Connacht Rugby Thread - Part III - The Violence of the Lams

CMOTDibbler

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Taking the player past horizontal is a yellow in a lot of cases. It's more rare for it to be a penalty without a card. Not harsh at all.

Not if you bring the player to the ground safely. That's not even a penalty. The key word is 'dangerous'.

IRB memorandum

To summarise, the possible scenarios when a tackler horizontally lifts a player off the ground:
The player is lifted and then forced or “speared” into the ground. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety. A red card should be issued for this type of tackle.
For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

connachta

Bazzo wrote: »

I knew you'd get there in the end

Nope, can't manage to put the tables side by side:P:rolleyes:

Pajo17

Can argue on both incidents... was thick as hell earlier... hard to take these ref's/TMO decisions in the professional era.. George Clancy in Leinster game said he couldn't see the ball all the time yet asked 'any reason I can't award the try?' Instead of 'try - yes or no?'... hate blaming ref/TMO when Connacht are on wrong end of their decisions but.........

uote="Bazzo;98364419"]Healy's I think was the right call. It looked like it might have been good from every angle except I think he showed one last angle where it looked like he dropped it, I'd have to see it again.

Masterson's though was almost certainly wrong. The ball ended up where it was because of hands in the ruck by a Scarlet's player, then Masterson dives on it (potentially) touches it down, it goes BACKWARDS and then he touches it down again: scrum red?????[/quote]

The Rape of Lucretia

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Not if you bring the player to the ground safely. That's not even a penalty.


For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles, it may be considered a penalty or yellow card is sufficient.

Are you sure about the 'not even a penalty'?

It depends on how you read the rule. Does in not mean that the ref has the option of downgrading to a penalty(without card) or a yellow card(with penalty).
Not that he can not give anything.

connachta

connachta wrote: »

Comparison

Connacht

Scarlets (home)
Newport (away)
Zebre (a)
Osprey (h)
Edinburgh (a)
Leinster (h)
Ulster (a)
Munster (h)
Treviso (a)
Glasgow (h)Ospreys

Glasgow (h)
Munster (a)
Edinburgh (h)
Connacht (a)
Leinster (a)
Scarlets (h)
Dragons (a)
Treviso (h)
Cardiff (a)
Ulster (h)

NB : impacted by 6 nation tournament, in Connacht's favour in theory

FFS, we have 8 points of positive difference on Ospreys. If we're unable to focus enough, to save an advantage in the end, seeing both schedules, we don't deserve HCup. Full-blank

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

Comparison

Connacht|Ospreys
Scarlets (h)|Glasgow (h)
Newport (a)|Munster (a)
Zebre (a)|Edinburgh (h)
Ospreys (h)|Connacht (a)
Edinburgh (a)|Leinster (a)
Leinster (h)|Scarlets (h)
Ulster (a)|Dragons (a)
Munster (h)|Treviso (h)
Treviso (a)|Cardiff (a)
Glasgow (h)|Ulster (h)


Fixed it for ya.

Start your table with table=head for a header row with the column headings divided by a |
e.g. table=head]Connacht|Ospreys (I left out the first [ to stop making a table

Do the same for each row; divide the columns with a |

That's it

CMOTDibbler

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Are you sure about the 'not even a penalty'?

It depends on how you read the rule. Does in not mean that the ref has the option of downgrading to a penalty(without card) or a yellow card(with penalty).
Not that he can not give anything.

If the ref deems that there is no 'dangerous' component to the tackle. If it's a tip tackle but the tackler holds the player up and brings him to ground carefully and safely, there's no danger to the tackled player so no offence.

There was a clarification a few years ago that took out the reference to the player's head impacting the ground 'first'. It was deemed necessary that the player's head not impact the ground at all.

former total

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If the ref deems that there is no 'dangerous' component to the tackle. If it's a tip tackle but the tackler holds the player up and brings him to ground carefully and safely, there's no danger to the tackled player so no offence.

There was a clarification a few years ago that took out the reference to the player's head impacting the ground 'first'. It was deemed necessary that the player's head not impact the ground at all.

But are you arguing the Loughney incident wasn't even a penalty?

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

But are you arguing the Loughney incident wasn't even a penalty?

I'm saying it's not a yellow card. It's probably a penalty and it was definitely stupid but I'm actually questioning does this sort of penalty mean the end of the 'can-opener'. Because there were two players involved, the classic can-opener was a bit exaggerated and the hips went higher than normal. But as far as I could see; and molloyjh's humungous pic didn't show it, the players upper body never left contact with the ground or a player on the ground.

CMOTDibbler

Pajo17 wrote: »

Can argue on both incidents... was thick as hell earlier... hard to take these ref's/TMO decisions in the professional era.. George Clancy in Leinster game said he couldn't see the ball all the time yet asked 'any reason I can't award the try?' Instead of 'try - yes or no?'... hate blaming ref/TMO when Connacht are on wrong end of their decisions but.........

But you are

The Clancy decision was done to death on the match thread. This is how the above points you make can be answered.

He asked the right question on the basis that he saw a try scored (we have to take it that he had a good view; and still shots tend to corroborate this). What he didn't see was "all the ball, all the time". What he wanted the TMO to check, was whether something happened when he couldn't see all the ball all the time that would disallow a try.

The thing is, Connacht had ample opportunity to win this game. Lack of patience, lack of composure and plain stupidity took the game away. Kicking the ball away in the opponents half is a bad idea; sometimes it works, most times it doesn't. Not kicking the ball in your own half with a few minutes on the clock is a bad idea.

BrokenMan

On Healys disallowed try. His body language immediately afterwards shows he didnt think he got it IMO. Mastersons I think should have stood for the second grounding. Dont think he got enough of it the first time.
Theres a few players not going to be looking forward to the video review. Individual error cost that game.

The Rape of Lucretia

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm saying it's not a yellow card. It's probably a penalty and it was definitely stupid but I'm actually questioning does this sort of penalty mean the end of the 'can-opener'. Because there were two players involved, the classic can-opener was a bit exaggerated and the hips went higher than normal. But as far as I could see; and molloyjh's humungous pic didn't show it, the players upper body never left contact with the ground or a player on the ground.

If its not a yellow, then why would it be a penalty at all ?

On the 'can opener', I thought that was a twisting or rolling of the player roughly parallel to the ground. Not lifting his legs higher than his waist, let alone above his head. And though the can opener was borderline illegal anyway and waiting for ruling (which would only come if the prevalence of the manoevre become very common and was spoiling rucking completely.

Bazzo

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

If its not a yellow, then why would it be a penalty at all ?

On the 'can opener', I thought that was a twisting or rolling of the player roughly parallel to the ground. Not lifting his legs higher than his waist, let alone above his head. And though the can opener was borderline illegal anyway and waiting for ruling (which would only come if the prevalence of the manoevre become very common and was spoiling rucking completely.

Wasn't there a penalty given against Leinster on Friday for a very similar offense with no yellow?

Borders no.2

To be fair this argument over whether its a yellow card or not is irrelevant. All that mattered at that stage was whether it was a penalty or not, which it clearly was. We had got away with what could have been a yellow card for Dillane earlier so it was probably due. Bottom line is that it was reckless and it was a penalty. After that I didn't give a toss about the yellow as the game was effectively lost. Given all the circumstances and the fact that it was only 10 yards from the home crowd who were obviously going to be baying for any hint of a penalty at that stage, it makes the thought process even more mind-boggling.

matthew8

In any case I thought Dillane was lucky not to get yellow for his shoulder charge, and it looked like Nathan White punched someone in the face as well though I only saw that incident once.

wp_rathead

White looked open palmed shove to the face - he'll prob get cited for it alright

Just had a read of the match thread on the Scarlets fan forum - even they thought Masterson's try should have stood ha

CatFromHue

I would have given both disallowed tries anyway.

Bazzo

It wouldn't be a(televised) Connacht match without at least 1 controversial TMO call. :pac:

wp_rathead

Bazzo wrote: »

It wouldn't be a(televised) Connacht match without at least 1 controversial TMO call. :pac:

it would be nice for just one to go our way though

Zzippy

CatFromHue wrote: »

I would have given both disallowed tries anyway.

Can you arrange to be appointed ref for our next game?

connachta

connachta wrote: »

Look at the one of our main rival too
Also very uneasy
6 nations impact-window


Ospreys v Glasgow Warriors Liberty Stadium

Munster Rugby v Ospreys Irish Independent Park TG4/S4C

Ospreys v Edinburgh Rugby Liberty Stadium

Connacht Rugby v Ospreys Sportsground TG4

Leinster Rugby v Ospreys RDS Arena Sky

Ospreys v Scarlets Liberty Stadium

Newport Gwent Dragons v Ospreys Rodney Parade

Ospreys v Benetton Treviso Liberty Stadium

Cardiff Blues v Ospreys Principality Stadium BBC Wales

Ospreys v Ulster Rugby Liberty Stadium

Does someone really think Ospreys can win more than 7 of those?????
I don't think so.

So we need 6, even 5 victories and 1 more BP than Spreys.
How on earth could we face Toulon or Sarries next year if we're unable to do this? That would mean the squad is not good enough. Moderately tough task starting now is a good thing to judge ourselves frankly

CMOTDibbler

Bazzo wrote: »

Wasn't there a penalty given against Leinster on Friday for a very similar offense with no yellow?

Yep, I referred to it during the game. Pretty much identical which is why I'm asking the question about the can-opener ruck clearout. We're getting into very hazy territory here imo.

CatFromHue

Zzippy wrote: »

Can you arrange to be appointed ref for our next game?

No worries, but I'll tell you if I don't get a good parking spot :mad:

Borders no.2

connachta wrote: »

Does someone really think Ospreys can win more than 7 of those?????
I don't think so.

So we need 6, even 5 victories and 1 more BP than Spreys.
How on earth could we face Toulon or Sarries next year if we're unable to do this? That would mean the squad is not good enough. Moderately tough task starting now is a good thing to judge ourselves frankly

From past experience, the maths of what might or might not happen with other teams would mess your head and never transpire as you'd expect. We have to look after our own situation. My aim has always been 60 points. Get that and we should be ok. It has been more than enough every other season.

I really don't want to see us going into the last 5 games needing anything more than 5-7 points. Anything less than a win over Scarlets and I think the tide is going against us. To me we need at a minimum 17/18 points from the next 5 fixtures. A win today would have given us some room for error but unfortunately that is down to a minimum now.

connachta

Borders no.2 wrote: »

From past experience, the maths of what might or might not happen with other teams would mess your head and never transpire as you'd expect. We have to look after our own situation. My aim has always been 60 points. Get that and we should be ok. It has been more than enough every other season.

What I meant is 58 should be ok. And my 2nd point was if we're unable to grab 23 points, we're not ready to play the best. Conceeding 30-40-50 points like Oyonnax this year is pointless

connachta

Borders no.2 wrote: »

I really don't want to see us going into the last 5 games needing anything more than 5-7 points. Anything less than a win over Scarlets and I think the tide is going against us. To me we need at a minimum 17/18 points from the next 5 fixtures. A win today would have given us some room for error but unfortunately that is down to a minimum now.

the repartition doesn't matter, IMO it will be a bit more points in the end with Henshaw/Roux back, but we agree for total needed, your "17 + 6" = 23

maoriincork

While I agree with a lot of what has been said there are some comments I do wonder do these people really understand the professional game.
Was Loughneys a red, yellow, legal, illegal, penalty or not???
Answer. Irrelevant in the context of the game, score and time to play.
Indiscipline at this critical time is school boy stuff. If it's a 50 50 call don't do it. End of no penalty.
Kick the ball down into the other half.
At this time in the game at 78 minutes, of course you don't. 2 minutes is a long time but one out pass make the defence play, go down slow ball back take on the defence slow ball back 79 minutes. This was what we were doing and doing it well.
We even won the ball easily in the situation.
I know my wife is gonna tell me off but I have an option based on rugby and nothing else but rugby.
Bundee again this week proved to me that he needs to be in closer to the play. He did the same last week against Leinster and the same against Scarlets today. As soon as he moved in that little closer he made the break.
We have to admire the way Jack and Craig played the field game with the kicks to either side. But when we made the change, which I thought was a smart move because Bundee suddenly came alive. That's the way he plays. Loves being in close and having ago at those slow forwards especially in second phase. That's why the game changed in that second half.
I know there are going to be a back lash at me because Rory is my son. But look Niyi was given a clean break and twice Matt. Both from balls going through the line. We need to be smarter with the ball and whether it's Rory or Robbie or Conor Finn at 13 then let's do it and give Bundee more of those opportunities and our wingers more ball because the back 3 are dynamite with ball in hand. Just need cleaner ball.
Ok go for it people.

Zzippy

Agree with everything maorlin. Only thing I'll say is we have to earn the right to go wide, suck in defenders with the forwards before putting it through the hands. Think we've been too persistent with going wide all the time the last few games and made it easy to defend against us, when we vary it we're less predictable. Aly makes a big difference with his carrying and Masterson is really developing into a top no. 8. Once we do make a bit of space our back 3 are fantastic, especially TOH and Matt.

Borders no.2

maoriincork wrote: »

Kick the ball down into the other half.
At this time in the game at 78 minutes, of course you don't. 2 minutes is a long time but one out pass make the defence play, go down slow ball back take on the defence slow ball back 79 minutes. This was what we were doing and doing it well.
We even won the ball easily in the situation.

This tactic worked well against Leinster at the end of the first half, we ran down the clock well and ok we were running down the clock a bit but the lads looked shattered. I'd have to see it again but I think it was just after 79 minutes when the Scarlets kick went over. Therefore when the penalty was awarded there was at least another minute and a half if not more to see out. Its a long time to run down given the position it was in with the home crowd appealing for everything. A professional side probably should be able to do it but following Connacht for so long has made me uneasy of our ability to do this in a pressure situation. To my untrained eyes clearing to touch and backing the defence to do its job was the percentage call.

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm saying it's not a yellow card. It's probably a penalty and it was definitely stupid but I'm actually questioning does this sort of penalty mean the end of the 'can-opener'. Because there were two players involved, the classic can-opener was a bit exaggerated and the hips went higher than normal. But as far as I could see; and molloyjh's humungous pic didn't show it, the players upper body never left contact with the ground or a player on the ground.

Selective vision......

maoriincork

Borders no.2 wrote: »

This tactic worked well against Leinster at the end of the first half, we ran down the clock well and ok we were running down the clock a bit but the lads looked shattered. I'd have to see it again but I think it was just after 79 minutes when the Scarlets kick went over. Therefore when the penalty was awarded there was at least another minute and a half if not more to see out. Its a long time to run down given the position it was in with the home crowd appealing for everything. A professional side probably should be able to do it but following Connacht for so long has made me uneasy of our ability to do this in a pressure situation. To my untrained eyes clearing to touch and backing the defence to do its job was the percentage call.

You say a professional side, well heres a bit of news, we are a professional side. I have no doubt if the penalty hadnt happened we would have held on to the ball and lasted the minute and a half. We had pods set we had backs set and it dosent matter what was happening with the crowd. Just keep doing the basics and kick the ball over the line thanks for the 4 points and go home happy.
But no a rush of blood or whatever and they get a penalty convert it and leave us 40 seconds to get the ball back, which we did and then work our way up field and score any way we can. A loose ball a loose foot and the ball is kicked out.

.;):rolleyes:

oneofakind32

Nakarawa's try[1:13] here would not have been given by the Welsh TMO in Parc i Scarlets today.

CMOTDibbler

molloyjh wrote: »

Selective vision......

Being a bit precious about your biiiiig photo?

galwaylad14

Leaving the result aside that actually was a decent enough performance, certainly looked a lot more threatning with ball in hand than we have recently. Thought Carty put in one of his better performances, kicked well out of hand and nailed two good pressure kicks. Still don't think he does enough with ball in hand though, always seems to just shovel it on to the next man without mixing up his passing or taking it on himself. This can make us easy to defend against as the defence know they can drift across.

Scrum was in trouble at different stages, maybe missing Buckley here. Line-out generally pretty solid.

To be honest as soon as I saw us trying to play out the clock I knew disaster would strike. It's very hard to do it right and referees generally don't like this practice so they're usually looking to penalise a team they feel are playing out the clock.

Loughney was stupid but to be honest I think we'd have struggled to get that ball back anyway given the way Muldowney fell and the position the guy Loughney cleaned out was in. Think it was probably going to be a penalty for holding on in any case but having said that Loughney still didn't need to make the ref's decision for him.

Ball should have been kicked up around halfway and trust the defence to force a mistake or turnover.

It looks like we'll need 60 points to be sure of top 6 so that's 25 more from the last 10 games. Means probably at least 5 wins. In one sense given the fixtures and our current form that may be a tall order but at the same time if we can't win 5 from 10 in our own domestic league then we have no business in the Champions Cup anyway

connachta

galwaylad14 wrote: »

Leaving the result aside that actually was a decent enough performance, certainly looked a lot more threatning with ball in hand than we have recently. Thought Carty put in one of his better performances, kicked well out of hand and nailed two good pressure kicks. Still don't think he does enough with ball in hand though, always seems to just shovel it on to the next man without mixing up his passing or taking it on himself. This can make us easy to defend against as the defence know they can drift across.

Scrum was in trouble at different stages, maybe missing Buckley here. Line-out generally pretty solid.

To be honest as soon as I saw us trying to play out the clock I knew disaster would strike. It's very hard to do it right and referees generally don't like this practice so they're usually looking to penalise a team they feel are playing out the clock.

Loughney was stupid but to be honest I think we'd have struggled to get that ball back anyway given the way Muldowney fell and the position the guy Loughney cleaned out was in. Think it was probably going to be a penalty for holding on in any case but having said that Loughney still didn't need to make the ref's decision for him.

Ball should have been kicked up around halfway and trust the defence to force a mistake or turnover.

It looks like we'll need 60 points to be sure of top 6 so that's 25 more from the last 10 games. Means probably at least 5 wins. In one sense given the fixtures and our current form that may be a tall order but at the same time if we can't win 5 from 10 in our own domestic league then we have no business in the Champions Cup anyway

truth in there, but disagree about the scrum, not as dominant as it used to be with returning Buckley, but very decent. And once again, 58 should be enough. 10 games, 5 wins, 3 BP. And that's a minimum for any Club led to play Toulon Sarries Wasps Clermont or Racing next year

b.gud

On the scrum I thought we did very well considering their front row have all been capped by Wales, there was no time that it looked under serious pressure. I really think Finlay has been performing really well in Buckleys absence

Sea_point

maoriincork wrote: »

While I agree with a lot of what has been said there are some comments I do wonder do these people really understand the professional game.
Was Loughneys a red, yellow, legal, illegal, penalty or not???
Answer. Irrelevant in the context of the game, score and time to play.
Indiscipline at this critical time is school boy stuff. If it's a 50 50 call don't do it. End of no penalty.
Kick the ball down into the other half.
At this time in the game at 78 minutes, of course you don't. 2 minutes is a long time but one out pass make the defence play, go down slow ball back take on the defence slow ball back 79 minutes. This was what we were doing and doing it well.
We even won the ball easily in the situation.
I know my wife is gonna tell me off but I have an option based on rugby and nothing else but rugby.

Bundee again this week proved to me that he needs to be in closer to the play. He did the same last week against Leinster and the same against Scarlets today. As soon as he moved in that little closer he made the break.

We have to admire the way Jack and Craig played the field game with the kicks to either side. But when we made the change, which I thought was a smart move because Bundee suddenly came alive. That's the way he plays. Loves being in close and having ago at those slow forwards especially in second phase. That's why the game changed in that second half.
I know there are going to be a back lash at me because Rory is my son. But look Niyi was given a clean break and twice Matt. Both from balls going through the line. We need to be smarter with the ball and whether it's Rory or Robbie or Conor Finn at 13 then let's do it and give Bundee more of those opportunities and our wingers more ball because the back 3 are dynamite with ball in hand. Just need cleaner ball.
Ok go for it people.

Can only happen if someone provides a kevlar suit to Jack and he starts to play flatter and in traffic instead of shovelling on the ball (needs more composure with contact looming) or kicking it in the air...

Bundi is dynamite close quarters, hugely powerful. If he's getting the ball flat he still generates plenty of power to break the first tackle of most defence's. We still don't trail him anywhere near well enough, same issue we had in the past with likes of Fa'illi and Vainikolo. The amount of times Bundi's hitting the deck looking around for the offload..

Healy & Niyi are probably two of the five our six fastest players in this league nevermind just Ireland, plus Heals has great feet. Tiernan who has been excellent this season has started looking a wee bit more hesitant with the ball in the last two games, but bottom line is we should definitely be getting way more out of that trio...

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Being a bit precious about your biiiiig photo?

It's appropriately sized.....

S12b

http://www.balls.ie/rugby/muldoon-joe-cooney/321135

wp_rathead

Should be getting an update on Robbie's hand today
Also hopefully Heenan injury wasn't serious - he's not eligible for next 2 games anyway in Europe

MarinersBlues

I was thinking about the lack of info on Robbie's future.

Do you think it's possible they are waiting to see if we qualify for the Champions Cup.

i.e.

Robbie: I want to go to Leinster.
Nicifora: We want you to stay at Connacht
Robbie: That would be lovely but I really want to be sure of Champions Cup action
Nucifora: Sure how about we agree on a 10 year central contract, wait and see where Connacht finish up for next year, and then we can play it by ear for the years after that.
Robbie: Okay. Could you make sure they sign up the rest of the backs already there and please send down McGrath as well. Cheers.

b.gud

MarinersBlues wrote: »

I was thinking about the lack of info on Robbie's future.

Do you think it's possible they are waiting to see if we qualify for the Champions Cup.

i.e.

Robbie: I want to go to Leinster.
Nicifora: We want you to stay at Connacht
Robbie: That would be lovely but I really want to be sure of Champions Cup action
Nucifora: Sure how about we agree on a 10 year central contract, wait and see where Connacht finish up for next year, and then we can play it by ear for the years after that.
Robbie: Okay. Could you make sure they sign up the rest of the backs already there and please send down McGrath as well. Cheers.

Don't think that'll happen as champions cup places won't be decided until end of the season and neither Connacht or any other Irish team would want to wait until then to see if they are getting marquee signing or organise an alternative signing.

Fwiw I reckon the deal is probably done but hasn't been announced yet*

*edit just to clarify I mean that Robbies contract with an Irish team, wether it's Connacht Leinster or Munster (Ulster don't need another centre ), has been done

b.gud

This looks promising

d-gal

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Robbie: I want to go to Leinster.
Nicifora: We want you to stay at Connacht
Robbie: That would be lovely but I really want to be sure of Champions Cup action
Nucifora: Sure how about we agree on a 10 year central contract, wait and see where Connacht finish up for next year, and then we can play it by ear for the years after that.
Robbie: Okay. Could you make sure they sign up the rest of the backs already there and please send down McGrath as well. Cheers.

According to an IRFU committee member that I know - they wanted him to originally go to Leinster. Now they're 50/50 on Leinster or Munster (due to the Madigan saga of refusing Munster).
Their last choice of the 3 is Connacht. Shock horror

b.gud

I may be mistaken but it also looks like Denis Buckley is wearing the 18/19 blue bib in this pic which would mean taht he's ready, or almost ready to play again

https://twitter.com/connachtrugby/status/686924305662361600

b.gud

Injury update from Linley McKenzie on Twitter

https://twitter.com/linleymackenzie/status/686932089581776898

Just in case the embedding isn't working for anyone here's the text

Good + bad news-Henshaw not ready, Buckley ready and re-registered, McKeon back, Browne out 6 wks AC, Marmion, Ronaldson, Leader doubtful.

MarinersBlues

Is it a case of no news is good news on Heenan then .......

b.gud

MarinersBlues wrote: »

Is it a case of no news is good news on Heenan then .......

Hopefully, may also be because he's not in the challenge cup squad so they didn't give an update on him

wp_rathead

Sh!te news about Andrew Browne - been very solid this season
Muldowney looked tired vs Scarlets so hopefully he doesn't have to travel- Dillane, Qualter, Naoupu and O'Brien can all cover second row
Great to have McKeon and Buckley back available
I'd expect McGinty, Peter Robb, Parata and Poolman (who was 24th man vs Scarlets) to all start

b.gud

wp_rathead wrote: »

Sh!te news about Andrew Browne - been very solid this season
Muldowney looked tired vs Scarlets so hopefully he doesn't have to travel- Dillane, Qualter, Naoupu and O'Brien can all cover second row
Great to have McKeon and Buckley back available
I'd expect McGinty, Peter Robb, Parata and Poolman (who was 24th man vs Scarlets) to all start

Looking at a few of the pics up on sportsfile I think Muldowney might well be starting, It looks to me like the guys in the bibs are the players who'll be starting in these picks