Probably a good a place as any to put this.
Miguel Delaney: Irish on course to overachieve once again
Interesting stats ok but we haven't qualified yet and the way the Scots fell off the pace in the last campaign is a salutary warning, especially since it was in Georgia they were undone, which we have to visit yet.
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
I don't think he's counting any chickens to be fair. He just said 'on course' and his final couple of lines in the piece was basically the same as what you have said.
Since the Euros expanded after the 1992 tournament, there have been at least 13 European qualifying places available in each . Here's how they have been filled in the 12 subsequent finals:
12: Germany, Italy, Spain
11: France
10: England, Netherlands, Portugal
9: Croatia
8: Czechia, Russia, Switzerland, Sweden
7: Denmark
6: Greece, Belgium, Romania
5: Poland, Turkey
4: Austria, Bulgaria, R Ireland, Serbia
3: Norway, Slovenia, Ukraine
2: Scotland, Slovakia
1: Albania, Bosnia, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, N Ireland, Wales
I think there were at least a couple of us saying last year that rugby is internally contradictory.
"But this was the game where rugby’s inherent contradictions were exposed as never before, the profile of the match coinciding with a series of “accidents”, the like of which are inevitable for as long as a sport condones – encourages, even – the aggressive “hit” to the upper body. Whatever happened to that quaint notion, the tackle?"
http://foot.ie/threads/127683-Rugby-...D-GAA-!/page78
Saturday's game at the Aviva also adds nuance to the discussions about TMO / video evidence. Whilst I feel football is too slow to use various means of supplementing the ref's real-time decision making, I also think it's a wild hornet's nest and is nowhere near as clear cut a step for football to take as many in the rugby world say it should be.
I have always bemoaned the fact that the replays are not shown on the screen for fouls etc at football games but are at rugby and cricket and wherever. Thus the coach potato gets the replay but the person who bothered to attend the game is denied the privilege and discriminated against. I think this is down to the football authorities not trusting the reaction of football supporters to adverse decisions but also to the fact that there are no video replays, so the fan is left with no redress. No system is ever going to be perfect because even with slow motion replays from different angles, it will often be a matter of interpretation by the video ref. How often have we heard the pundits disagree on whether something was handball and/or a penalty. Not all the decisions in football will therefore be cut and dried as was the case in the rugger on Saturday but decisions such as goals from offside or whether the foul was inside or outside the box should be easy enough to arbitrate and whether someone clipped someone or whether it was a dive in the penalty area. Once the video replay is allowed in football, it should also be shown in the stadium or cannot football supporters be trusted unlike their rugby brethern ?
Forget about the performance or entertainment. It's only the result that matters.
I think if video evidence was made availble the decisions would be fair and balanced and then we wouldn't have those issues to worry about.
I'm a bloke,I'm an ocker
And I really love your knockers,I'm a labourer by day,
I **** up all me pay,Watching footy on TV,
Just feed me more VB,Just pour my beer,And get my smokes, And go away
Contentious decisions like that are not shown on the big screen at games because it's a form of video refereeing. As you say, if a replay proved a goal was not offside, or a tackle should have been a red, etc, then the players, and the crowd, would be on the ref's back for the rest of the game.
It's the same reason why a stadium's match clock stops at 90 minutes, so the crowd and players don't start screaming for a whistle when injury time passes,
Every week I disagree with a pundit who says something as trite as "he went down a bit too easily". A foul in rugby is defined, a foul in football is "if in the referee's consideration" an act involves "excessive force" or "lack of care". Will videos solve that? Sometimes I'd say but not often enough to avoid stirring up even further debate.
James McClean in Lille: I got lots of texts in real time giving out about how a penalty wasn't given. On TV Howard Webb pointed out a slight touch on the ball that quite honestly I agree meant it wasn't a penalty.
Even offside: you can rule a goal out for offside, but what if a lino flags wrongly for offside, a forward scores anyway but a keeper claims he had seen the flag and not tried 100%?
I think the Dutch solution makes more sense than video adjudication live in the stadium. A remote referee watches the game live and has 15 seconds to overrule an obviously wrong decision. A study showed that the system improved the success rate of refs' decisions from 95% to 97%.
Anyway, I'm agreeing with what you're saying except I still think whether a player "went down easily" (not a crime) or dived would just as often as not be impossible to determine via TMO.
Getting to the ball does not ordinarily mean that a foul HASN'T been committed though. and it's one of the aspects that annoys me when I hear shouts for "he got the ball". It's all about being careless, reckless or using excessive force.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/afde...t_en_47379.pdf
it was a penalty for McClean.
---
Interesting to see where Rugby is regarding participation in Ireland.
http://www.sportireland.ie/Research/...eport-2015.pdf
---
While we are on the subject of refereeing foul play, the assumption of due care should always exist and especially in a sport like rugby union. notions of intent should be left at the door. If you go to make a fair tackle but miss-time it and manage to get the opponents head, then tiugh, and off you pop. The onus should always be on the tackler to play safe. Regardless of the intent on Henshaw, it was reckless and that should be enough for a yellow.
I have brought this up before but in ice hockey intent is done away with as is the severity f the contact. In a "high sticking foul" even if you didn't see the opponent behind you or it was even the softest of touches you are boxed (binned) for 2 minutes as you should be in control of your equipment and tough if you weren't. No whining, just into the box and that's that.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
Ratings for the most watched tv shows in Ireland in 2016 released: http://www.tamireland.ie/node/517
Three of the Euro 2016 games in the top five, and the France game almost doubled the audience for the biggest rugby game (Ireland v New Zealand in Aviva).
Just to compare and contrast, the audience for the France game was also bigger than the highest watched rugby game in 2015 - the Ireland V France game from the rugby world cup in 2015: http://www.tamireland.ie/node/472
Mrs. Brown's Boys with three entries in the Top 20... I can't sit through five minutes of it without shaking my head in disbelief as to its popularity.
The Nine O'Clock news at No.11 is a strange one, I wonder what date it was for?
I suppose comparing the Ireland Euro figures to tests or Six Nations in rugby isn't really like for like, probably more comparable to the France/Argentina games in the RWC?
Mrs Browns Boys' popularity is simply staggering.
I take your point about the rugby although my rugby mates will always say “there’s no such thing as JUST a test match”
Author of Never Felt Better (History, Film Reviews).
Mrs Browns Boys now more popular than Fair City AND Ros ns Run?!
I like high energy football. A little bit rock and roll. Many finishes instead of waiting for the perfect one.
The school that tried to stop Liam Brady playing soccer are now excelling in the sport - http://www.the42.ie/st-aidans-cbs-li...80055-May2017/
In this month's Rugby World: http://www.rugbyworld.com/publicatio...orld/june-2017
Is rugby becoming football?
Rugby has long looked down its nose at football but RW columnist Stephen Jones believes the oval-ball game is now losing the moral high ground. He discusses the coaching merry-go-round and attitudes to referees, and even admits he prefers many aspects of soccer.
Tets, one of the worst journalists around, hard to respect anything this guy writes.
The moral highground is bizarrely important to some of these people. Some of them genuinely seem to think think licking referee's bums makes them better than soccer fans.
Eamonn Sweeney comparing chalk & cheese for no obvious reason - http://www.independent.ie/sport/gael...-36116885.html
Bookmarks