Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

P14 R6) Us V Ulster - TP - Saturday @ 5.15 - Eir and Premiersports

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • dropkick
    replied
    Now we know why they were so fired up.


    likewise centre Luke Marshall, who went further and commented on how this team has used the criticism of being considered soft from Bill Johnston’s experience with Munster and used it to spur themselves on.

    https://www.the42.ie/john-cooney-obs...19668-Dec2019/

    Leave a comment:


  • mr chips
    replied
    Originally posted by mr chips View Post
    In terms of how they're viewed outside of the two provinces, their starting props are probably better regarded than ours, but I don't share that view - Ryan was the one brought to Japan and neither McGrath nor Moore have been at their peak for a while now, plus I reckon Cronin will be out to prove a point. Just hope he keeps some ice in the mind to go with the fire in the belly! Eric O'Sullivan will be a real handful in the scrum, we'll be doing well to deal with him when he comes on. The two starting hookers are now direct competitors for the starting Irish jersey, so it'll be interesting to see how each performs in relation to the other. I think we're stronger there, especially from the bench.

    At second row, O'Connor is an honest hard worker but Carter will be a weapon for them. I'd like to think much the same could be said about our pair though! The contest between Wycherley and Treadwell should be worth watching out for later in the game - Fineen has a chance to lay down a marker against a bigger and more experienced competitor. In the back row, we've two lineout receivers, along with plenty of tackling, poaching and carrying ability. Things won't all go our way as Reidy is underrated and Murphy is a strong player, but I think so long as we can keep the penalty count to a minimum we'll have the edge here - especially with both JOD and Botha waiting to be unleashed and Coetzee not featuring for them.

    At half back, Cooney is a real danger and Shanahan has a habit of coming on to find gaps in tired defences, while BillJo will relish the chance to outplay his opposite number - I'm more concerned about him than I am about Curtis. That said, all of Alby, JJ and Tyler have been in fine form recently and I think together with our home advantage and frankly our coaching ticket we will have enough to deal with whatever they throw at us and create plenty of problems for them into the bargain.

    McCloskey & Marshall vs Scannell & Farrell is very tight, with both of the bigger lads having decent offloading and gainline breaking abilities, while the smaller two kind of cancel each other out - Scannell better at defending and kicking from hand, Marshall a better attacker. Again, I think we'll just about edge it here. While we gain something with the extra back row cover, they outgun us in the back three and we could be vulnerable if e.g. JJ has to be moved to 15 for injury cover, not only against their bigger names in Faddes and Stockdale but also given how easily Lyttle and Balacoune can zip through defences or win the sprint up the tramlines. I just don't know whether Coombes' skill and speed will make up for his lack of experience here, but I'm looking forward to finding out. Gwan Liam!

    Overall, I think it'll be more or less even in the scrum, with advantage to us in the lineout and at the breakdown over the course of a hard-fought contest. I'll be happy with a home win without a bonus point, while Ulster should have enough to seriously frighten us and get at least the LBP. Definitely worth the trip.
    Don't think I was too far out. Surprised McFarland didn't make full use of his bench - especially Shanahan and Johnston, who could have hurt us had he introduced them with 20 to go - and I have to say that from that game and every other one I've seen him in to date, Faddes hasn't shown himself to be as useful a player for them as Piutau could be, when he bothered his hole. Thought Coombes went well, one KO aside - certainly brought more to the game than Stockdale did. We struggled a couple of times with their scrum early on but got a handle on it as the game progressed. Rory Scannell did better than I expected him to in attack, while Farrell was a bit less visible than I expected him to be. Our attacking gameplan was disrupted following the injury to JJ, just at a point where we looked like putting them under serious pressure, and we took a while to readjust - too long. Between that and our inability to keep the penalty count low (thanks partly to an uneven performance from Frank, from whom I genuinely expected better), I understand the decision late on to try and secure the result ahead of trying to get the TBP.

    Job done, next up is the start of the European campaign. Hope JJ isn't too badly hurt - we really need him.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sulla
    replied
    Originally posted by mickiemcfist View Post
    Any thoughts on the match lads? Can we send the redundant law interpretation arguments to the laws thread?
    Best (official) attendance of the Pro14 so far this season, great to see Munster supporters out backing their team...


    plus great to see new supporters, like the 10 US female exchange students, who were enjoying the ability to buy & drink beer legally a bit too much.. still they got a good numbe rof selfies, even if they left 20 mins before the end.

    Leave a comment:


  • lawrence
    replied
    Originally posted by mickiemcfist View Post
    Any thoughts on the match lads? Can we send the redundant law interpretation arguments to the laws thread?
    Yea. The ref was ****e

    Leave a comment:


  • jagawayagain
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    it doesnt make refereeing harder. If you just penalise players all the time for infringements then the game isnt as good. There were 17 penalties Saturday. Do as you suggest and there would be many more than that. ARs do keep play and do tell refs of infringements and at levels below this the touch judges cant make calls to same degree as they are touch judges and dont have power to make calls.
    The sport isnt going to change how its referees because of this. You have to look at materiality. Its same philosophy in all areas of the game. Players enter rucks in side/off their feet all the time. Are they penalised all the time. No because you cant just penalise every infringement of the law.
    Of course it does, given that ‘materiality’ is at best a judgement call it must be more difficult than a decision which relies less on judgement. I can happily relay information on which brain structures are involved in each case, what the effect of sleep loss, time zone travel etc, if you’d like.

    Leave a comment:


  • mickiemcfist
    replied
    Any thoughts on the match lads? Can we send the redundant law interpretation arguments to the laws thread?

    Leave a comment:


  • The Last Stand
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    it doesnt stop. Which refs officiate in the way you describe?

    Well Angus Gardner (and his team) penalises offside even when the team in Green is not offside. Confirmed afterwards by World Rugby as incorrect calls.

    But generally the better refs tell the teams in advance what they will be looking out for. If there is a transgression the ref will blow and remind them of such (Nigel Owens is a case in point). Following that the teams behave a bit more. Now if a ref warns and does not blow then it is fair game.

    it is not an easy job as a ref in rugby but refs can and should do better. TMOs can help with messages to the ref guiding him or her on transgressions such as offside etc. While keeping the flow of the game.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

    You penalise offside a couple of times early on and it stops. You don’t need to continuously penalise teams all game.

    Some refs do it and it works. Not sure why you’re so keen to see illegal tactics, which that stifle open attacking rugby, being ignored.

    Not policing the offside line is more damaging to the spectacle than giving a couple of extra penalties in the first quarter.
    it doesnt stop. Which refs officiate in the way you describe?


    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Whac
    replied
    Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

    You penalise offside a couple of times early on and it stops. You don’t need to continuously penalise teams all game.

    Some refs do it and it works. Not sure why you’re so keen to see illegal tactics, which that stifle open attacking rugby, being ignored.

    Not policing the offside line is more damaging to the spectacle than giving a couple of extra penalties in the first quarter.
    It really is that simple, I don't know why OL thinks teams will persist in being offside if they gain nothing from it, in fact, they forfeit field position by being penalised.

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    it doesnt make refereeing harder. If you just penalise players all the time for infringements then the game isnt as good. There were 17 penalties Saturday. Do as you suggest and there would be many more than that. ARs do keep play and do tell refs of infringements and at levels below this the touch judges cant make calls to same degree as they are touch judges and dont have power to make calls.
    The sport isnt going to change how its referees because of this. You have to look at materiality. Its same philosophy in all areas of the game. Players enter rucks in side/off their feet all the time. Are they penalised all the time. No because you cant just penalise every infringement of the law.
    You penalise offside a couple of times early on and it stops. You don’t need to continuously penalise teams all game.

    Some refs do it and it works. Not sure why you’re so keen to see illegal tactics, which that stifle open attacking rugby, being ignored.

    Not policing the offside line is more damaging to the spectacle than giving a couple of extra penalties in the first quarter.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Whac
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    varies hugely depending on situation and I watched game backs gain there. It seriously wasnt that bad. Certainly not to the point where so many here are whining about it.
    So you can't or won't give a specific example of what you class as a "material" offside but you persistently use it as an a way to say the ref was correct and anyone who disagrees is a moaner.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by jagawayagain View Post

    PW, i,m not sure there is much point in pursuing this, OL has very firm views on the sanctity of referees.

    personally I think the “material” issue is highly problematic and actually makes life more difficult for referees. I would hope that what we used to call linesmen should be up with the play, and standing in line with the rear most foot etc, they can then easily indicate to the referee that an infringement is taking place, allowing him to warn the offending side, if they fail to adjust, he penalises. For higher level games where there is audio connection between the officials this is easily done, raising a flag etc would cover games where this isn’t available. The officials make clear before the game starts that there is zero tolerance of offside, and will penalise accordingly. The behaviour will soon change when it is clear this is being adhered to. In a fast moving game, where the referee has so much else to do, requiring them to make a more complex decision (is the offside ,material,) rather than a simpler one, are they still off side post warning, is much less likely to result in poor or erratic decision making.
    it doesnt make refereeing harder. If you just penalise players all the time for infringements then the game isnt as good. There were 17 penalties Saturday. Do as you suggest and there would be many more than that. ARs do keep play and do tell refs of infringements and at levels below this the touch judges cant make calls to same degree as they are touch judges and dont have power to make calls.
    The sport isnt going to change how its referees because of this. You have to look at materiality. Its same philosophy in all areas of the game. Players enter rucks in side/off their feet all the time. Are they penalised all the time. No because you cant just penalise every infringement of the law.

    Leave a comment:


  • ormond lad
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Whac View Post

    What would you consider a "material" offside.

    1st, 2nd, 3rd, player out from a ruck offside? The player who is offside but is the player who tackles the first receiver? These were ignored on Saturday night by the officials.
    varies hugely depending on situation and I watched game backs gain there. It seriously wasnt that bad. Certainly not to the point where so many here are whining about it.

    Leave a comment:


  • jagawayagain
    replied
    Originally posted by Paddy Whac View Post

    What would you consider a "material" offside.

    1st, 2nd, 3rd, player out from a ruck offside? The player who is offside but is the player who tackles the first receiver? These were ignored on Saturday night by the officials.
    PW, i,m not sure there is much point in pursuing this, OL has very firm views on the sanctity of referees.

    personally I think the “material” issue is highly problematic and actually makes life more difficult for referees. I would hope that what we used to call linesmen should be up with the play, and standing in line with the rear most foot etc, they can then easily indicate to the referee that an infringement is taking place, allowing him to warn the offending side, if they fail to adjust, he penalises. For higher level games where there is audio connection between the officials this is easily done, raising a flag etc would cover games where this isn’t available. The officials make clear before the game starts that there is zero tolerance of offside, and will penalise accordingly. The behaviour will soon change when it is clear this is being adhered to. In a fast moving game, where the referee has so much else to do, requiring them to make a more complex decision (is the offside ,material,) rather than a simpler one, are they still off side post warning, is much less likely to result in poor or erratic decision making.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paddy Whac
    replied
    Originally posted by ormond lad View Post
    why bother discuss refs here then. I do defend them and get unfair criticism for doing it but only do because of all the one eyed bull spread by far too many here on refs and their decisions. Every game is the same with offside. Every ref. No reffing team between ref and assistants will pull offisdes like ye here want because majority are not material, necessary because not going to impact ball/ball carrier.
    offsides are not always material.
    I have watched game back now. Was there one or two offisdes that could have been penalised. Yes. But from the ****e talk here you would think every tackle/ruck had players miles offisde. When they didn't

    What would you consider a "material" offside.

    1st, 2nd, 3rd, player out from a ruck offside? The player who is offside but is the player who tackles the first receiver? These were ignored on Saturday night by the officials.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X