Six Nations - Full Of Sound And Fury Signifying Nothing

Ooh so much to talk about. Three more matches gone, one fairly dreadful, the other two imperfect but each enthralling in its way.

Let's get the dreadful match out of the way first. Wales v France was dreadful. I've watched it twice and, law of averages I'm afraid, these things will happen. It happens in the NFL, it happens in Super Rugby (a good deal of which is pap, as witnessed by the half empty stadia) and, yes, it happens in the Rugby Championship despite all the tosh you read in the papers. As we lawyers say, 'Shit happens'. Does any of this mean that Wales are a poor side? Of course not. Does it mean France are not getting marginally better? As it happens I can see some purpose to what the French are doing (the brilliant Stephen Jones disagrees with me on this so I am probably wrong). Whether it will lead to the promised land is a different question altogether. In truth I'm not really sure that French rugby has any shared notion of what the promised land looks like, much less where it is. The same has regularly been true of English rugby. At this time of year one only whispers it but international rugby isn't everything you know. I happen to think it the most important thing, but there are others (particularly in the professional club game) who quite legitimately disagree with me.

One last thing on the French - as others have noticed, their captain Guilhem Guirado was heroic, in fact the best player on the pitch.

 

 

 

Magnifique

 

 

 Wales? Same as it ever was. A highly talented and committed bunch of players still to take the step to the elevated place their skills warrant. Will they win at Twickenham? I believe they ought to. This last bit goes without saying - Taulupe Faletau, what a bloody player. Billy Vunipola was terrific (again) for England at the weekend but don't kid yourselves lads, at the moment Faletau is the dog's bollocks (that's a technical term).

Are we sure he's not English?

Italy v Scotland. This was rather fun. You know I really wanted Jaco Peyper to have a better game because I'm on the side of the referees. There are those who played with me who may have to stifle guffaws at this last protestation. Being utterly fair, he did have a better game but ultimately not better enough. Scotland were thoroughly professional at the breakdown when down to fourteen men and Peyper was too generous to them. It made no difference to the result (a deserved Scotland win) but one ought to get these things right. I like what the gloriously stern Vern Cotter is doing with the limited Scottish resources and, no matter what one makes of the eligibility criteria, the spiriting away from New Zealand of flanker John Hardie looks like good business. A good word this week for Stuart Hogg, who gave yet more evidence of just what a fine player he is. We shall, at unfortunate length, return to the subject of 'feisty' fullbacks below. Finally, Parisse and Laidlaw - I'm not sure I can recall a game where both captains were seen to such good effect.

England v Ireland. Refereeing again I'm afraid. Poite cost the Irish a try by asking the TMO the wrong question. A good referee having a moderate game. This is allowed. First things first - did Eddie Jones overstep the mark when he brought Johnny Sexton's parents into the ambit of his mischievous pre-match remarks? Yes, of course he did. Hanging offence? Get a bloody life. Joe Schmidt dealt classily (as he always seems to) with the situation. So did Brian O' Driscoll in his punditry. Move on.

His mother loves him apparently

Mike Brown. This shaven-headed English patriot has become the hate figure du jour for the Celtic blogosphere. Personally I've never met the bloke but I will concede his on-pitch manner can leave a little to be desired, hence another Ronan O'Gara Gobshite nomination from us here at the OG. However there really is an awful lot of ill-informed bluster about his behaviour at the ruck that brought Conor Murray a head injury. Now I'm all in favour of ill-informed bluster but not when it comes from someone being paid to comment as an expert on the matter. Keith Wood (one of my favourite all-time players - no angel, not that this disqualifies his opinion) brusquely dismissed Jeremy Guscott's reading of the incident as 'rubbish'. Wood did have the decency to seem to recant slightly from his peevishness but what was lacking was any evidence that he (or indeed anyone else on the screen) had bothered to read the Laws of the game and to place things in a jurisprudential context. The actual Laws involved were jumbled-up, misrepresented and misunderstood by both channels in their television coverage - and, yes, I'm afraid I have watched both. For those who care, these are the salient points:

• Let's dispense with Law 16 ('The Ruck') - 'A player rucking for the ball must not intentionally ruck players on the ground etc'. If one judges that Brown deliberately booted Murray then he has a case to answer on this count. Most people seem willing to give Brown the benefit of the doubt on this one. That however is not the end of the matter. 
• Law 10, 'Foul Play' is germane. 10.4(b) - 'A player must not stamp or trample on an opponent'. Neither 'stamp' nor 'trample' is defined in the Laws. A tyro prosecuting lawyer might try to fit Brown up under this Law. Said tyro would, I suggest, misunderstand what rugby understands by stamping and trampling. However I concede there is room for debate here. The Citing Commissioner seems to have sided with me on this one.
• 10.4(c) - 'A player must not kick an opponent'. Gotcha? Again, it's not that simple. Certain commentators blithely referred to 'recklessness' as if that somehow clinches the argument. It doesn't. The word 'reckless' does not actually appear in the Laws. The concept is however relevant and this has been made clear in reported disciplinary hearings which are influential (though not in the strictest sense binding) upon those applying the Laws. But what is 'recklessness' in this judicial context? Try this: ' ... the person knew [or should have known] that his or her actions were likely to cause harm.' Now look at that definition again and take out the square bracketed words. What we have there is the difference between objective and subjective tests of recklessness and, trust me, lawyers have been getting excited about that since time immemorial!

Not so simple eh? For what it's worth my own final conclusion (for now!) is that Brown was certainly not reckless with the first kick whose back-stroke actually inflicted the damage on Murray, not that the inflicting of the damage has anything to do with it. His subsequent increasingly ineffectual swings of the boot might just be judged reckless and penalisable. Yellow card? Judgement call and, except when egregiously wrong, those should be left to the man on the spot, so no.

In a perfect (to this admittedy antediluvian writer) world Poite would have blown as soon as Murray himself infringed the ruck laws, first by being off his feet and next by pulling the ball back into the ruck. He would then have gone back to the first offence (Care lying on the ball) and yellow-carded Care, as indeed he eventually did. The problem with this posited 'perfect' world is that I doubt that my preferred sequence would have avoided Murray's injury unless Poite had been there improbably quickly and reacted brilliantly. Which leaves us with - 'Shit happens'.

One man seems to me to have reacted humanely, intellectually and interestingly and that is Joe Schmidt - Schmidt calls for law review . As it happens I would not like to see the ruck law changed but I do see where my opponents are coming from. What you cannot do is change the law retrospectively and then punish a player for a crime he had no way of knowing was a crime. Before we leave this benighted subject here are two questions to toy with: 1. Would I feel the same if the miscreant had been Stuart Hogg? I can only say I hope I would. 2. Would a Pacific Islander behaving as Brown be treated so charitably? This one does trouble me because I have a horrible feeling that the answer would be no. That says terrible things about the morality of the administration of the international game.

The game itself: England were markedly the more accomplished team but scored a lot fewer points than they should. That is problematic and, lest we get carried away with lauding Eddie Jones, hardly a new dilemma. What is James Haskell's problem? He was playing rather well but his foul on Murray was ugly and stupid. Am I the only person who thought the much derided Chris Robshaw had a good game, as in fact he usually does. This writer's derision has been reserved for his captaincy. He is what Bill McClaren might have termed an honest citizen.

By the way it is worth catching BBC Wales' Scrum V from Sunday. The Welsh analysis of the Ford/Farrell 10/12 axis is much less scathing than most Englishmen can bring themselves to manage.

The story so far is this: rugby union can be played far better than we have seen in the Six Nations. This is stating the bleeding obvious. England seem to be trying to improve. The more gifted Wales, say they are but are struggling to manifest progress. Scotland definitely are improving. Ireland do not have their troubles to seek but the situation is far from hopeless. France mystify. Italy, believe it or not, are getting somewhere - in Campagnaro and Garcia they have produced two very nice centres. Their coach is probably past his sell-by date but that's true of a lot of us.

Lastly the serious stuff. Backs with beards - not sure why but this looks wrong to me.