Ospreys V Munster. Sept 29 6.30 Team post # 127

[jeepers]

In the commentary they say that it must have happened after Varley got up.

According to Penney in the Indo today:

"I haven't seen it, so I can't comment. Damien has got a pretty good record in that area. He said he got his foot caught up in the tackle, so we'll just have to wait and see the footage of it," said Penney.

Varley has got 4 YCs up to now, so his record is decent enough.

[MrsMcGahan]

It might not have been the BJ 'stamp' - it might have been Varley, off camera, kicking out to free his foot........

[Blindsider.]

To be brutally honest it was one of those 'accidently on purpose - you're on the wrong side' but is hard to prove as deliberate.
And certainly unrecognisable from the intent/correct culprit/and action described by that eejit of an AR.
Don't think that will be cited.
Nonsense from the AR.

There is an automatic hearing following a RC. In this age of multiple cameras, I would be surprised if some sort of camera angle was not produced. The AR would then have to reconcile his version with the camera footage. If he was unable to, the RC would stand, (can a RC be rescinded?) but no further action would be taken.

I guess this is still speculation, and Penney etc will call the shots. I presume there will be some announcement in the next 48hrs.

[Thomond78]

FFS, Frog, fix the site. It keeps swallowing paragraph breaks even on edits!

[Thomond78]

There is an automatic hearing following a RC. In this age of multiple cameras, I would be surprised if some sort of camera angle was not produced. The AR would then have to reconcile his version with the camera footage. If he was unable to, the RC would stand, (can a RC be rescinded?) but no further action would be taken. I guess this is still speculation, and Penney etc will call the shots. I presume there will be some announcement in the next 48hrs.

A red card can be rescinded.

[Thomond78]

It might not have been the BJ 'stamp' - it might have been Varley, off camera, kicking out to free his foot........

Checked the aftermath. POM is standing up straddling both of them. Varley had his head face-down into the ground. AWJ's head was up around Varley's crotch/chest at that point. On the last screen shot, you can see Varley's right boot is roughly level with AWJ's left hip. Neither gets up, nor could either get up with POM standing over them. Simply: there seems to be physically no way at all that Varley could get his boot into a position to hit AWJ in the face.AWJ does not wince about his face afterwards at all. He does wince when water gets sprayed down his top on where BJ clipped him on the way through, which is entirely consistent.

[NotreDameRFC]

Checked the aftermath. POM is standing up straddling both of them. Varley had his head face-down into the ground. AWJ's head was up around Varley's crotch/chest at that point. On the last screen shot, you can see Varley's right boot is roughly level with AWJ's left hip. Neither gets up, nor could either get up with POM standing over them. Simply: there seems to be physically no way at all that Varley could get his boot into a position to hit AWJ in the face.AWJ does not wince about his face afterwards at all. He does wince when water gets sprayed down his top on where BJ clipped him on the way through, which is entirely consistent.

you have 2nd thoughts T??

[Hugged Rugger]

Is there a 48 hour citing period? If so, would we raise the "POM Defence" after 8.30 on Monday evening?

dont think citing periods apply with red cards. you just have a hearing set

[MrsMcGahan]

Can you see Varley getting up T78? Is it possible AWJ clawed at his foot at that point?

'Cos if the AR is reading BJ's stepping foot as Varley lashing out with his boot then he's a pure bred amadan'

Not unlikely after the song and dance over an innocuous brush by Zebo on a chaser but.........pretty badly wrong.

[Armin Tamzarian]

T78 - who is that fella in orange looking directly at the ruck in your screencaps


I agree that POM seems to catch AWJ as he swings over the ruck - nothing in it IMO. He also catches in the right hip, whereas AWJ seems to get treatment on his left cshoulder.

I suspect that the incident must have happened after the ruck. The touchjudge says it happened after No16 got up so this would conform more to his version. I don't think there is footage of the actual indicent.

[Thomond78]

you have 2nd thoughts T??

On what we have in that, ND: yes, I am. Attachment is the wide-shot more or less when play broke down. Varley is still down, as is AWJ.

[MrsMcGahan]

T7The touchjudge says it happened after No16 got up so this would conform more to his version. I don't think there is footage of the actual indicent.

Indicency now as well
That's immoral, never mind illegal.

[flsghujslkuo]

I thought Archer did well in the first fifty, but faded after that. Lest we forget that many a prop before him have been given the arses to them on plate by more experienced props. A young John Hayes was given an absolute b**locking over his scrumming performances. Give Archer a break. His is still learning his trade. Penney has a great track record in developing players, and I have no doubt that Archer will be a better player as time goes by.

[Thomond78]

I thought Archer did well in the first fifty, but faded after that. Lest we forget that many a prop before him have been given the arses to them on plate by more experienced props. A young John Hayes was given an absolute b**locking over his scrumming performances. Give Archer a break. His is still learning his trade. Penney has a great track record in developing players, and I have no doubt that Archer will be a better player as time goes by.

Two years ago, Healy - a considerably more experienced prop then than Archer is now - was getting smashed on the engage. He's now a top-class scrummager.

[Armin Tamzarian]

Indicency now as well
That's immoral, never mind illegal.

a Freudian tit on my part

[Thomond78]

I've checked this on Another Place. People who were on that side at the game are adamant it was NOT POM, and that there was nothing wrong with POM. They're saying it was AFTER that, by Varley.However, on the wide shot, AWJ and Varley still seem both to be down.So, God knows.

[FORWARD....]

I've checked this on Another Place. People who were on that side at the game are adamant it was NOT POM, and that there was nothing wrong with POM. They're saying it was AFTER that, by Varley.However, on the wide shot, AWJ and Varley still seem both to be down.So, God knows.

Why are you shouting?

[Thomond78]

Why are you shouting?

Because I fupping feel like it.

[Evil Omer]

Just managed to have a look back at the RC incident. The AR was Greg Morgan.

1. Before the ref went to the AR to discuss the flag, the cameras picked out Munster 19 and stayed there - they're not infallible, but the cameras usually get it right!

2. The AR says "There's just a little spat there...players on the floor...16 red got up off the floor, right...and then...em..just backlashed with the foot, in the face of Alun...of the Ospreys player." The ref paraphrases and asks the AR "Did he look where he was going? Was it deliberate?" AR nods and confirms that it was deliberate. Ref asks "Are you certain about that?" AR nods and says "Yes". Ref asks for sanction....RC.

I have never condoned foul play, in fact, quite the opposite.

In this instance however, It looks to me like the AR got the wrong player and has exaggerated the incident. If a player 'deliberately' uses the boot on another players face, then you'd normally expect to see an injury - none exists. This in itself is not conclusive, but considering that the AR has probably RC'd the wrong player, what else did he get wrong?

BTW, unless I'm very much mistaken, this is the same AR who pinged Zebo for a nothing incident - I'm trying to find that incident now - but IIRC Dirksen....I've just found it 12 mins in.

I've just watched it in slo-mo.......

The same AR says that Zebo "stepped purposely (sic)" in...."

What a load of codswallop! Zebo DID look at him, DIDN'T change his line, DID turn at the right moment and WAS hauled down by Dirksen who grabbed Zebo by the collar and dragged him down.

Zebo was under no obligation to change his path of running - he does not have to get out of Dirksen's way.

That AR is in for a bit of a roasting I reckon - 1 bad flag (Zebo) and then he (possibly/probably) RC'd the wrong player.

Dudley Philips will be none too happy with him when he reviews the tape, and more importantly, I think that Varley has a good chance of getting away with this.

(It is theoretically possible for the Citing Commissioner to cite another Munster player if he see fit - and, if someone has a case to answer, then so be it!)

You missed that he was also the AR who missed the WWE style flying forearm on Zebo as well - which was at least as clear in view as the red card incident, hence why I ranted "red card surely" at that moment during the game.

[Evil Omer]

To be brutally honest it was one of those 'accidently on purpose - you're on the wrong side' but is hard to prove as deliberate.
And certainly unrecognisable from the intent/correct culprit/and action described by that eejit of an AR.
Don't think that will be cited.
Nonsense from the AR.

with our track record I wouldn't rule that out as being a long ban - remember the Flannery incident where one opposition player was pulling his leg and he ends up scuffing/kicking another player on the floor. Intent wasn't clear there. Accident due to having his leg pulled forward was easy enough to establish. Long ban resulted. Would expect the same here for someone.

[dropkick]

I watched a bit of the match back again and noticed a few things.


On occasions there were big gaps in midfield for the centers to exploit but they just continued to pass the ball out to the wing, which was more heavily defended. They need to be thinking more and more aware of space but at least it shows the new attacking style was still creating opportunities even though Munster were not playing well. As the season goes on and as more teams concentrate on defending Munster out wide, I think the likes of Downey, Keatley and Murray will be afforded more space to exploit.


The match itself was fairly even. There was only 4 pts in it at the start of the second half and Munster were growing into it. Then the scrums started going badly wrong and it resulted in the penalty try. The Ospreys were also using their maul to good effect. The forwards were brought on a little too late but maybe its better in the long run that Penney will have learned more about the starting players.


The halfback/midfield defense was very poor. ROG and Stringer are very small and Earls, Lualala looked a bit lost. It was their first time playing together so not unexpected. Add Murray, Keatley and Downey to greatly strengthen that area.

[Evil Omer]

I watched a bit of the match back again and noticed a few things.


On occasions there were big gaps in midfield for the centers to exploit but they just continued to pass the ball out to the wing, which was more heavily defended. They need to be thinking more and more aware of space but at least it shows the new attacking style was still creating opportunities even though Munster were not playing well. As the season goes on and as more teams concentrate on defending Munster out wide, I think the likes of Downey, Keatley and Murray will be afforded more space to exploit.


The match itself was fairly even. There was only 4 pts in it at the start of the second half and Munster were growing into it. Then the scrums started going badly wrong and it resulted in the penalty try. The Ospreys were also using their maul to good effect. The forwards were brought on a little too late but maybe its better in the long run that Penney will have learned more about the starting players.


The halfback/midfield defense was very poor. ROG and Stringer are very small and Earls, Lualala looked a bit lost. It was their first time playing together so not unexpected. Add Murray, Keatley and Downey to greatly strengthen that area.

My only query on that would be why is everyone looking to criticise Earls when the poor performance was from one centre alone? It just seems to be going on a lot on this thread and I don't get it at all. At times it seems to be criticism based on the fact that he played outside the guy who had a very bad day at the office so he's guilty by association.

[dropkick]

My only query on that would be why is everyone looking to criticise Earls when the poor performance was from one centre alone? It just seems to be going on a lot on this thread and I don't get it at all. At times it seems to be criticism based on the fact that he played outside the guy who had a very bad day at the office so he's guilty by association.

I was talking about Earls and Lualala as a defensive unit. Earls could have made a few line breaks but choose to pass the ball wide. Its a small criticism. Howlett, Hurley and Zebo took the wrong option a few times as well.

The new style is still a work in progress so thing like this will happen.

[Evil Omer]

I was talking about Earls and Lualala as a defensive unit. Earls could have made a few line breaks but choose to pass the ball wide. Its a small criticism. Howlett, Hurley and Zebo took the wrong option a few times as well.

The new style is still a work in progress so thing like this will happen.

sorry wasn't just aimed at you, you were just the latest. I think the issue was predominantly 10 & 12 were poor causing problems outside them because there was nothing to work with. Noticeably we did better with broken play running.

[Blindsider.]

Varley's hearing is on tomorrow in Embra.

[John Cooper Clarke]

JCC, that you're talking about "it was a second hooker on the Grassy Knoll" shows the reality of it: he is near-certainly gone. I think there's only been one mistaken identity defence that worked. As POC's one showed, they'll change the specific charge to cover blushes ("Elbow, fist, meh, who cares, you're gone"). He is also suspended until the hearing, which or whether. So, do as the English clubs do and loudly announce you're suspending him. Makes no difference, looks better, tugs the forelock to the blazers (and when you see that Eating Biscuits In A Cheeky Manner has been treated as aggravating in the past, you see how important that is), and says we're taking this seriously. It works for the English, who persistently get amazingly light sentences, so, we'd be well-advised to follow their lead. Can't hurt, at worst makes no difference, and might even help. It's the sensible thing to do.

This explains many many things. You actually couldn't have been much more wrong, even if you tried.

[Thomond78]

And you were running the "not me" line. Here's the thing: they upheld the red card. Just like I said would happen. Sentence only.

Now, any more threads you'd like to stink up with your petulant obsession?

[John Cooper Clarke]

And you were running the "not me" line. Here's the thing: they upheld the red card. Just like I said would happen. Sentence only.

Now, any more threads you'd like to stink up with your petulant obsession?

How many weeks ban did he get? Upholding a card is a smokescreen and nothing more.

Me stink up threads? I suggest you look at the man in the mirror T78.

[Thomond78]

Oh, the blissful quiet of the button...

[Waterfordlad]

How do you know he is on if you hit de button??!!