Treviso v Ulster Match Thread, 11/01/15 1400 BBC2NI

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, that's not the criteria. You don't remove the player from play entirely. If that was the case then any penalty in any one on one situation after a line break would be a penalty try!

If Gilroy was not offside it would be impossible to say a try would probably have been scored, so it was not a penalty try. There wasn't even a question of it.

It is the criteria. Most recent example I can think of is Liam Williams giving away a penalty try against SA due to that idiotic shoulder charge.

I can't figure out how to get a link to a video from the YouTube app but look it up and listen to Steve Walsh. He clearly states that you take the defender out of the equation. I'm sure he knows the laws of the game.

Shelflife

rrpc wrote: »

No, you remove the infringement, not the infringer. In your example it could be reasonable to assume a legal tackle could have been made so a try isn't certain.

Alternatively a 5m scrum is marching towards the line and is collapsed. Again it's reasonable to assume that it would have crossed the line if it hadn't been pulled down, therefore a penalty try.

But by your own criteria you could assume that if the prop didnt collapse the scrum and scrummed correctly and well (same as putting in a good tackle) then the forward momentum would have stopped and a try legally prevented.

There would be no such thing as a pen try if that criteria was used.

rrpc

rrpc wrote: »

No, you remove the infringement, not the infringer. In your example it could be reasonable to assume a legal tackle could have been made so a try isn't certain.

Alternatively a 5m scrum is marching towards the line and is collapsed. Again it's reasonable to assume that it would have crossed the line if it hadn't been pulled down, therefore a penalty try.

Again, this is wrong. See the Liam Williams vs SA incident. The fact he could have made a legal tackle was not relevant.

irishbucsfan

I swear there's some sort of twilight zone that exists in match threads where people completely forget the laws of the game! Liam Williams' shoulder charge was in the act of scoring the try, he was pretty much over the line, it's a terrible example!

There is no way Treviso should have been given a penalty try today.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I swear there's some sort of twilight zone that exists in match threads where people completely forget the laws of the game! Liam Williams' shoulder charge was in the act of scoring the try, he was pretty much over the line, it's a terrible example!

There is no way Treviso should have been given a penalty try today.

The only point I was making is that you do take the offending player out of the equation when considering a penalty try.

irishbucsfan

Miracle Tight Sinus wrote: »

The only point I was making is that you do take the offending player out of the equation when considering a penalty try.

No that's not the case. Unless the offense takes place in the act of scoring a try, the logical conclusion to that interpretation just makes no sense at all, there's far too much abstraction to it.

bilston

vienne86 wrote: »

Didn't follow this match. How did Jackson go?

Was very good

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No that's not the case. Unless the offense takes place in the act of scoring a try, the logical conclusion to that interpretation just makes no sense at all, there's far too much abstraction to it.

An international ref says it is the case. I know who I believe.

irishbucsfan

Miracle Tight Sinus wrote: »

An international ref says it is the case. I know who I believe.

Right, in one example which actually was in the act of scoring a try, in the middle of a game, while (for a reason only known to himself) justifying his decision to the Welsh captain. If you're going to base your entire understanding of laws on examples like that then best of luck.

vienne86

bilston wrote: »

Was very good

Good news for Irleland.

rrpc

Shelflife wrote: »

But by your own criteria you could assume that if the prop didnt collapse the scrum and scrummed correctly and well (same as putting in a good tackle) then the forward momentum would have stopped and a try legally prevented.

There would be no such thing as a pen try if that criteria was used.

No, because the act of collapsing the scrum in that scenario is deemed to be done to prevent a try being scored. A high tackle is still a tackle, so there's no certainty of a try being scored.

bilston

vienne86 wrote: »

Good news for Irleland.

Was kicking as well

vienne86

bilston wrote: »

Was kicking as well

Oh splendid. Hope I at least get to see highlights.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Right, in one example which actually was in the act of scoring a try, in the middle of a game, while (for a reason only known to himself) justifying his decision to the Welsh captain. If you're going to base your entire understanding of laws on examples like that then best of luck.

Have you anything (other than just attempting to be condescending) to back up what you're saying? Here's another ref mentioning removing the defender from the equation, this time not in the act of scoring.

http://www.rugby365.com/article/52251-law-discussion-that-penalty-try

Shelflife

Have to say irishbucsfan your tone is quiet rude and condescending, Miracle Tight Sinus has backed up his claim and you simply dismiss both his and my assertion yet you fail to show any proof to back it up.

As a ref myself and having attended many meetings and workshops (none of which were in the twilight zone) the criteria as I have outlined is correct, now perhaps the ref today decided that the pass may not have gone to hand or that it may have been dropped and that's his call to make.

Hagz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CSc_7AAkQ

bilston

Hagz wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0CSc_7AAkQ

I can't believe those highlights don't show Gilroy's break and spin in the build up to Bowe's try! If you haven't seen try and find it somewhere!

Flipper22

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No that's not the case. Unless the offense takes place in the act of scoring a try, the logical conclusion to that interpretation just makes no sense at all, there's far too much abstraction to it.

It is the case. The question is whether a try would almost certainly have been scored were it not for the illegal act. You don't mentally substitute a different action on behalf of the offender; or did I misunderstand you?

I agree that a PT against Gilroy today was very unlikely.

Digifriendly

Piliger wrote: »

Shambolic display from another Irish provence ... sadly.

Two things: Firstly the Treviso supporters are some of the most appalling unsporting crowd I have ever become aware of, and this is not their first appalling performance - Second I am so sick of BBC refusing to show rugby on BBCHD ... are Ulster fans not protesting this up there ?

There is only one BBC2HD channel and it is not regionalised the way BBC1 is. For whatever reason both BBC Wales and BBCNI show Pro 12 rugby on BBC2 not BBC1 therefore it is in SD not HD.

Piliger

Digifriendly wrote: »

There is only one BBC2HD channel and it is not regionalised the way BBC1 is. For whatever reason both BBC Wales and BBCNI show Pro 12 rugby on BBC2 not BBC1 therefore it is in SD not HD.

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

mfceiling

Piliger wrote: »

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

We've enough to be protesting in Ulster than a HD tv channel!!;)

awec

Piliger wrote: »

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

The choice of programming on BBC 1 and BBC 2 is not random, they actually have certain types of programmes on each channel.

BBC 2 is for more specialist shows. BBC 1 is more about mainstream shows, big budget stuff.

It's very rare that the rugby would ever make it on to BBC 1.

As I said earlier too, there is no NI specific HD version of BBC 2, only the national BBC 2 has HD.

damianmcr

Piliger wrote: »

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

No because there is only a national BBC 2 channel.

bilston

In the next few years when we are all watching UHD I expect BBC 2 NI will still be broadcasting in SD. Still to be fair at least they are showing the games and we are in quite a lucky position in Ulster that pretty much every game we play is televised live.

total former

Piliger wrote: »

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

TG4 HD is only available on UPC. The majority of people in the Republic therefore only get the pro12 in SD too.

There are more important things to be worrying about.

Piliger

Shelflife wrote: »

Have to say irishbucsfan your tone is quiet rude and condescending,

I think that's a bit unfair. He is persistent but I don't see any rudeness or condescension myself.

Miracle Tight Sinus has backed up his claim and you simply dismiss both his and my assertion yet you fail to show any proof to back it up.

He's entitled to his opinion even if I disagree with it.

irishbucsfan

Flipper22 wrote: »

It is the case. The question is whether a try would almost certainly have been scored were it not for the illegal act. You don't mentally substitute a different action on behalf of the offender; or did I misunderstand you?

I agree that a PT against Gilroy today was very unlikely.

That's exactly what I've said, it's whether a try would have been scored if not for the illegal act.

irishbucsfan

Shelflife wrote: »

Have to say irishbucsfan your tone is quiet rude and condescending, Miracle Tight Sinus has backed up his claim and you simply dismiss both his and my assertion yet you fail to show any proof to back it up.

The proof is crystal clear in that it's exactly how the referee has interpreted it today and not a single other person I've seen thinks it should have been a penalty try.

postitnote

I am super glad to see that there's a pointless argument on here helping to cover up what was practically an Ulster capitulation in the second half.

It is clear that Van der Merwe was a great signing as he was missed badly yesterday. The forwards in general were pretty poor and in the end Ulster were happy just to boot the ball out for the 4 points.

There's not going to be a regime change until after the world cup, so i guess we have to suck it up and continue to watch Ulster play badly until then. I just hope it doesn't adversely affect our Irish players.

Paddy Jackson had a superb first half yesterday and i'm glad to see he's getting a wee bit of form back.

Realistically, the way Ulster are plying, the 6 nations is the only thing I have to be excited about rugby wise this seson (until the world cup).

jacothelad

Piliger wrote: »

So no one in Ulster is protesting at this ?

When you live in paradise, little things like that are of no consequence......:D



...and I can't tell the difference between SD and HD without a lot of squinting and imagination. I don't care if I can see every blade of grass so long as I see green swathes......

jacothelad

damianmcr wrote: »

No because there is only a national BBC 2 channel.

Every region has a dedicated BBC2 channel.

postitnote wrote: »

I am super glad to see that there's a pointless argument on here helping to cover up what was practically an Ulster capitulation in the second half.

It is clear that Van der Merwe was a great signing as he was missed badly yesterday. The forwards in general were pretty poor and in the end Ulster were happy just to boot the ball out for the 4 points.

There's not going to be a regime change until after the world cup, so i guess we have to suck it up and continue to watch Ulster play badly until then. I just hope it doesn't adversely affect our Irish players.

Paddy Jackson had a superb first half yesterday and i'm glad to see he's getting a wee bit of form back.

Realistically, the way Ulster are plying, the 6 nations is the only thing I have to be excited about rugby wise this seson (until the world cup).

Jackson seems to still be suffering from that back injury. He had to stop kicking from hand and Pienaar took over the line kicking duties.

In terms of yesterdays overall preformance, adding in the downward slither in the last 6 weeks, only Tuohy and Bowe showed enough to suggest that Schmidt would be interested in them for the 6N's and Gilroy has been good but he has higher profile players in front of him.....Dave Kearney for example (:D). I reckon even Best will be under scrutiny.

I suppose when the only back row player that is worth a start for Ulster is Diack, the rest of the team struggles. Wilson is done and Ross and Reidy are novices. Butterworth hasn't been seen. Bad coaching, poor planning and injury yet again have blunted a decent set of players.

Good to hear Jackson had a good game.

(I'm only considering the first 30mins of the match from an Irish POV)

bilston

jacothelad wrote: »

Every region has a dedicated BBC2 channel.



Jackson seems to still be suffering from that back injury. He had to stop kicking from hand and Pienaar took over the line kicking duties.

In terms of yesterdays overall preformance, adding in the downward slither in the last 6 weeks, only Tuohy and Bowe showed enough to suggest that Schmidt would be interested in them for the 6N's and Gilroy has been good but he has higher profile players in front of him.....Dave Kearney for example (:D). I reckon even Best will be under scrutiny.

I suppose when the only back row player that is worth a start for Ulster is Diack, the rest of the team struggles. Wilson is done and Ross and Reidy are novices. Butterworth hasn't been seen. Bad coaching, poor planning and injury yet again have blunted a decent set of players.

To be honest Jaco without a back row the rest of the team will look average. Wilson is in the run in of his career and is being asked to do the job of two people, Diack is decent but we are used to the likes of Ferris, Henderson and a fit Williams in our back row. Ross isn't good enough although IMO doesn't remotely deserve the grief henis getting from th lovely people on uafc because he was never signed to be a first choice 7.

Sure it's ok, Sean Dougall will save the day next season...

awec

We gave Wilson a two year deal too. Not sure that was the best idea, he won't be at the level required in two years time!

blackdog1

Wouldn't be to concerned as an Ulster fan. Your team is beginning to click. You missed 4-5 try scoring opportunities but your at least making them. Agree on Ross being vilified. He was only supposed to be a side project. Butterworth and Reidy were supposed to be backup to Henry but they're obviously not doing the job. I like Reidy but until he gets better in the tackle area he won't start much.

Think when Henderson comes back you'll have a decent ball carrier. Any idea for the team this weekend ? Is Reidy still not registered? It would be a good time to try him and ross together and rest diack or wilson.

thomond2006

awec wrote: »

We gave Wilson a two year deal too. Not sure that was the best idea, he won't be at the level required in two years time!

Reminds me of Munster giving DOC a two year deal.

awec

blackdog1 wrote: »

Wouldn't be to concerned as an Ulster fan. Your team is beginning to click. You missed 4-5 try scoring opportunities but your at least making them. Agree on Ross being vilified. He was only supposed to be a side project. Butterworth and Reidy were supposed to be backup to Henry but they're obviously not doing the job. I like Reidy but until he gets better in the tackle area he won't start much.

Think when Henderson comes back you'll have a decent ball carrier. Any idea for the team this weekend ? Is Reidy still not registered? It would be a good time to try him and ross together and rest diack or wilson.

We were doing well until the tactics changed back to kicking the ball away.

blackdog1

awec wrote: »

We were doing well until the tactics changed back to kicking the ball away.

Yea your kicking game is shocking. No pressure on the kick chase either. Did some ulster players get sick?. Heard cave was vomiting and vdMerve pulled out with the flu. Could explain the 2nd half...

bilston

blackdog1 wrote: »

Wouldn't be to concerned as an Ulster fan. Your team is beginning to click. You missed 4-5 try scoring opportunities but your at least making them. Agree on Ross being vilified. He was only supposed to be a side project. Butterworth and Reidy were supposed to be backup to Henry but they're obviously not doing the job. I like Reidy but until he gets better in the tackle area he won't start much.

Think when Henderson comes back you'll have a decent ball carrier. Any idea for the team this weekend ? Is Reidy still not registered? It would be a good time to try him and ross together and rest diack or wilson.

We are at least beginning to play in patches now and IMO that is down to Pienaar and Jackson, and also the return of Tuohy to give us a bit more up front. The trick is to keep it going somehow. Having quality forwards on the bench would help with our second half performances.

bilston

blackdog1 wrote: »

Could explain the 2nd half...

The half time team-talk is the only explanation I can think of.

awec

bilston wrote: »

The half time team-talk is the only explanation I can think of.

"Yous are playing with the ball too much lads, creating too many overlaps and too many holes in their defence. Better start booting it back to them and let them run it back at us to see what they're made of."

Flipper22

blackdog1 wrote: »

Yea your kicking game is shocking. No pressure on the kick chase either. Did some ulster players get sick?. Heard cave was vomiting and vdMerve pulled out with the flu. Could explain the 2nd half...

The kick chase at times in the second half was unbelievably bad. Individual chasers with no hint of an organised line behind them, and guys standing around. Very very strange.

I think PJ will start the Italy game, and rightly so. His passing game is just delicious, great to watch.

George Hook

awec wrote: »

We were doing well until the tactics changed back to kicking the ball away.

Would have been Doaks call in the dressing room as the wind was meant to be behind them.

But the guys on the pitch maybe should have changed the plan when that didn't work out - maybe Doak told them to have faith in the plan. Who knows.

rrpc

George Hook wrote: »

Would have been Doaks call in the dressing room as the wind was meant to be behind them.

But the guys on the pitch maybe should have changed the plan when that didn't work out - maybe Doak told them to have faith in the plan. Who knows.

He may have told them to kick the ball, but I doubt he told them to kick so badly. There's an excuse for Jackson in his back issues, but even when he handed kicking over to Pienaar, it was still pretty awful.

George Hook

rrpc wrote: »

He may have told them to kick the ball, but I doubt he told them to kick so badly. There's an excuse for Jackson in his back issues, but even when he handed kicking over to Pienaar, it was still pretty awful.

Yes, the kicks weren't great but a lot of that was to do with the chasers not chasing the ball too. Which is to do with bad communication on the pitch/not a clear game plan/not enough or not good enough practice done in training - which actually seems to account for a lot of their problems.

Sinbad_NI

2nd half kicks were to long to chase but not long enough to turn the defence.

Gilroy's break was a bit special early on. He's playing well at the minute.