Ireland v South Africa (Sat 10th Nov, 17:30)

[Logorrhea]

Too many excuses being made there, I'm afraid. Heaslip had a poor game. His contribution was very, very limited, irrespective of what armband he was wearing.

Cant understand why anyone is bothering to target any performances in that game. The only reason to focus on one player is an agenda, especially given the lack of performances elsewhere in the pack, and the backrow.

The entire Irish team were poor (aside from Healy) for the majority of the game. The only difference between the first and the second half was that the Boks gave us the ball and loads of kickable penalties. We did nothing with the ball in either half, never looked like making a clean line-break never mind scoring a try.

Zebo did nothing, stop talking up his performance. He was fine, made no real mistakes but offered nothing else. I have no problem with him being tried again, but he did nothing special in this game. Same for Bowe, Earls, and Darcy. Sexton needed to offer a little variety to challenge the defence and that never came. He was solid but thats about it. I've never been happy with Murray, have never seen him offer anything really. Sure hes a fine tackler but he cant do the basics of the job well enough, doesnt offer the tempo Reddan does and kicks far too poorly for this level. Still, he'll remain first choice until another coach comes in.

The front five were absolutely destroyed once the Boks were given the ball and while I though the likes of Strauss, Healy and McCarthy tried, it was in the loose and the the breakdown where they excelled. In the tight they got mullered. Hard to talk up any performance after a performance like that.

Finally the back row. Isolated a few springboks in the first half, offered nothing in the second. All three struggled to match the physical power of the Boks and you could see how badly we were missing Ferris and O'Brien.

The only Irish forward that would get a sniff in that Bok pack would be Healy. Others could include O'Brien, POC and Ferris. The rest (including POM) would be laughed out of the conversation.

[gfo]

Okey doke ref types, question for you.

At one point during the match (cant remember the time) Kirchner fields the ball just outside the 22.
He's tackled, goes to ground and releases the ball inside the 22 in the ruck. The ball is then passed to Lambie who kicks it out on the full.

In the match, line out is given where the ball crossed the touch line, but should it not be taken from where it was kicked since it was taken back inside the 22 by a RSA player?

I haven't seen a replay of the match, so it may have not happened like that but I'm 95% confident that that is what happened.

I thought the same!!

He was tackled. The tackle was considered to take place inside the 22 therefore Lambie can kick directly to touch. The other circumstance where he could kick directly to touch would be if the ball had been touched by an opponent.

He was outside a bit when he was tackled but he was driven back and placed the ball inside the 22, therefore it's a new phase and the ball wasn't carried back inside.

Makes sense

[fourthirtythree]

Too many excuses being made there, I'm afraid. Heaslip had a poor game. His contribution was very, very limited, irrespective of what armband he was wearing.

Cant understand why anyone is bothering to target any performances in that game. The only reason to focus on one player is an agenda, especially given the lack of performances elsewhere in the pack, and the backrow.

The entire Irish team were poor (aside from Healy) for the majority of the game. The only difference between the first and the second half was that the Boks gave us the ball and loads of kickable penalties. We did nothing with the ball in either half, never looked like making a clean line-break never mind scoring a try.

Zebo did nothing, stop talking up his performance. He was fine, made no real mistakes but offered nothing else. I have no problem with him being tried again, but he did nothing special in this game. Same for Bowe, Earls, and Darcy. Sexton needed to offer a little variety to challenge the defence and that never came. He was solid but thats about it. I've never been happy with Murray, have never seen him offer anything really. Sure hes a fine tackler but he cant do the basics of the job well enough, doesnt offer the tempo Reddan does and kicks far too poorly for this level. Still, he'll remain first choice until another coach comes in.

The front five were absolutely destroyed once the Boks were given the ball and while I though the likes of Strauss, Healy and McCarthy tried, it was in the loose and the the breakdown where they excelled. In the tight they got mullered. Hard to talk up any performance after a performance like that.

Finally the back row. Isolated a few springboks in the first half, offered nothing in the second. All three struggled to match the physical power of the Boks and you could see how badly we were missing Ferris and O'Brien.

The only Irish forward that would get a sniff in that Bok pack would be Healy. Others could include O'Brien, POC and Ferris. The rest (including POM) would be laughed out of the conversation.

That's a pretty good assessment I think. I would argue that nobody should be offering excuses for Heaslip though: he should be on a different level from O'Mahoney and Henry and on Saturday he wasn't.

[Logorrhea]

I would argue that nobody should be offering excuses for Heaslip though: he should be on a different level from O'Mahoney and Henry and on Saturday he wasn't.

Heaslip cant make those around him better players and its not realistic to expect a Parrisse or Lobbe level of performance on his first day out as captain against a pack the size of the Sprinboks.

Again, I'm not defending any of the performances but is it fair to highlight one below average performance when 11 or 12 of the team also performed to that level? Also, the problem is not on the pitch, its off it. This is a coaching issue. The players have been underperforming for 2-3 years now.

[Lar]

Okey doke ref types, question for you.

At one point during the match (cant remember the time) Kirchner fields the ball just outside the 22.
He's tackled, goes to ground and releases the ball inside the 22 in the ruck. The ball is then passed to Lambie who kicks it out on the full.

In the match, line out is given where the ball crossed the touch line, but should it not be taken from where it was kicked since it was taken back inside the 22 by a RSA player?

I haven't seen a replay of the match, so it may have not happened like that but I'm 95% confident that that is what happened.
I thought the same!!

He was tackled. The tackle was considered to take place inside the 22 therefore Lambie can kick directly to touch. The other circumstance where he could kick directly to touch would be if the ball had been touched by an opponent.

He was outside a bit when he was tackled but he was driven back and placed the ball inside the 22, therefore it's a new phase and the ball wasn't carried back inside.

Makes sense

Not to me it doesn't. I thought it was one of those the officials missed. Happens every now and again.

If you are tackled outside the 22 with the ball in hand and driven back inside then it is you/your team who has taken the ball back inside and no matter how many phases of play later if the ball is kicked from inside directly into touch it should be deemed out on the full.

[Dave Cahill]

If you are tackled outside the 22 with the ball in hand and driven back inside then it is you/your team who has taken the ball back inside and no matter how many phases of play later if the ball is kicked from inside directly into touch it should be deemed out on the full.

Thats not what the law says however

19.1.b When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays
the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without
touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks
the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player
moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked
directly into touch.

[ronk]

If you are tackled outside the 22 with the ball in hand and driven back inside then it is you/your team who has taken the ball back inside and no matter how many phases of play later if the ball is kicked from inside directly into touch it should be deemed out on the full.

Thats not what the law says however

19.1.b When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays
the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without
touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks
the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player
moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked
directly into touch.

And it's really only fair. We can imagine the situation 3 phases later where a ref is supposed to have kept track of how the ball got back into the 22.

Slightly O/T but that last sentence (though a good idea) is likely to cause to a bit of controversy in a big game someday where an assistant referee is slow getting to the mark of the lineout (and/or gets the position wrong) and a player ends up bringing the ball back inside the 22 without knowing it and kicking the ball out on the full by accident.

It's not 100% clear whether this refers to a player bringing the ball past the 22 and then taking a quick throw or picking up a ball that's rolled past the 22 but crossed the touchline before it. I've seen close cases before and the team taking the quick lineout has apparently gotten the benefit of the doubt, but I haven't seen the match officials demonstrating alertness to the possibilities.

[suisse]

Pure nonsense, very selective and missing the point totally! The ABH cohort strike again.

Excuse me, what part of that is "pure nonsense"? Did I make something up? Did I offer half-truths or lies?

And what part is "very selective"? I've given you the facts of Heaslip's performance. What did I leave out, that could be described as selective? Did Heaslip make a try saving tackle? Steal an important line out close to the Irish line? Did he win some turnovers on the deck or carry well off the base of the scrum? Was he influential in the loose or make a heap of tackles? What exactly is selective in that post? He carried to minimal effect (something POC was derided for here), called no line outs and conceded two penalties, one very costly.

What exactly is the totally missed point? That Heaslip plays for Leinster?

And...........don't even attempt to align me with the "ABH cohorts." I'd consider myself a very big fan of Heaslip, and even on this thread I supported his candidacy as Ireland captain. Stop making up bullshit. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the man had a poor game. He did. I'm sure if you asked him yourself he's agree with the statement.

[berniemac67]

Pure nonsense, very selective and missing the point totally! The ABH cohort strike again.

Excuse me, what part of that is "pure nonsense"? Did I make something up? Did I offer half-truths or lies?

And what part is "very selective"? I've given you the facts of Heaslip's performance. What did I leave out, that could be described as selective? Did Heaslip make a try saving tackle? Steal an important line out close to the Irish line? Did he win some turnovers on the deck or carry well off the base of the scrum? Was he influential in the loose or make a heap of tackles? What exactly is selective in that post? He carried to minimal effect (something POC was derided for here), called no line outs and conceded two penalties, one very costly.

What exactly is the totally missed point? That Heaslip plays for Leinster?

And...........don't even attempt to align me with the "ABH cohorts." I'd consider myself a very big fan of Heaslip, and even on this thread I supported his candidacy as Ireland captain. Stop making up bullshit. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the man had a poor game. He did. I'm sure if you asked him yourself he's agree with the statement.

i think his point is that you are being selective in focusing solely on heaslip when 11 or 12 players on the team played similarly below par or without doing anything noteworthy

i disagree however. all the players played to the top of their ability, and despite the brains in charge having a supreme master plan it is clear we just don't have enough top quality players to beat the boks thirds

being sarcastic simply to highlight that this type of conversation is completely pointless and distracts attention away from the real problem in the irish camp

[suisse]

Too many excuses being made there, I'm afraid. Heaslip had a poor game. His contribution was very, very limited, irrespective of what armband he was wearing.

Cant understand why anyone is bothering to target any performances in that game. The only reason to focus on one player is an agenda, especially given the lack of performances elsewhere in the pack, and the backrow.

When have I ever had an agenda against Jamie Heaslip? I supported his candidacy for Ireland captaincy on this thread, and have long considered him a world class number 8. There is no agenda - it was a response to OldSchool's post about Heaslip that I felt - you might not agree - needed to be addressed. I didn't pluck some random rant out of thin air.

"Cant understand why anyone is bothering to target any performances in that game" - Jamie Heaslip is a 51 times capped international number 8. He has been a regular for his country since 2008. He is a grand slam winning number 8 and played 3 games - totally eclipsing his opposite number - with great distinction for the Lions in South Africa. He is also a three times winning Heineken Cup number 8 and a man who has been a regular for his province since 2005. He has been the main guy for 2 full coaching regimes spanning 7 years at club level. He is also undefeated as captain of his club. Peter O'Mahony has played fewer than 40 games for Munster, and has 8 Ireland caps. This was his first game against SA. Chris Henry was also playing the Boks for the first time. He has 3 Ireland caps and 33 for Ulster.

Heaslip has more international caps (11 to be exact) than Strauss, Ryan, McCarthy, Henry and O'Mahony combined. His 51 caps also made him Ireland's second most capped starter on Saturday, behind Gordon D'arcy, He was also captain of Ireland. It is not fair to compare him with POM (8 caps) or Henry (3 caps). Ireland, as a whole, didn't play well but the pack were not too bad. Heaslip was probably the least ineffective forward on the field. This is not an agenda. This is an opinion. There is nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that Ireland's captain, who should have been a real leader on Saturday, failed to show up. He is a world class number 8 - he can definitely play a lot better. What is wrong with that?

A

[suisse]

Pure nonsense, very selective and missing the point totally! The ABH cohort strike again.

Excuse me, what part of that is "pure nonsense"? Did I make something up? Did I offer half-truths or lies?

And what part is "very selective"? I've given you the facts of Heaslip's performance. What did I leave out, that could be described as selective? Did Heaslip make a try saving tackle? Steal an important line out close to the Irish line? Did he win some turnovers on the deck or carry well off the base of the scrum? Was he influential in the loose or make a heap of tackles? What exactly is selective in that post? He carried to minimal effect (something POC was derided for here), called no line outs and conceded two penalties, one very costly.

What exactly is the totally missed point? That Heaslip plays for Leinster?

And...........don't even attempt to align me with the "ABH cohorts." I'd consider myself a very big fan of Heaslip, and even on this thread I supported his candidacy as Ireland captain. Stop making up bullshit. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the man had a poor game. He did. I'm sure if you asked him yourself he's agree with the statement.

i think his point is that you are being selective in focusing solely on heaslip when 11 or 12 players on the team played similarly below par or without doing anything noteworthy

Maybe, but it was a response to his own comment that mentioned three players; Heaslip, Zebo and McCarthy. It wasn't something I just randomly plucked from this air, or a tiny part of his analysis. I felt Heaslip had a poor game and he was making too many excuses for it. He thinks otherwise. The nature of the board

[OTT]

When have I ever had an agenda against Jamie Heaslip? I supported his candidacy for Ireland captaincy on this thread, and have long considered him a world class number 8. There is no agenda - it was a response to OldSchool's post about Heaslip that I felt - you might not agree - needed to be addressed. I didn't pluck some random rant out of thin air.

"Cant understand why anyone is bothering to target any performances in that game" - Jamie Heaslip is a 51 times capped international number 8. He has been a regular for his country since 2008. He is a grand slam winning number 8 and played 3 games - totally eclipsing his opposite number - with great distinction for the Lions in South Africa. He is also a three times winning Heineken Cup number 8 and a man who has been a regular for his province since 2005. He has been the main guy for 2 full coaching regimes spanning 7 years at club level. He is also undefeated as captain of his club. Peter O'Mahony has played fewer than 40 games for Munster, and has 8 Ireland caps. This was his first game against SA. Chris Henry was also playing the Boks for the first time. He has 3 Ireland caps and 33 for Ulster.

Heaslip has more international caps (11 to be exact) than Strauss, Ryan, McCarthy, Henry and O'Mahony combined. His 51 caps also made him Ireland's second most capped starter on Saturday, behind Gordon D'arcy, He was also captain of Ireland. It is not fair to compare him with POM (8 caps) or Henry (3 caps). Ireland, as a whole, didn't play well but the pack were not too bad. Heaslip was probably the least ineffective forward on the field. This is not an agenda. This is an opinion. There is nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that Ireland's captain, who should have been a real leader on Saturday, failed to show up. He is a world class number 8 - he can definitely play a lot better. What is wrong with that?

A

Firstly I agree that Heaslip wasn’t great, I dont think he was terrible either. But I would say that post you have written is probably the best defence I have seen of Heaslip on any board. It should be used against all the detractor’s who spout nonsence about him eg during the recent tour to NZ where he fronted up defensively like no one else on the team yet the usual punter’s took the usual swipe’s. It is one impressive CV he has built up and luck has not been a part of it. I would also say the points in your post say’s everything that is wrong with the Irish team our dependency on individual’s Drico has been the man for year’s then when he wasn’t his usual self (but generally still the best Irish player on the pitch) and put on the extra muscle/weight 2007-2008ish the cr@p about him being past it was spouted out in a gloating manner. O’Connell when not injured is another guy we expect miracles from. Rugby is a 15 man game at international leve at the top end anyway there can be no passenger’s, wanting Heaslip to be a three man backrow is never gonna happen and if the other guy’s in the backrow are not up to it then we need to keep picking other people till we find the right one’s apparently it is our area of strength. Making excuses for other’s doesn’t help. With all that Heaslip has done at international level he is the guy who has bought the right to an off day if there is one to be had (I expect at least 7/10 from everyone all the time maybe that is unrealistic,) just like BOD, POC and ROG (back in his glory day’s) had also.

Again I don’t think he was great but the other player’s around him certainly haven’t earned the right for passes on average performance’s. Heaslip didn’t beat around the bush with how he thought he played on Saturday let’s hope the rest are as honest with themselves.

[Logorrhea]

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that Ireland's captain, who should have been a real leader on Saturday, failed to show up. He is a world class number 8 - he can definitely play a lot better. What is wrong with that?

Opinion sure I get that. I dont think you'll find many people who agree with you though. The scrum was dominated, the maul defense and offence was completely ineffective and aside from the occasional turnover from an isolated Bok runner, the entire pack was anonymous. As a unit, they got hammered and that was not down to an underperforming loose forward. To focus on one player among a pack of 8 anoymous players is the type of headline making cr@p that Hook comes out with. He isnt, and I presume you arent interested in offering an identical analysis of POM, Henry, Ryan, Ross, McCarthy? Or Sexton, Murray, Trimble, Earls etc. Do they get away with anonymity because they arent the captain and dont have the previous caps? Why not have a look at the maul defense and its preparation? or the kicking out of hand, or the number of stupid penalties given away in the second half, or the selection, or the selectors, or the attacking coach ... but instead you focus on the first time captain?

Sorry but you are right that he didnt perform at his best, to take it any futerh then that is tabloid nonsense. Thats just my opinion of course.

[Oldschool]

Pure nonsense, very selective and missing the point totally! The ABH cohort strike again.

Excuse me, what part of that is "pure nonsense"? Did I make something up? Did I offer half-truths or lies?

And what part is "very selective"? I've given you the facts of Heaslip's performance. What did I leave out, that could be described as selective? Did Heaslip make a try saving tackle? Steal an important line out close to the Irish line? Did he win some turnovers on the deck or carry well off the base of the scrum? Was he influential in the loose or make a heap of tackles? What exactly is selective in that post? He carried to minimal effect (something POC was derided for here), called no line outs and conceded two penalties, one very costly.

What exactly is the totally missed point? That Heaslip plays for Leinster?

And...........don't even attempt to align me with the "ABH cohorts." I'd consider myself a very big fan of Heaslip, and even on this thread I supported his candidacy as Ireland captain. Stop making up bullshit. There is nothing wrong with pointing out the man had a poor game. He did. I'm sure if you asked him yourself he's agree with the statement.

I apologise, without reservation, for the ABH dig. I was concerned that you might be going over to the dark side.

However your analysis of Heaslip's performance as player and captain was very shallow.
Sure you put the facts as you saw them, big deal. What about a bit more analysis and insight into Heaslip's performance.
Cast your mind back to a time when Fergus Slattery the outstanding 7 of his era, first became captain of Ireland.
Both his performances as a player and captain were underwhelming to say the least. It took time for him to grow into the role of captain.
He wasn't to the manner born initially. Heaslip's performance on Saturday should therefore have come as no surprise and should have been factored in, before the match.
Heaslip has captained Leinster, but with Leinster he's able to play his own game and therefore can give the captaincy more attention.
His captaincy of Leinster has pretty much gone unremarked, good, bad or indifferent, except to say they haven't been beaten whenever he has captained them.

With Ireland he is expected to play a different role and so can't give the captaincy as much attention. It will take time for him to adjust, to get the balance right.
You may disagree with my anaylsis, but Heaslip rarely has an off day and it wasn't due to the outstanding SA BR because they weren't outstanding.
Leinster are not short of leaders thru the 15, but Ireland were shot of leaders on Saturday and this made Heaslip's job even harder.
Finally, No 8 is the toughest position to play in a team and I'm not sure that having your no. 8 as Captain is a good idea.
The coach will have to analyse Heaslip's performance as both player and captain, in the overall team context.
There is a quite vocal whispering (pardon the contradiction) campaign against Heaslip, he could do with out it TBH.
Some would have "Jack the Rag" in the team instead of Heaslip. They probably think Jack would make a better captain too.

[suisse]

There is nothing wrong with highlighting the fact that Ireland's captain, who should have been a real leader on Saturday, failed to show up. He is a world class number 8 - he can definitely play a lot better. What is wrong with that?

Opinion sure I get that. I dont think you'll find many people who agree with you though. The scrum was dominated, the maul defense and offence was completely ineffective and aside from the occasional turnover from an isolated Bok runner, the entire pack was anonymous. As a unit, they got hammered and that was not down to an underperforming loose forward. To focus on one player among a pack of 8 anoymous players is the type of headline making cr@p that Hook comes out with. He isnt, and I presume you arent interested in offering an identical analysis of POM, Henry, Ryan, Ross, McCarthy? Or Sexton, Murray, Trimble, Earls etc. Do they get away with anonymity because they arent the captain and dont have the previous caps? Why not have a look at the maul defense and its preparation? or the kicking out of hand, or the number of stupid penalties given away in the second half, or the selection, or the selectors, or the attacking coach ... but instead you focus on the first time captain?

Sorry but you are right that he didnt perform at his best, to take it any futerh then that is tabloid nonsense. Thats just my opinion of course.

I'm sure we don't post here so people can people can agree with what we say. Sometimes, you just need to highlight what the rest are too afraid to say

I still think we're making too many excuses for his performance though. I see Heaslip as a world class number 8 who should be a strong candidate to captain his country and province (the best club side in Europe?) from next season onwards, and start for the Lions in that position. There was nothing in Saturday's performance to help his cause. But....it was just one game. I agree. BOD has had poor games captaining Ireland in the past. We were allowed to point this out. Why is Heaslip different? I'm not looking for sensationalist headlines like George Hook. If a player has a poor game, what is wrong in saying it? I don't get your point about "taking it further." What was taken further? I'm not suggesting he is in decline, or he is without a big game in 2 years (as Hook said). There was a post (Oldschool's) which focused on Heaslip, so I replied. Had he made the same post about a different player and I didn't agree with it (like...defending Ross, for example), I would have replied in kind.

[suisse]

I apologise, without reservation, for the ABH dig. I was concerned that you might be going over to the dark side.

However your analysis of Heaslip's performance as player and captain was very shallow.
Sure you put the facts as you saw them, big deal. What about a bit more analysis and insight into Heaslip's performance.
Cast your mind back to a time when Fergus Slattery the outstanding 7 of his era, first became captain of Ireland.
Both his performances as a player and captain were underwhelming to say the least. It took time for him to grow into the role of captain.
He wasn't to the manner born initially. Heaslip's performance on Saturday should therefore have come as no surprise and should have been factored in, before the match.
Heaslip has captained Leinster, but with Leinster he's able to play his own game and therefore can give the captaincy more attention.
His captaincy of Leinster has pretty much gone unremarked, good, bad or indifferent, except to say they haven't been beaten whenever he has captained them.

With Ireland he is expected to play a different role and so can't give the captaincy as much attention. It will take time for him to adjust, to get the balance right.
You may disagree with my anaylsis, but Heaslip rarely has an off day and it wasn't due to the outstanding SA BR because they weren't outstanding.
Leinster are not short of leaders thru the 15, but Ireland were shot of leaders on Saturday and this made Heaslip's job even harder.
Finally, No 8 is the toughest position to play in a team and I'm not sure that having your no. 8 as Captain is a good idea.
The coach will have to analyse Heaslip's performance as both player and captain, in the overall team context.
There is a quite vocal whispering (pardon the contradiction) campaign against Heaslip, he could do with out it TBH.
Some would have "Jack the Rag" in the team instead of Heaslip. They probably think Jack would make a better captain too.

And I apologise for saying the word "bullshit" to describe you pov, but having defended Heaslip for so long from the usual collection of trolls on this board, I found that difficult to understand.

Sadly, I'm not old enough to remember the days of Fergus Slattery

As pointed out above, I didn't say, like G. Hook or the Trolls, that Heaslip is in decline or hasn't produced in 2 years. I think he had a bad game, what's so shallow about that? I also don't think having the captaincy restricts him from ball carrying, calling line outs or making tackles. Rugbydump has the full game on site (BEEB commentary). I saw it again on Monday. I'm sure it was a one off - BOD had a few sh!t performances in green too I remember. I'm not an ABH chort but I also think there is nothing wrong with saying he was ineffective on Saturday. What "analysis and insight" am I missing?

Don't listen to the whispering. Heaslip is a world class number 8 and we're lucky to have him. I love the contradictions about Heaslip. I don't comment on munsterfans.com but I do enjoy creeping there a lot. Usual shite from people saying he shouldn't celebrate his tries with one arm in the air, but nothing said about Earls' dive against Italy (RWC 2011 - and you KNOW the same people vilified Ashton for the same thing) and Zebo against Northants (personally, I've no problem with celebrating - Zebo is a young guy playing the best game of his life. Let him enjoy it). But they don't like Heaslip because he wears white boots, and he is chilled off the park etc....

As a matter of interest, why do you think number 8 is the toughest position? Is that a general view, or a personal one?

[Golf Man]

I apologise, without reservation, for the ABH dig. I was concerned that you might be going over to the dark side.

However your analysis of Heaslip's performance as player and captain was very shallow.
Sure you put the facts as you saw them, big deal. What about a bit more analysis and insight into Heaslip's performance.
Cast your mind back to a time when Fergus Slattery the outstanding 7 of his era, first became captain of Ireland.
Both his performances as a player and captain were underwhelming to say the least. It took time for him to grow into the role of captain.
He wasn't to the manner born initially. Heaslip's performance on Saturday should therefore have come as no surprise and should have been factored in, before the match.
Heaslip has captained Leinster, but with Leinster he's able to play his own game and therefore can give the captaincy more attention.
His captaincy of Leinster has pretty much gone unremarked, good, bad or indifferent, except to say they haven't been beaten whenever he has captained them.

With Ireland he is expected to play a different role and so can't give the captaincy as much attention. It will take time for him to adjust, to get the balance right.
You may disagree with my anaylsis, but Heaslip rarely has an off day and it wasn't due to the outstanding SA BR because they weren't outstanding.
Leinster are not short of leaders thru the 15, but Ireland were shot of leaders on Saturday and this made Heaslip's job even harder.
Finally, No 8 is the toughest position to play in a team and I'm not sure that having your no. 8 as Captain is a good idea.
The coach will have to analyse Heaslip's performance as both player and captain, in the overall team context.
There is a quite vocal whispering (pardon the contradiction) campaign against Heaslip, he could do with out it TBH.
Some would have "Jack the Rag" in the team instead of Heaslip. They probably think Jack would make a better captain too.

And I apologise for saying the word "bullshit" to describe you pov, but having defended Heaslip for so long from the usual collection of trolls on this board, I found that difficult to understand.

Sadly, I'm not old enough to remember the days of Fergus Slattery

As pointed out above, I didn't say, like G. Hook or the Trolls, that Heaslip is in decline or hasn't produced in 2 years. I think he had a bad game, what's so shallow about that? I also don't think having the captaincy restricts him from ball carrying, calling line outs or making tackles. Rugbydump has the full game on site (BEEB commentary). I saw it again on Monday. I'm sure it was a one off - BOD had a few sh!t performances in green too I remember. I'm not an ABH chort but I also think there is nothing wrong with saying he was ineffective on Saturday. What "analysis and insight" am I missing?

Don't listen to the whispering. Heaslip is a world class number 8 and we're lucky to have him. I love the contradictions about Heaslip. I don't comment on munsterfans.com but I do enjoy creeping there a lot. Usual shite from people saying he shouldn't celebrate his tries with one arm in the air, but nothing said about Earls' dive against Italy (RWC 2011 - and you KNOW the same people vilified Ashton for the same thing) and Zebo against Northants (personally, I've no problem with celebrating - Zebo is a young guy playing the best game of his life. Let him enjoy it). But they don't like Heaslip because he wears white boots, and he is chilled off the park etc....

As a matter of interest, why do you think number 8 is the toughest position? Is that a general view, or a personal one?

Just wanted to comment on what has been a very serene and mannerly debate

Suisse - I agree with a lot of what you say about Heaslip. Its all very easy to say that rugby is a 15 man game etc etc but look at the effect taking BOD/POC has on the team - same happens with McCaw and Carter for NZ. I think that all teams have players like this (Johnson, Hill, Eales, etc) who inspired those around them and brought them up to their standard. In the post POC/BOD era, which are pretty much in, we need not just to find replacement players for them, but also replacements for this leadership/inspiration role.

The obvious successors in this regard are Heaslip, Healy, Kearney and Sexton - with Heaslip at the top of this list - best CV, first choice for ages, Lions, very little injuries etc. It is a new role for him and he simply will be judged by different criteria. This is not to excuse other players performances, its just the nature of the role

Heaslip has in some ways I think been hampered by his team mates - at Leinster you had Elsom initially and then SOB, at international level you had Wallace and Ferris. His role has changed so as to play to the strengths of the other guys in the back row - I think people claiming that Heaslip can be anonymous, simply haven't grasped this - his role, particuraly with SOB and Ferris, isn't really to carry - he does far more work at the breakdown.

One point on Munsterfans (and I don't post there, but lurk occassionally) - there are people on there who are anti Heaslip => absolutely not the majority, just people who can't get over the bias. You get exactly teh same thing from some on here about Munster players - nature of things I suppose

[fourthirtythree]

Just because Heaslip is vilified by the ignoramuses on RTÉ and criticised without reason: my favourite being Wales in the 6N where the whispering campaign against him really took off. He was lambasted afterwards and it became common parlance that he was outplayed by his opposite number all the 6N despite his being our best player in that match and actually being the only forward who outplayed his opposite number (but you can't criticise Ferris, or O'Brien, or O'Connell for reasons that are variously sycophantic or patronising). Just because he is vilified by the ugly trolls on shelbyville.com for... growing a moustache for charity I think it is. Just because that level of idiocy has entered the discourse and poisoned it so that no player I can think of in Irish rugby has had to face the whispering campaign against him that Heaslip has.

Just because all of that is no reason not to point out the fact: he had a poor game last weekend. He wasn't alone in it. But he did.

[Golf Man]

Just because Heaslip is vilified by the ignoramuses on RTÉ and criticised without reason: my favourite being Wales in the 6N where the whispering campaign against him really took off. He was lambasted afterwards and it became common parlance that he was outplayed by his opposite number all the 6N despite his being our best player in that match and actually being the only forward who outplayed his opposite number (but you can't criticise Ferris, or O'Brien, or O'Connell for reasons that are variously sycophantic or patronising). Just because he is vilified by the ugly trolls on shelbyville.com for... growing a moustache for charity I think it is. Just because that level of idiocy has entered the discourse and poisoned it so that no player I can think of in Irish rugby has had to face the whispering campaign against him that Heaslip has.

Just because all of that is no reason not to point out the fact: he had a poor game last weekend. He wasn't alone in it. But he did.

Not to go over old ground but you do seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about heaslip - in teh same way that some Munster fans do. Heaslip was outshone by his opposition in teh majority of matches last year. Whether thats because of the standard of the opposition (Parisse, Harinordinquy) or that a couple of players really broke through (Denton, Morgan), or that he was simply playing a different role to them and possibly couldn't compare like with like. I also think that his performance v Wales is being overstated (which for Heaslip defenders has become common parlance) - he was good, was he our best forward, possily but certainly not definitely - also Faletaus stats are more impressive, just)

Its been said by plenty - Heaslip is now and even more so in teh next few years, one of our main go-to guys - he is judged accordingly.

[Lar]

If you are tackled outside the 22 with the ball in hand and driven back inside then it is you/your team who has taken the ball back inside and no matter how many phases of play later if the ball is kicked from inside directly into touch it should be deemed out on the full.

Thats not what the law says however

19.1.b When a team causes the ball to be put into their own 22. When a defending player plays
the ball from outside the 22 and it goes into that player’s 22 or in-goal area without
touching an opposition player and then that player or another player from that team kicks
the ball directly into touch before it touches an opposition player, or a tackle takes place or a
ruck or maul is formed, there is no gain in ground. This applies when a defending player
moves back behind the 22 metre line to take a quick throw-in and then the ball is kicked
directly into touch.

Missed this thread for a few weeks now but I still think that is unclear even having read the rule about four or five times now. I still think Kirchner was tackled outside the 22 and brought the ball back into the 22 so that the tackle did not take place inside the 22 (if it had I agree the rule is clear). My memory is less clear on the incident now but I still think he was tackled outside the 22 and released the ball into the 22.