Northern Edition

Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'No mathematical sense': Ireland's decision to take points on offer scrutinised

(Photo by Aurelien Meunier/Getty Images)

Despite being down 22-7 at one stage in the first half, Andy Farrell’s side came back in Paris to make a contest of their clash against France by climbing back to a 27-21 deficit.

ADVERTISEMENT

With seven minutes remaining and Ireland camped in France’s 22, captain James Ryan pointed to the posts to close the gap to 27-24 instead of kicking to the corner.

Head coach Andy Farrell defended the call to go for three points, saying there is no doubt it was ‘the right decision’ in the moment. However, fans and pundits alike were not happy with the call.

Video Spacer

RugbyPass Offload | Episode 20

Video Spacer

RugbyPass Offload | Episode 20

Former Ireland great Brian O’Driscoll was critical of the decision in the post-match coverage on ITV, saying it seemed like the ‘obvious route’ to kick for the corner and attempt to get another maul try.

“Of course it’s not the right call because they haven’t won the game, but it’s easy to look back retrospectively,” O’Driscoll said.

“In real time, all of us were discussing it and deliberating it here. Because they had success from the previous maul and van der Flier scored a try from it, it seemed like the obvious route to go.

“They were six behind so were going to have to score at least another penalty to only draw the game, whereas seven points would have put them into the lead if they scored the try and knocked over the conversion.

ADVERTISEMENT

What surprised the former outside centre was that they changed tactic from the aggressive intent they have showed recently, shying away from going for the try.

“I’m just surprised with this team’s mentality. They go to the corner so often, but yet when it got tight like this they didn’t back themselves.”

Fans alike questioned the call, saying the ‘shambolic’ call ‘made no mathematical sense’ and lacked ‘ambition to win’.

ADVERTISEMENT

Head coach Andy Farrell and captain James Ryan were adamant that the right decision was made on the field, with enough time remaining to still win the game after taking the three points.

“It’s the right decision, there is no doubt about that,” Farrell said in the post-match press conference.

“They feel the game, they are in the moment, they understand what is happening. There is plenty of time left, we have a lineout after that when we was a couple of points down.

Captain James Ryan also was unwavering in his belief saying ‘it was the right decision at the time’ when Ireland were on top of France.

“It just felt like it was the right decision at the time,” a disappointed Ryan said after Ireland came up short 30-24 to a powerful French outfit.

“We were imposing our game on them in that period. We felt confident in our attack and we thought we could bring the game to three points and we backed ourselves to go and win the game then off the back of that.”

ADVERTISEMENT

LIVE

{{item.title}}

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

T
Tom 6 hours ago
What is the future of rugby in 2025?

Briiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistol! Briiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistol! Briiiiiiiiiiiiiiiistol!


It's incredible to see the boys playing like this. Back to the form that saw them finish on top of the regular season and beat Toulon to win the challenge cup. Ibitoye and Ravouvou doing a cracking Piutau/Radradra impression.


It's abundantly clear that Borthwick and Wigglesworth need to transform the England attack and incorporate some of the Bears way. Unfortunately until the Bears are competing in Europe, the old criticisms will still be used.. we failed to fire any punches against La Rochelle and Leinster which goes to show there is still work to do but both those sides are packed full of elite players so it's not the fairest comparison to expect Bristol to compete with them. I feel Bristol are on the way up though and the best is yet to come. Tom Jordan next year is going to be obscene.


Test rugby is obviously a different beast and does Borthwick have enough time with the players to develop the level of skill the Bears plays have? Even if he wanted to? We should definitely be able to see some progress, Scotland have certainly managed it. England aren't going to start throwing the ball around like that but England's attack looks prehistoric by comparison, I hope they take some inspiration from the clarity and freedom of expression shown by the Bears (and Scotland - who keep beating us, by the way!). Bristol have the best attack in the premiership, it'd be mad for England to ignore it because it doesn't fit with the Borthwick and Wigglesworth idea of how test rugby should be played. You gotta use what is available to you. Sadly I think England will try reluctantly to incorporate some of these ideas and end up even more confused and lacking identity than ever. At the moment England have two teams, they have 14 players and Marcus Smith. Marcus sticks out as a sore thumb in a team coached to play in a manner ideologically opposed to the way he plays rugby, does the Bears factor confuse matters further? I just have no confidence in Borthers and Wiggles.


Crazy to see the Prem with more ball in play than SR!

7 Go to comments
J
JW 10 hours ago
Does South Africa have a future in European competition?

In another recent article I tried to argue for a few key concept changes for EPCR which I think could light the game up in the North.


First, I can't remember who pointed out the obvious elephant in the room (a SA'n poster?), it's a terrible time to play rugby in the NH, and especially your pinnacle tournament. It's been terrible watching with seemingly all the games I wanted to watch being in the dark, hardly able to see what was going on. The Aviva was the only stadium I saw that had lights that could handle the miserable rain. If the global appeal is there, they could do a lot better having day games.


They other primary idea I thuoght would benefit EPCR most, was more content. The Prem could do with it and the Top14 could do with something more important than their own league, so they aren't under so much pressure to sell games. The quality over quantity approach.


Trim it down to two 16 team EPCR competitions, and introduce a third for playing amongst the T2 sides, or the bottom clubs in each league should simply be working on being better during the EPCR.


Champions Cup is made up of league best 15 teams, + 1, the Challenge Cup winner. Without a reason not to, I'd distribute it evenly based on each leauge, dividing into thirds and rounded up, 6 URC 5 Top14 4 English. Each winner (all four) is #1 rank and I'd have a seeding round or two for the other 12 to determine their own brackets for 2nd, 3rd, and 4th. I'd then hold a 6 game pool, home and away, with consecutive of each for those games that involve SA'n teams. Preferrably I'd have a regional thing were all SA'n teams were in the same pool but that's a bit complex for this simple idea.


That pool round further finalises the seeding for knockout round of 16. So #1 pool has essentially duked it out for finals seeding already (better venue planning), and to see who they go up against 16, 15,etc etc. Actually I think I might prefer a single pool round for seeding, and introduce the home and away for Ro16, quarters, and semis (stuffs up venue hire). General idea to produce the most competitive matches possible until the random knockout phase, and fix the random lottery of which two teams get ranked higher after pool play, and also keep the system identical for the Challenge Cup so everthing is succinct. Top T2 side promoted from last year to make 16 in Challenge Cup

207 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING How the Black Ferns Sevens reacted to Michaela Blyde's code switch Michaela Blyde's NRLW move takes team by surprise
Search