suspension was heavier because it wasnt his first offence

    Post edited by sydthebeat on


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,916 ✭✭✭clsmooth


    Joe Schmidt to step down as Wallabies coach at the end of the Rugby Championship. Appears that family affairs are a big part of it. Pity as he’s made a huge difference already to Australia.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,706 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    Time bans are absolutely stupid. It should be match bans and relevant to the team the ban was received with.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    I dont see why time bans ars stupid and bans shoyldnt only be for team you play for. An i cident of foul play jn an international mightnt get punished for 3/4 mobths but player can keep playing. Thar jsnt right.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,706 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    So if a player commits a serious offence in the Champions Cup final he gets banned for the summer. Or gets banned during the 6 Nations and misses only a few URC games that teams are not even full strength for anyway.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,376 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    BBut A player who say does somwthing in november internationals then misses his province/clubs european games and if in 6 nations the knockouts of that conpetition. I dont see why it ahould be limited to thatcompetition where the foul play took place. It doesnt add anything.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,706 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    It works in soccer because it stops players using friendlies or games like Autumn internationals that rugby pretend aren't friendlies. You get a ban in the CC you shouldn't be allowed use the URC to get you back in time for a vital knockout game. Irish players could even count their AIL games.

    GAA I believe use a hybrid of time with a minimum number of games to be served.



  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 8,540 ✭✭✭fitz


    That's a real shame, but I'd imagine he's laid some groundwork and hopefully had some input to longer terms plans that will keep things going in the right direction beyond his departure.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    Yeah but if a player gets a ban in his last Six Nations game of the tournament, its not much use banning him for the following year's Six Nations game. Or the next international game when that could be a tour to Romania or Georgia.

    Time bans are fine but the problem is that they're not serious enough to make any impact. They're so 'mitigated' now that they barely make any impact as they're only ever a handful of weeks which in rugby generally isn't any meaningful games. Ntamack will really miss only one meaningful game because two weeks is nothing.

    And again, this 'tackle school' nonsense is some of the worst BS I've ever heard.

    I remember when eye-gouging was one of the scummiest offences. These days, a repeat offender like Mapimpi somehow gets his punishment halved from 4 weeks to 2 weeks because he acknowledged that eye-gouging was something only bold boys did. Now he did get an extra 1 week because he was a repeat offender but is 1 week extra for being a repeat offender any sort of deterrent when its already been mitigated.

    The punishments needs to be longer and the soft mitigation bollocks removed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,118 ✭✭✭Ben Bailey


    The reason the foul plays Law sanctions exist is to protect players. But, as in traffic laws, offenders seem to think that their own safety will never suffer due to their actions, and they continue to ignore laws.

    Sanctions are not an end in themselves, they exist only to convince the offender (& other would be offenders) that they should not commit foul play (or indeed 'speak their minds' as in one notable case).

    So what level of sanction would have a player (& others) think "Hang on, this is really bad for me, I'll not be doing that again".

    Fine the player. Fine the Club. Ban the player from all Club activities & locations for a period. Repeat offenders get bigger fines & longer bans.

    The present system allows banned players to train & rest and the ban being of a specific duration means the Club can be certain how long the player is going to be unavailable.

    Contrast that with an injured player. He can't train & it's uncertain how long his injury is going to last & affect his availability to play.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 650 ✭✭✭MangleBadger


    I think you can blame the home countries for this and not World Rugby. World Rugby do not run the 6 nations.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,352 ✭✭✭✭phog


    With cross competitions it's difficult to manage, like Munster played 4 teams in the Champions Cup this season and might not meet them again next season.

    Also, say a Munster player was banned for something they did playing Castres in this season's Champions Cup and then that player moves to a French Club at the end of the season, does the ban against that player playing against Castres extend to his new team and to the Top14?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 28,706 ✭✭✭✭breezy1985


    It's not relevant to the team he was playing against. That would be bonkers.

    Similar to soccer bans is what I am suggesting.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    It's just another way to say the ban is double for a repeat offence, I suppose. Unless you're Mapimpi and don't want anyone else to have two Is.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,001 ✭✭✭✭Exclamation Marc


    I think this is spot on. The reality is that if you get a ban anytime before maybe February or March, it means shag all to your team. The URC and Champions Cup (in its group stage) have little to no jeopardy so missing a few games in either is not really going to affect your club. Fines will hurt the offender and if its an egregious offence rather than an accidental one, the fine should reflect that.

    Ntamack receiving a ban for 'three matches' (albeit has been reduced to two) is nonsensical because you can easily count the Toulouse v Bayonne game and Italy v France game which are a day apart.

    That's not true. The disciplinary decisions are based on World Rugby regulations that are supplemented by the Six Nations Disciplinary Rules. World Rugby regulations (17.19) are what set out mitigating factors - so World Rugby are the ones that allow mitigation for this nonsense ideas of 'remorse'.



  • Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 35,854 Mod ✭✭✭✭pickarooney


    I think missing an international match at least costs the players something like 25 grand. Missing a club match, they probably get paid as normal.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement