The Great Farrell tackle technique

The following from Planet Rugby:-

"Armless Farrell: It’s a known fact that to repeat the same action time and time again and expect a different outcome is the definition of insanity. For Owen Farrell to yet again give away a penalty as England regained momentum in the second half was farcical. He said with some delicious post-match irony, that he and his side will learn from today. Well, the simple fact is the England pivot hasn’t learned from his previous mistakes and unless he changes his method of tackle, he’s a marked man come the Rugby World Cup and in very simple terms, is one reckless tackle away from infamy."

This is a classic - the dear angel Farrell was excused in the November test when he tried the same stunt against the Springboks in November last year - this time it caught up with him.    This guy will be a targeted man in English campaign in the WC by refs that would be on the look-out for his tactics - it could have disastrous consequences for the English team. .    

Well of course he was excused against the Springboks. That was Esterhuizen's fault as you told us barely a week ago, wasn't it?

When the wriggly wee wirm writhes in desperation, finding himself in a knot. 

Okay it was three weeks ago, but this is precious:

27 Feb (Farrell got a raw deal):

It does and fact is that Esterhuizen did a slow run with no real pace and that led to the so-called illegality of the tackle by Farrell.

19 March (Farrell got lucky):

the dear angel Farrell was excused in the November test when he tried the same stunt against the Springboks in November last year

Dup lication

Pakioe and Silly Billy

How only you two rugby ignorants  make up things is amazing.   I never said the tackle of Farrell was legal - what I did say was the line of running by Esterhuizen was idiotic and slow.  He effectively isolated himself and had no support and no means of having a continuation of any attack.   Non-thinking at best.   

But you two are non-thinkers as well - so Esterhuizen is your hero - birds of a feather flock together.  LMAO .    

I didn't know Pakie was Maori. Right on boet! 

Mike. Andre didn't have time to go left, the fierce outside rush cut him off completely. He ran to the right, into space. Had he not received a cheap shot, the Boks would have retained possession. I know you like the way Damian runs into the teeth of the defence, but this is not always a good idea. 

Had Andre continued with the original plan, the Boks would have in all likelihood been turned over or penalized. 

Come on liar - who said Paki was a Maori BSter

Darted  or ambled sideways - just below normal running pace - is what was the case.  Ag kak again - keep to facts please.   The angle Esterhuizen took isolated himself and would not lead to anything bar a ball takeover - whether the tackle was legal or illegal.

Start thinking for a change please. dimwit  

I never said the tackle of Farrell was legal

"so-called illegality" - that means that you consider "illegality" an incorrect description of the nature of the incident.

1+1=2

Actually, it all began with a poor pass from Papier. We had four forwards in the middle of the field with Jantjies and Damian in-behind. Andre was much further out. Papier's poor pass left Andre picking the ball up off the ground, and the English advancing quickly upon him. How would run faster into the Farrell cheap shot lessen the impact of the challenge? 

Pakie

Remember BSter there was NO ACTION taken by disciplinary authorities and until such action is taken it is alleged illegality.   So wake up non-thinker.  

Silly Billy give us a pace description on what Esterhuizen did and then lets get it straight - if he went forwards he would have had ball protection should he be tackled - note 12 and 22 would have been there and 12 is known for being one of the best backline ball protectors and turnover players  in rugby.    

The one who is happy to let the "authorities" tell him what to think about an incident has the gall to call someone else a "non-thinker".

Still BSter I did not announce anything - in legal terms it means a person is an alleged criminal until found guilty - acceptable approach in most civilized countries.  

However, despite the above I gave an accurate description as to what happened and you go bananas.   

This actually ties into my post entitled "The Art of the Long Dart". We don't have 9s who can pass long. If Papier was able to pass long, Jantjies would have had the ball and Andre would have received it with one man to beat. Notice that would have been a 3v2 with the wing out wide. The entire opportunity was ruined because of our 9. 

Papier.

I'm not Cloudy, I think when Mike calls me "Pakioe" I just sound it a tiny bit.

"Pakioe and Silly Billy"

Silly Billy 

Agree with you about the pass =- but the resultant non-thinking reaction of Esterhuiznen was doomed from the start and was a major problem as well. -  FACT

doomed from the start and was a major problem as well.-  FACT

Mike channeling his inner Dave.

Howzit Cloud ......... the fellas are merely having a rare pop at ouMaaik who misspelt Pakie, calling him Pakioe instead ........  Pakie lives it Pofadder.

Non-thinking? He ran away from pressure. Look at the defence in the first picture, look either side of the ruck, now tell me where Andre should have run. 

Pakie lives it Pofadder

Freaking spies everywhere

Silly Billy 

Run straight at the opposition - non-thinker.   Especially since you constantly brags about how powerful a ball carrier Esterhuizen  is.   What he did was totally stupid - end of story.

You are straining too hard. 

Silly Billy

No Just stating the truth  and reality - things you are not expert in