RBS 6 Nations 2015

Stuff from around the world.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2510
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: Bengor West

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by rorybestsbigbaldnoggin »

bazzaj wrote:I've put my argument over about the Lawes tackle and cant be bothered to do it again.
The only thing I can say is the world's best offical Nigel Owens saw nothing in it even after close scrutiny, either did any rugby experts I am aware of as well as Stephen Jones.
Owens has been roundly praised for his decision Iin fact.
What are all of us seeing so differently from people on here?

1. He is English
2, He is Lawes
3.The reaction to the apparent injustice of the Payne v Sarries red card.

Thats my best guess but the Lawes is a bully thing makes me laugh the most.
Hes supposed to be.

What has Payne's red card got to do with this?
It's the hope that kills you.
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 24529
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Dave »

Lawes couldn't pull out but Payne could. Who decided this, the Pope?
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Snipe Watson »

As with most debates, going round in circles will not persuade anyone to change their minds. Some see it one way others see it differently.
User avatar
Russ
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 28295
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: Looking for George North's defence

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Russ »

What's Rum's opinion?

Willing to change mine depending on what side of the fence he comes on
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30337
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by BaggyTrousers »

Snipe Watson wrote:As with most debates, going round in circles will not persuade anyone to change their minds. Some see it one way others see it differently.
Correct Snipe, so let's just agree we're right and you are wrong, OK? :lol:
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30337
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by BaggyTrousers »

Russ wrote:What's Rum's opinion?

Willing to change mine depending on what side of the fence he comes on
Rum'n doesn't come on fences. Perish the thought. >jawdrop
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
BuckRogers
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2333
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:26 am

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by BuckRogers »

Bravo, coffee spat over the keyboard.
bazzaj

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by bazzaj »

Once a Knight wrote:Is the nub of it not that:-

(1) It was, within the laws, a legitimate tackle.

But that

(2) It was a cheap shot blind side opportunity to put hurt on the 10.
(3) It was, as a tackle, never going to be in time to affect the pass.
(4) Lawes is a dirt bird.

I'm surprised so much discussion has gone on about it. Lawes saw an opportunity and took it. What irks is the ready willingness to hurt someone, potentially seriously. I always regarded blindsiding someone as pretty low.
1-Correct
2-As long as rugby has been played, players will want to make those sorts of hits on the 10 and its up to sides to protect their play maker. Since day one players are taught to hit the man on a follow through tackle to leave an impression. Talk to Wilkinson or ROG about Serge Betson a master of the art; ref 2002 6 nations and 2003 WC quarter final.
3-Lawes when he launched himself did not know for a fact whether the 10 was going to pass or not. Its due to his physique and athleticism that his tackle range is longer than most which means he can launch himself a lot early than the majority of players. Therefore whether the 10 has the ball or not at the time of impact is irrelevant.
4- Further Irrelevance.

As I say haven`t seen to many people involved with the game say there was a problem with the hit.
I haven`t seen it all though, has even the French made a complaint as I haven't heard?
User avatar
rorybestsbigbaldnoggin
Red Hand Ambassador
Posts: 2510
Joined: Tue Oct 08, 2013 3:31 pm
Location: Bengor West

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by rorybestsbigbaldnoggin »

Once a Knight wrote:Had Dan Cole, for example, made the tackle would people have been as keen to believe the worst about his intent?
Yes.

Tbf though, I don't think Dan Cole is the best example, seeing as he fended Cian Healy off two games earlier with his head.
It's the hope that kills you.
User avatar
Setanta
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 5127
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:27 am
Location: Switzerland

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Setanta »

He's a Lawes all onto himself!
From the rolling glens of Antrim through the hills of Donegal we will stand and shout for Ulster as we win both scrum and maul from the lovely lakes of Fermanagh tae the shores of ould Lough Gall we will scream and shout for Ulster as we beat them one and all!
User avatar
Russ
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 28295
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: Looking for George North's defence

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Russ »

Once a Knight wrote:Hence, I'm surprised there's so much discussion about it. I was merely setting out the issues at the nub of it Bazzaj. I'm actually quite neutral on it. It was a legitimate cheapshot if you see what I mean. Dust yourself off and move along.

Lawes being a dirt bird isn't irrelevant. Had Dan Cole, for example, made the tackle would people have been as keen to believe the worst about his intent?
Dan Cole is a cheating fecktard
User avatar
BaggyTrousers
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 30337
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2011 6:29 pm
Location: España

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by BaggyTrousers »

bazzaj wrote:
Once a Knight wrote:Is the nub of it not that:-

(1) It was, within the laws, a legitimate tackle.

But that

(2) It was a cheap shot blind side opportunity to put hurt on the 10.
(3) It was, as a tackle, never going to be in time to affect the pass.
(4) Lawes is a dirt bird.

I'm surprised so much discussion has gone on about it. Lawes saw an opportunity and took it. What irks is the ready willingness to hurt someone, potentially seriously. I always regarded blindsiding someone as pretty low.
1-Correct
2-As long as rugby has been played, players will want to make those sorts of hits on the 10 and its up to sides to protect their play maker. Since day one players are taught to hit the man on a follow through tackle to leave an impression. Talk to Wilkinson or ROG about Serge Betson a master of the art; ref 2002 6 nations and 2003 WC quarter final.
3-Lawes when he launched himself did not know for a fact whether the 10 was going to pass or not. Its due to his physique and athleticism that his tackle range is longer than most which means he can launch himself a lot early than the majority of players. Therefore whether the 10 has the ball or not at the time of impact is irrelevant.
4- Further Irrelevance.

As I say haven`t seen to many people involved with the game say there was a problem with the hit.
I haven`t seen it all though, has even the French made a complaint as I haven't heard?
Utterly wrong, you clearly haven't watched it subsequently, the only thing Lawes "launched" was Plisson. :roll: The "launched" word & your description of his tackle range through "launching" is utter bullshit, at no stage did Lawes "launch"/dive/leave the ground.

Check it out so you can stop making a fool of yourself Jizzer.You are simply mistaken.

My own point is not that Lawes was significantly late, he was fractionally late only, my point is he knew exactly what he was doing, he knew the ball was gone & to cause significant damage to Plisson on the outer margins of the Laws is what followed. The laws in the shape of Nigel & the TMO gave him a bye ball, their decision, move on and live with it.

My point is that Lawes is a lowlife scumsucking motherfukka who simply set out to damage a player, not unlike Callum Clark in many ways, the main difference being that Lawes unlike Clark was so marginally outside the bounds of acceptability that he gets away with it. A fraction later and he would be getting some rest time through suspension.

More than that, I have no interest in the fact that he was borderline legal, he got away with an assault by the skin of his teeth, it was still an assault and it was not within the spirit of the game.
NEVER MOVE ON. Years on, I cannot ever watch Ireland with anything but indifference, I continue to wish for the imminent death of Donal Spring, the FIRFUC's executioner of Wee Paddy & Wee Stu, and I hate the FIRFUCs with undiminished passion.
User avatar
Shan
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11524
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Limerick

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Shan »

Don't believe the French made anything of this.

I think they should though and the 6N rulers should then set up a fight between Lawes and Bastareaud. I just think it would be fun to see how Lawes would stand up to a guy like that in the ring.......and I'd have it in the rules of the fight that Bastareaud can use his head any way he likes. :D
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
User avatar
Shan
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11524
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2007 6:55 pm
Location: Limerick

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Shan »

BaggyTrousers wrote: My point is that Lawes is a lowlife scumsucking motherfukka
Feck. He's worse than I thought. Damaging mothers is way beyond acceptable. :D
It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways.
User avatar
Snipe Watson
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 23443
Joined: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:42 pm

Re: RBS 6 Nations 2015

Post by Snipe Watson »

There have always been thugs in the game. Some become legends and others become notorious. Peter Clohessy was a thug, there is a list of legendary All Blacks as long as your arm who were thugs. The line between never taking a backward step and thuggery can easily become blurred in the heat of battle where collisions are often the winning and losing of a game.
Where is the line of acceptability drawn? Tackling a player to take him down, tacking a player to drive him back, tackling a player to intimidate him and put him off his game? Obviously tackling with intent to injure is unacceptable. I know nothing about Lawes' character and struggle to see where the evidence is that he tackled with intent to injure.

I see Jules Plisson says he has no issue with the timing of the tackle, but the force of the tackle making him land on his head made it dangerous.
Post Reply