- Joined
- Nov 12, 2015
- Messages
- 11,640
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
[2016 RBS Six Nations] Round 3: England vs. Ireland (27/02/2016)
- Thread starter TRF_heineken
- Start date
- Status
Because
a) I was busy for most of the day apart from a short spell when I popped in, don't know about the others
b) When I popped in, *everyone* seemed happy on the train to personal abuse-ville and I didn't have the time to sort it, so I decided if people seemed happy I'd step back.
c) Nobody reported any posts from this thread until 1:02 am this morning
If the community wants to set a standard of shouting abuse at each other and not asking for moderation, it shouldn't be a surprise when that is what happens.
Yes, us mods should step in anyway, and yes, wayevs should have been perma-banned before he was, but this goes both ways. We are as influenced as the standard set as you are influenced by the standard we set and all of that.
I'd just like to remind all posters that the Ignore button exists, that trolls can't be reasoned with, and nobody ever changed their mind due to being called a dick.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah sorry about that I think I was kinda annoyed that after I gave up the ghost last night and started talking to Alpha Bro about the incident (who whilst disagreed was interested in talking and not hurling abuse) then went to sleep it continued on for at least another 4 pages. I never wake up a good mood so wading through all that was hardly my idea of fun.
As for reporting I'll be honest and say I would of done it way sooner (or at all) if I realised the button actually had any consequence. I think part of the problem is that people have a bit of a blood rush after a game and a bit of heated argument is pretty normal so a lot of the time we don't mind it as long as it dies down but it went on for hours after the match (I watched it late) is when it started to cross the line.
Just as community we need to be bit watchful of ourselves as well as trolls over the next couple of weeks tensions always run a bit higher for Wales/England match.
As for reporting I'll be honest and say I would of done it way sooner (or at all) if I realised the button actually had any consequence. I think part of the problem is that people have a bit of a blood rush after a game and a bit of heated argument is pretty normal so a lot of the time we don't mind it as long as it dies down but it went on for hours after the match (I watched it late) is when it started to cross the line.
Just as community we need to be bit watchful of ourselves as well as trolls over the next couple of weeks tensions always run a bit higher for Wales/England match.
Last edited:
+1
The whole thing is starting to properly f__k me off.
It is going to take Rob Kearney to be out injured before someone else (not Zebo) gets a shot?
Then, it'll be a wonderment at the genius ploy of using a 15 to attack the line, or act as an alternative first reciever. If we can see these things, then how in the name of f__k can highly paid professional analysts and coaches not see it?
On the Brown incident.
Yes, kicking through a ruck is legal - as is challenging for a high ball or a lineout.
But in both those instances players have a duty of care for their opposite number(s). A duty of care Brown singularly failed to provide - I am in absolutely no doubt (I know, I've been in similar - you've a very good idea of where your feet are by the feel of what they contact) he knew where Murray's head was for the 2nd (and most damaging) swing back after he dinked it with his first swing.
However, there are a few hypocritical f__kers in this thread that were inventing all sorts of excuses for when POC near took the head of Daverage in Thomond a few years back. I thought O'Connell should have been done then and I think Brown should get done now. I expect nothing will happen as was the case for POC.
Brown's demeanour or your opinion on his personality shouldn't be a factor so I'll say nothing in that regard.
Yes, kicking through a ruck is legal - as is challenging for a high ball or a lineout.
But in both those instances players have a duty of care for their opposite number(s). A duty of care Brown singularly failed to provide - I am in absolutely no doubt (I know, I've been in similar - you've a very good idea of where your feet are by the feel of what they contact) he knew where Murray's head was for the 2nd (and most damaging) swing back after he dinked it with his first swing.
However, there are a few hypocritical f__kers in this thread that were inventing all sorts of excuses for when POC near took the head of Daverage in Thomond a few years back. I thought O'Connell should have been done then and I think Brown should get done now. I expect nothing will happen as was the case for POC.
Brown's demeanour or your opinion on his personality shouldn't be a factor so I'll say nothing in that regard.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
If Murray had not illegally picked the ball up of the floor he would not have been kicked while brown made his perfectly legal challenge for the ball
And?
If a player illegally knocks the ball on, do they deserve to get subsequently spear tackled?
edit: Bad example. Kinda.
If a player illegally knocks a garryowen on, do they deserve to be landed on their head by a challenge for the ball by an opponent? You can legally challenge for a ball in the air - but you can also fail in your duty of care to an opponent and thus be illegal in your actions.
Last edited:
Was he challenging for the ball or was it a sinister attempt to hurt a fellow player? People can say it's legal to challenge for the ball in the ruck as much as they want but I know what it looked like to me. I hope he gets the book thrown at him as what he did is in the same league as eye gouging.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Depends, if it was Hogg or Chris Ashton then a spear tackle would be acceptable
Obviously followed by multiple kicks to the head just to be sure...
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
No it isn't, really hate the false anger that comes from some people.
I'm neutral and objective so no anger here.
The only difference is that he can attempt to hide behind the law that states it's legal for him to challenge for the ball. Studs in the eye could have caused some real damage. He knew what he was doing.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
You don't know that your just having a guess and a guess based on the fact you don't like the player.
LOL coming from the person who singled out Hogg and Ashton as being suitable for a spear tackle.
Couldn't give a monkey's about Brown. I know what I saw.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
No you don't your having a guess, you have no clue what Browns intent was
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2008
- Messages
- 100,019,983
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Holy **** I've just watched the clip and are people really arguing about THIS?!
Brown perfectly entitled to kick the ball, unfortunately his boot does make contact with Murray's face because he's off balance and the Irish counter-rucker is also pushing him away.
Jesus wept.
Brown perfectly entitled to kick the ball, unfortunately his boot does make contact with Murray's face because he's off balance and the Irish counter-rucker is also pushing him away.
Jesus wept.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yoshimitsu
Academy Player
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2014
- Messages
- 394
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgG...XLsfMDLeNZAZKWg69AOO1twz7UVWn78yjItnjNgRGKKiw
You cannot know intent. Whilst I somewhat subscribe to the duty of care argument, players attempt to kick the ball through the ruck at virtually every break down. I dare say that a few people get kicked in various body parts as a result. Connor Murray is illegally holding the ball in the ruck. Brown is clearly targeting the ball. The contact to Murray's face that causes him to lift the ball is actually caused by the Irish 7 driving Brown back into Murray. Brown pretty much makes contact with the ball every time he plays for it, apart from the last one. It's that one where you can't actually see what happens that may do for Brown.
If Brown wanted to simply kick someone in the head he's certainly chosen a circuitous route to do so.
54 secs and 1 min 11 are where I believe there may be a case to answer. The previous stuff is absolutely fine and in my view actually a penalty against Ireland for playing the ball with hands in a ruck.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2011
- Messages
- 8,342
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Fixed that
Last edited by a moderator:
Aka the standard method for all cheap shots - disguising the act by making it look like part of the game.
That's not me saying Brown was definitely going for the cheap shot - that's me saying that can't be a defence, because it would be entirely in keeping with the act.
I don't see how anyone can say Brown was definitely aiming to kick Murray in the face, but I also can't see how anyone can state the opposite. It's entirely possible he knows exactly where Murray's face is and is kicking back as hard as possible.
Personally, I think this should be a ban. If you kick someone in the face, it should be a ban. Accidental? Tough. This sport cannot be serious about minimising the risks of concussion and not take a zero tolerance stance on unnecessary contact with the head. Just like accidental contact with the eyes is a ban, so too should be accidental contact with the head (when occurring with that sort of force). The question of intent only comes into it in terms of determining the ban's length.
And if previously legal things become sometimes illegal as a result, so be it. Price of doing business. We either protect players' heads, or we find a different sport. I want to protect the physicality of the sport as much as possible but some ground must be yielded here.
- Status
Similar threads
