[2017 RBS Six Nations] Round 4: England vs Scotland (12/03/2017)

[Ospervat]

I think most people here don't care about Sam Canes tackle, only bias losers with an axe to grind made a fuss about it. Because any player or anyone with a rational brain could see what happened.

I don't give a toss about the Cane tackle either. He was exonerated afterwards anyway. The issue is the difference between the two tackles ito the arms position. It's understandable why a ref would make a bin decision in the Cane incident. The tackle was seemingly / deemed dangerous because there was no attempt to use the arms. In the moment it is not obvious that the Irish player turned into Cane. If memory serves the TMO was not involved in the yellow card decision.

What about this one


Du Plessis was (2 yellow) red carded after this incident. He was also exonerated afterwards however his sending off had a huge impact on the game for SA.

Regarding the Hughes tackle.....

Did Hughes attempt to use his arms - Yes. The fact that the action of closing the arms in the tackle was incomplete was as a result of other in play contact / dynamics.

Was the tackle late - Yes. Marginally. I think Hughes knew it too. I think there was some intent by Hughes worthy of some post match analysis and possible disciplinary however this was not a dangerous tackle and a penalty and a final warning as first offence was fitting.

Was the tackle high - No. It wasn't low but it was below the shoulder line.

Common sense prevailed. Instead of a knee jerk sending off it pays to refer to TMO and get an objective opinion to avoid the mistakes of the past - e.g. Cane, Du Plessis etc that can have an unfair affect on the outcome of the game.

You can disagree with this if you like but try to do it objectively and not by attacking my character or validity as an enthusiast.

 

[ncurd]

The only thing I can imagine is repeat infringements for late tackles as if it were a game plan. However I don't remember him giving any penalties for it earlier....

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Fine if it is an English broadcast aimed at the tabloid market and those with a superficial interest in the sport. Utterly pathetic if it is a broadcast serving the non-English parts of the UK and in any way pretending to be quality sports coverage. Similar to banging on about England all through the Italy vs France game (as pointed out by an English poster in the game day thread). It wouldn't have happened on good old Auntie!

When I said "How could I ever watch ITV again after this" the part I forgot to mention is that I never watch ITV in the first place because it's pretty terrible in general. But this minor point aside it doesn't change the fact that I find it very hard to get as worked up as twitter is about it. Yep, it was pretty thoughtless and brainless captioning, and anyone without relevant experience could have done better. I'm sure it's worth getting too worked up about bearing in mind it will have been the dong of one or two individuals, and you can be sure Gregg Laidlaw isn't losing too much sleep over it. I think it's important to notice that the reaction to this 'incident' is in many ways as much a problem as the thing itself. Such as the people saying "This in a nutshell is why everyone hates England rugby". Sorry, remind me what this has to do with the England rugby team again? It was a ****storm which would have passed unnoticed had the comment been about a Welsh player saying he had never won in Scotland. Like genuinely. England are riding high so the world and his dog are on "English arrogance watch". That doesn't make the caption ok, but the backlash needs contextualising.

 

[MikeTheNative]

The only thing I can imagine is repeat infringements for late tackles as if it were a game plan. However I don't remember him giving any penalties for it earlier....

That's the thing i couldn't work out, fair enough if there was a few high tackle penalties and they were starting to pile up. But I couldn't remember any in the 1st half.

 

[ncurd]

Like genuinely. England are riding high so the world and his dog are on "English arrogance watch".

My post 2003 experience suggests it has nothing to do with riding high. Hell people still vilified us in Lancaster era where we were as nice as nice could be.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

My post 2003 experience suggests it has nothing to do with riding high. Hell people still vilified us in Lancaster era where we were as nice as nice could be.

This is true. I remember people saying things like "Stuart Lancaster's so calm it annoys me - I just want to punch that calm face. "
Ok...

 

[ncurd]

That's the thing i couldn't work out, fair enough if there was a few high tackle penalties and they were starting to pile up. But I couldn't remember any in the 1st half.

I was genuinely flipping out the moment he said yellow if there had been repeat infringements and I heard a warning I'd probably have been less thinking that. I think the nature of TMO intervention suggest he had no idea either. He explained the tackle thoroughly to say it wasn't a yellow for that offence I don't remember the ref explaining at all why he was intending to give it. I'm still baffled by the entire incident 2 days later.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

I was genuinely flipping out the moment he said yellow if there had been repeat infringements and I heard a warning I'd probably have been less thinking that. I think the nature of TMO intervention suggest he had no idea either. He explained the tackle thoroughly to say it wasn't a yellow for that offence I don't remember the ref explaining at all why he was intending to give it. I'm still baffled by the entire incident 2 days later.

It was worse than that, he said that "My first thought is it's AT LEAST a yellow". He was considering red!

 

[MikeTheNative]

It was worse than that, he said that "My first thought is it's AT LEAST a yellow". He was considering red!

I'm pretty sure that the ref thought it was high originally which would explain him saying that.

 

[ncurd]

It was worse than that, he said that "My first thought is it's AT LEAST a yellow". He was considering red!

Missed that...Brown only got a yellow and he didn't even look like considering red.

Honestly I didn't think about his performance that much but I know the Scots were not happy (I just got the impression he was giving benefit of the doubt to the attacking side which inevitably was England). However I think he probably needs a few more less important matches under his belt now. I think two important incidents where he failed (without intervention from the TMO) to make the correct decision reflects very poorly on him.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure that the ref thought it was high originally which would explain him saying that.

Yeah but he was still trying to give it after watching the replays....

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

Missed that...Brown only got a yellow and he didn't even look like considering red.

Honestly I didn't think about his performance that much but I know the Scots were not happy (I just got the impression he was giving benefit of the doubt to the attacking side which inevitably was England). However I think he probably needs a few more less important matches under his belt now. I think two important incidents where he failed (without intervention from the TMO) to make the correct decision reflects very poorly on him.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah but he was still trying to give it after watching the replays....

I don't wish to be dramatic but I think he was pretty terrible. I have to wonder what the game would have looked like had he been more balanced at the breakdown. But I agree that he could be fine with more games under his belt.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm pretty sure that the ref thought it was high originally which would explain him saying that.

He absolutely did; and was signing for tackle around the throat.
He was absolutley determined to give a card; and thank gods for the TMO preventing farce there (as opposed to the TMO on Friday night trying to create farce for "contact with the head")

 

[McTallshort]

Fine if it is an English broadcast aimed at the tabloid market and those with a superficial interest in the sport. Utterly pathetic if it is a broadcast serving the non-English parts of the UK and in any way pretending to be quality sports coverage. It wouldn't have happened on good old auntie!

Similar to banging on about England all through the Italy vs France game (as pointed out by an English poster in the game day thread). Undermines the generally good work being done on both sides of the camera by ITV if the coverage includes jingoistic English mince and shoves it down the throats of non-English viewers.

Yeah you have a point but the scots are hardly an innocent party in all of this. The level of nationalism before, during and after Calcutta games at Murrayfield is shocking. One game, very recently the SRFU wouldn't even put the cross of St George on the pitch and had an additional St Andrews cross instead. Then you have the Braveheart enactments, booing the English kickers etc. Moaning about a very accurate caption in the face of that is a bit churlish.

 

[Goodey]

-> Give UK-wide TV channel all kinds of **** for assuming the audience is English

-> Assume whoever is putting the captions up is English

- - - Updated - - -

-> Give UK-wide TV channel all kinds of **** for assuming the audience is English

-> Assume whoever is putting the captions up is English

 

[MikeTheNative]

To be fair there is a difference between catering for an English audience and the caption they put for Greg laidlaw. Which I thought was a bit disrespectful.

 

[McTallshort]

To be fair there is a difference between catering for an English audience and the caption they put for Greg laidlaw. Which I thought was a bit disrespectful.

Well sorry but Scotland need to play better then.

What should they have put? "Greg Laidlow played against England 10 times but don't ask him how many times he's won!"?

 

[mosfeldt]

To be fair there is a difference between catering for an English audience and the caption they put for Greg laidlaw. Which I thought was a bit disrespectful.

It's not the first time, either. I remember watching an Ireland v England match on BBC 2 years ago I think, maybe 3. I don't remember the specifics but as far as I remember it was Wilkinson and Wood who were hosting. For Wilkinson the caption said "Won X amount of games against Ireland" and for Wood it was "Lost X amount of games against England, incl. X amount at Twickenham". It was a bit pathetic tbh. Then again I am not surprised. The British sporting media tends to be, well, pretty sh*t in quality.

Well sorry but Scotland need to play better then.

What should they have put? "Greg Laidlow played against England 10 times but don't ask him how many times he's won!"?

How about "Has captained Scotland X amount of times since 2011, has scored X amount of points"? Anything even vaguely positive about Laidlaw's international career. Where's the sportsmanship? I'm sorry but if you think such a caption is a-ok to put on TV, especially one that is being shown to an overall British audience, then you can hardly be surprised when people yap on about English arrogance.

 

[McTallshort]

All Media is one eyed, not just the English one.

Every listened to an Irish rugby match on LW 252?

 

[mosfeldt]

All Media is one eyed, not just the English one.

Every listened to an Irish rugby match on LW 252?

The Irish media are terrible. RTE punditry is awful and our media overhypes us ta fvck. I'm not defending it. Just because all media is bad doesn't excuse them for putting that infantile ****e on air.

 

[Mrs. Peter Quinn]

All Media is one eyed, not just the English one.

Every listened to an Irish rugby match on LW 252?

To be honest there's not much point in defending ITV - it's horse****