Match Thread: Leinster A V Edinburgh 19:35 TG4/BBC Alba, 15/04/16

molloyjh

For me there is a hell of a lot to talk about from that game. I'm not going near the Ferg tackle or the selection (which was in no way vindicated based on the fact that I was worried about what it would mean next week and beyond, not last night). But it was a game with a lot of positives and a lot of negatives from a Leinster perspective. And I'm not sure when I last saw a game from us like that. I'll start with the positives...

The TBP win pretty much guarantees us a home SF so that's fantastic. It also puts us in prime position for top spot. A LBP from the game against Ulster and we should be laughing. That's fantastic from a season with so much disruption and with Leo and co in their first season.

A few players out there shone last night. I thought Healy looked decent, which is hugely encouraging. Strauss was in great form. Carried well, threw well and was a nuisance at the breakdown. Some of his hits were great too. Moloney was excellent at line-out time in particular but Mick Kearney was fantastic throughout. He really impressed me yesterday. VDF was good, but needs to develop his breakdown work and fell off a few tackles that he shouldn't have. Still he's young and at the start of his career. He'll only get better and he was very good overall. Rhys was excellent until he picked up that knock too.

I thought McGrath had a good game overall and Rob looked strong in his first game back. Reid was far better than I expected and ran a great blocking line for the first try. Luke is back on form and has proved again something that I've been saying for a while. He has one of the best rugby brains in the squad and makes a huge difference to our attacking game when he is there. One of the busiest wingers I've seen in a long time. He was my MOTM. But special mention has to go to Ben Te'o. It would be so easy, and in some ways understandable, for him to phone it in knowing he is off in a few weeks. But the guy looks like he was born, bred and will die in blue. His commitment level is superb. We saw it against Munster and again yesterday. I've developed a whole new level of respect for the guy over the last few weeks.

Our set piece was very solid our ball retention was hugely improved over the Munster game. Even our maul seems to be improving. Although the foundations there for the last season and a half have been pretty low. Defensively we were actually pretty good despite conceding 3 tries. Individual errors rather than system errors were the cause of all 3 though really and that can be rectified.

It seems fairly clear to me that our first string 23 right now should be:

McGrath Strauss Ross
Toner Kearney
Ruddock Heaslip VDF

McGrath Sexton
Te'o Ringrose
Fitz Kearney Nacewa

Cronin, Healy, Furlong, Molony, Ryan, Reddan, Marsh, D Kearney

With SOB and Moore to return from injury that sets us up nicely in terms of personnel. But I do think Reid has made a case for himself. If only he could sort out his tackling. Could Ringrose play, or even step into, 12 I wonder? His distribution is better than Bens and getting Ben into a bit more space would see him get on the front foot that bit more. With Luke coming off his wing looking for the offload then we could do some more damage up the middle.

molloyjh

Having watched the game from the terrace and again on TV my opinion of the first half hasn't changed. We were really poor for the first 40. It did look better on the TV but that was only because I had a limited view there. You simply couldn't tell just how lateral and robotic we were. We'd make a decision to go one way and keep going that way on next phase regardless of what was happening in front of us. We often ignored the fact that Edinburgh were numbers up the direction we were going but there was space to be had if we changed direction. You had guys folding around rucks to areas where there was no space rather than stopping and looking to take advantage of the space on the side of the ruck they started on. It was prescriptive and predictable and we were so easy to defend against as a result. It just looked like nobody was scanning what was in front of them and taking control. And we simply weren't able to engineer a score when we had so much territory and possession.

We also ignored some good lines from people because we weren't open to doing much more than taking, and trying to dominate, the contact. At one stage in the first half Ferg took a poor clearing kick in space and ran it back. But what you didn't see on TV was the line Rob Kearney took in support. We were all screaming for Ferg to give it to Rob but instead he ran away from the support, head down and into contact. It summed up our problems with the first half. When players were running good lines they often didn't get the ball. But then at times when players were looking to offload there were no support runners there. And all because we had made up our minds what we were doing and weren't getting our heads up and weren't for changing.

In the second half VDF made a great half break and got his hands free and body positioned perfectly for an offload out of the tackle but there was nobody anywhere near him. These kinds of things were happening quite a lot and you couldn't see most of it on the TV.

We nearly gifted Edinburgh 3 intercept tries before the one they finally got. That's a new level of brain dead and it was Mads every time. If you've been let off the hook 3 times but still haven't learned then that's a serious problem. Ferg coming out of the line looking for an intercept himself cost us 1 and almost a second. And that penalty in the second half where Mads should have easily found touch 5ms out but didn't, what was that!? Some of Madigans passing hurt us badly too. We had a nice move set up with Reid, Luke and Ruddock against 2 defenders (Te'o ran a great dummy line) but because Mads fired the pass at Reid too hard Reid could not collect and the move died. Another thing we've seen from Mads a lot, the unsympathetic pass.

It almost looked like Leo told the lads to go out there and show what they could do to make the first string side and some of them were trying too hard. Mads confidence looked shot at times too. Toner when he came on was pretty poor, missing tackles and making a terrible read in defence for the last Edinburgh try. For all the positives we saw there were as many negatives. I know we were playing into the wind in the first half but that doesn't excuse some of the poor stuff we were seeing.

Either way it was a step up from the Munster game so hopefully we continue that upward curve. A win in Belfast would sow it up for us but as I've said I am worried that we'll be playing a squad who haven't played together in 4 weeks and hadn't played together in over 2 months before that. Only as the next month goes on will we see whether Leos selection has in fact been vindicated. And for the record I'd rather be wrong and see Leinster do well so here's hoping.....

.ak

Did anyone notice T'eo claiming he was gouged? He seemed fairly pissed.

Dave_The_Sheep

He was not a happy camper. From the replay there was contact on the face but nothing conclusive. Did anything come of it terms of the commissioner, etc?

.ak

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

He was not a happy camper. From the replay there was contact on the face but nothing conclusive. Did anything come of it terms of the commissioner, etc?

Surprised the ref didn't look at it as he appealed directly to the ref. maybe lost in translation.

hogandrew

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

He was not a happy camper. From the replay there was contact on the face but nothing conclusive. Did anything come of it terms of the commissioner, etc?

I looked back at it once or twice after the game and taught it was a certain red. There's a replay around the 16 minute mark and Burleigh really has a good rip at the eye area

thomond2006

McFadden and Burleigh cited.

Buer

thomond2006 wrote:

McFadden and Burleigh cited.

McFadden citing really raises questions.

Ref thinks it's only a penalty after watching multiple replays but a citing commissioner reckons it's a potential red card on the same evidence?

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

McFadden citing really raises questions.

Ref thinks it's only a penalty after watching multiple replays but a citing commissioner reckons it's a potential red card on the same evidence?

Hardly the first time it's happened though, it's exactly one of the reasons the citing commisioner is in place.

irishbucsfan

I think Mitrea will certainly be hearing about it from the league. A bizarre decision.

Buer

Bazzo wrote:

Hardly the first time it's happened though, it's exactly one of the reasons the citing commisioner is in place.

True but going from no card after lengthy review to full citing is unusual.

It really does highlight the disparity in decision making between different individuals.

Bazzo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think Mitrea will certainly be hearing about it from the league. A bizarre decision.

I like Mitrea as a ref but as somebody mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread I think he does have a tendency to shy away from big calls. I don't seem to remember him giving out many cards but I could be completely wrong on that.

irishbucsfan

Bazzo wrote: »

I like Mitrea as a ref but as somebody mentioned somewhere earlier in the thread I think he does have a tendency to shy away from big calls. I don't seem to remember him giving out many cards but I could be completely wrong on that.

He's definitely a good ref. He weighs in at about 6.5 awec units. Certainly wouldn't go judging him based on a few decisions, I'd consider him one of the best in the league.

wp_rathead

Mitrea and Whitehouse are the two best refs in the league imo (aside from Nigel ofcourse)

Zzippy

wp_rathead wrote: »

Mitrea and Whitehouse are the two best refs in the league imo (aside from Nigel ofcourse)

Ha, just reminded me of a drunken (and hilarious) conversation with a fellow Connacht fan in O'Connells last night on the subject of referees. Every time we mentioned a name he would explode into a very funny rant, backed up with well-illustrated reminiscences, eyes and veins bulging with the emotion Lacey was a particular favourite. If he'd been a foot taller and had a Nordie accent I'd have been sure it was awec!

former total

Finally got around to watching the game back. Not perfect but lots to be happy with.

Mick Kearney is looking like a fantastic signing. Molony looks the real deal too. Rob K and Luke coming through unscathed and playing so well is massive.

Plenty for McQuilkin to work on but much improved in attack. Three very well worked tries.

I think McFadden's season is over. Most angles are pretty ambiguous but the one from behind the goal seems to show him nailing Hoyland on the chin. I can see where Mitrea is coming from thinking it was the impact on his chest that rocked his head back but I think he caught him on the jaw. It's a shame because he played well (apart from a couple of inexplicable defensive wanderings).

CMOTDibbler

former total wrote: »

Finally got around to watching the game back. Not perfect but lots to be happy with.

Mick Kearney is looking like a fantastic signing. Molony looks the real deal too. Rob K and Luke coming through unscathed and playing so well is massive.

Plenty for McQuilkin to work on but much improved in attack. Three very well worked tries.

I think McFadden's season is over. Most angles are pretty ambiguous but the one from behind the goal seems to show him nailing Hoyland on the chin. I can see where Mitrea is coming from thinking it was the impact on his chest that rocked his head back but I think he caught him on the jaw. It's a shame because he played well (apart from a couple of inexplicable defensive wanderings).

They have a clip of that angle on The 42 if anyone wants to see it. Definitely looks the worst from that angle. In McFadden's defence, he was already committed to the tackle and couldn't see Hoyland had dipped so much from putting the brakes on. I still think the initial impact was fine buit because he drove up and Howland was bracing down, he rode up in the tackle. The fact that Hoyland bounced back up would indicate that he took the main impact lower doen than his chin otherwise he'd be able to go 12 rounds with Anthony Joshua .

swiwi_

swiwi_ wrote: »

Hmmm. Didn't watch the game but looking at that "tackle" from McFadden he might find himself cited. Was the good ol' style league shoulder charge tackle (think league has banned that now).

No surprises to see .ak defending it, a boards poster more willing to give the benefit of the doubt is not to be found!

And I see he's been cited...No surprises there.

What is up with McFadden? He's gone from all-round nice-guy to "thug" this season. Not the first bit of dodgy stuff from Fergus.

Moflojo

My two cents on the McFadden "tackle" is that it was high and there was no wrapping of the arms (forget about "intent to wrap"). I really thought he was going to be lucky if he only received a yellow at the time. If Hoyland had stayed down for any period of time McFadden would have been off (to the bin at least). The perceived lack of injury to Hoyland, and the fact that McFadden injured himself quite badly, probably influenced the referee's decision more than his viewings of the replays. I wouldn't be too harsh on Mitrea for this, it shows he's human and sympathetic to the 'feel' of the game.

I haven't heard many people talking about the potential for a penalty try being awarded: McFadden was the last defender and Hoyland had already left R Kearney and Reddan for dust. As McFadden had committed an offence you have to disregard any influence he had on Hoyland's progress. Hoyland had a clear run to the line (minus McFadden) and a penalty try should have been considered in my opinion. We saw Ben Whitehouse give a penalty try against Munster (I think) in similar circumstances earlier this year. Anyone else think a penalty try was warranted?

awec

It would have been worth looking at.

Leinster were very fortunate there, they could have had a pen try against them but at the very least should have been defending the Edinburgh attacks at the end with a man less.

Moflojo

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

They have a clip of that angle on The 42 if anyone wants to see it. Definitely looks the worst from that angle. In McFadden's defence, he was already committed to the tackle and couldn't see Hoyland had dipped so much from putting the brakes on. I still think the initial impact was fine buit because he drove up and Howland was bracing down, he rode up in the tackle. The fact that Hoyland bounced back up would indicate that he took the main impact lower doen than his chin otherwise he'd be able to go 12 rounds with Anthony Joshua .

As much as Hoyland was dipping slightly, McFadden appeared to be rising through the tackle - he sort of hopped into the tackle - so it was probably going to be a high tackle regardless.

People often try to defend these types of tackles with arguments of 'poor technique' or 'misreads' but I think the 'steppers' need to be protected above all else - anyone can swing a flailing stiff arm at someone when they've been sidestepped but in reality it's a desperate attempt (& cheap shot imo) to stop a player who has beaten them fairly with their evasive running.

Zzippy

Moflojo wrote: »

My two cents on the McFadden "tackle" is that it was high and there was no wrapping of the arms (forget about "intent to wrap"). I really thought he was going to be lucky if he only received a yellow at the time. If Hoyland had stayed down for any period of time McFadden would have been off (to the bin at least). The perceived lack of injury to Hoyland, and the fact that McFadden injured himself quite badly, probably influenced the referee's decision more than his viewings of the replays. I wouldn't be too harsh on Mitrea for this, it shows he's human and sympathetic to the 'feel' of the game.

I haven't heard many people talking about the potential for a penalty try being awarded: McFadden was the last defender and Hoyland had already left R Kearney and Reddan for dust. As McFadden had committed an offence you have to disregard any influence he had on Hoyland's progress. Hoyland had a clear run to the line (minus McFadden) and a penalty try should have been considered in my opinion. We saw Ben Whitehouse give a penalty try against Munster (I think) in similar circumstances earlier this year. Anyone else think a penalty try was warranted?

It was a penaltry try for Munster, against Connacht, similar circumstances in that it was 20m out from the try line or so, but it was for tackling the man without the ball. As it was a foul tackle, the defender was considered to be removed from the equation which would have meant a clearer run to the line. TOH was covering over and might have made a covering tackle but the ref decided he wouldn't. Mitrea didn't even seem to consider the field position and situation, you may have a point.

.ak

swiwi_ wrote: »

And I see he's been cited...No surprises there.

What is up with McFadden? He's gone from all-round nice-guy to "thug" this season. Not the first bit of dodgy stuff from Fergus.

Only seen your comment on me defending it.

Is that your way of saying I'm the soundest guy on the forum?

Thanks!

swiwi_

Moflojo wrote: »

Anyone else think a penalty try was warranted?

Good luck with that one...

First Up

awec wrote: »

It would have been worth looking at.

Leinster were very fortunate there, they could have had a pen try against them but at the very least should have been defending the Edinburgh attacks at the end with a man less.

Penalty try? Absolute nonsense.

I doubt the citing commission will over-rule the ref's decision. He looked at it carefully at the time and made the right call in my opinion.

swiwi_

.ak wrote: »

Only seen your comment on me defending it.

Is that your way of saying I'm the soundest guy on the forum?

Thanks!

Yip, you would be my choice of legal representative for any form of citing...

You could weasle your way out of anything .ak. Respect.

irishbucsfan

A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.

First Up

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.

Nothing bizarre about it. The ref looked at it half a dozen times, analysed it as it happened and concluded (rightly) that it warranted a penalty and nothing more.

irishbucsfan

First Up wrote: »

Nothing bizarre about it. The ref looked at it half a dozen times, analysed it as it happened and concluded (rightly) that it warranted a penalty and nothing more.

Well that's just an opinion. If it was so obviously correct McFadden wouldn't have been cited.

It was worthy of escalation for many reasons. Even if it wasn't high it was an illegal tackle (as even you admit) that prevented a try scoring opportunity.

I'm not sure what the Pro 12 disciplinary committee will do, they're entirely unpredictable, but he was very lucky to stay on the pitch.

First Up

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well that's just an opinion. If it was so obviously correct McFadden wouldn't have been cited.

It was worthy of escalation for many reasons. Even if it wasn't high it was an illegal tackle (as even you admit) that prevented a try scoring opportunity.

I'm not sure what the Pro 12 disciplinary committee will do, they're entirely unpredictable, but he was very lucky to stay on the pitch.

There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

Buer

First Up wrote: »

All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

I'm somewhat baffled here.

irishbucsfan

First Up wrote: »

There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

It has nothing to do with Mitrea being incompetent. Referees aren't expected to be perfect when squinting at a screen 30 meters away in the middle of refereeing a game. For all we know in his match report he might have questioned his own decision (wouldn't be the first time a ref has done that).

awec

First Up wrote: »

There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

This is total nonsense.

Citings happen all the time for refereeing mistakes.

It doesn't matter if it was deliberate or accidental either. If the offence prevented a probably try then a penalty try was warranted.

jacothelad

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.

As it happenned I immediately thought it was a red card. McFadden ran into Hoyland at full tilt. As far as I could see, McF's right forearm connected with Hoyland on his humerus / upper arm below shoulder height. I think it was a reckless challenge in that it took no regard for it's outcome to himself or Hoyland - which is usually the best way to tackle - but having looked at it a few times I can't actually see any offence. Tackling balls out as it were is not against the laws of the game unless running full tilt front on is seen as dangerous.

What relevance has McF being the last defender to the ref's decision. The ref saw a hard but not high tackle that he thought was worthy of a penalty somehow......on what grounds other than it was a brutal clatter. He didn't use his shoulder, he was clearly using his arms. Hoyland ducked a bit into it.

Bazzo

I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?

awec

Bazzo wrote: »

I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?

Well you can just look at the reaction to the Guirado hit on Dave Kearney in the WC.

Zzippy

First Up wrote: »

All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

A technical offence is playing the ball in an offside position when it's been knocked on by a teammate, or feeding the ball into the second row in a scrum. Nearly taking someone's head off with a high tackle is certainly an act of foul play, regardless of the intent.

jacothelad wrote: »

What relevance has McF being the last defender to the ref's decision. The ref saw a hard but not high tackle that he thought was worthy of a penalty somehow......on what grounds other than it was a brutal clatter. He didn't use his shoulder, he was clearly using his arms. Hoyland ducked a bit into it.

It has no relevance to whether it should have been deemed an illegal tackle, but every relevance to whether a penalty try should have been considered, and whether a card was warranted. The referee deemed it to be a high tackle, although he considered McFadden did try to use the arms. As he was the last defender and he made an illegal tackle, the referee is supposed to regard him as out of the equation and consider whether a try would have been scored had McFadden not been there. I can't recall if there were other defenders nearby who could have made a tackle but it certainly merited consideration. TMO review would have easily shown that but Mitrea either erred by not asking for it, or was already of the opinion that a try would not have been scored.

awec

Reddan was never catching him and he had already burned Kearney. Without McFadden a try was highly likely IMO.

sheep?

No cherry picking, posts from the thread at the time of the incident during the game.

sheep? wrote: »

McFadden should be gone for that. Looked horrible.

A-Train wrote: »

McFadden with an awful looking hit once again!

Zzippy wrote: »

McFadden tckling with his head? No arms anyway

P_1 wrote: »

Jausus that didn't look good!

Synode wrote: »

Ferg what the ****. He's done that a fee times in the last few weeks

Korat wrote: »

Leinster pressing the self-destruct here.

corny wrote: »

Definitely arms involved. Very high on the chest.

Deleted User wrote: »

Red and a stretcher for McFadden?

Richard Hillman wrote: »

That was a horrendous tackle.

sheep? wrote: »

I can't believe the ref. That's a yellow card at least.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Intention doesn't matter sir. It's no arms and high. And that's from a Leinster fan

Clegg wrote: »

McFadden has done this in a recent game too.

Idiot.

Kristopherus wrote: »

Red card for McFadden.

Edit. the officials have funked it

Buer wrote: »

That's a terrible call. He deserved instant yellow. Attempt to wrap is generous. It was high and possibly to neck or jaw area.

Fairly across the board non-blinkered posting I'd have said.

Bazzo

Deleted User wrote: »

No cherry picking, posts from the thread at the time of the incident during the game.

Fairly across the board non-blinkered posting I'd have said.

If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

Nah I was just copying the posts from earlier in the thread as they're easily lost in the post-game chat.

former total

Yer man has a decent turn of speed, fair play to him.

Pity for him he didn't have a side-step to go with it...

former total

former total wrote: »

Yer man has a decent turn of speed, fair play to him.

Pity for him he didn't have a side-step to go with it...

Add a stone chin to his traits!

Dravokivich

Just in regards to the McFadden card question. Even Fitz was unsure if he could come back on as sub at the time.

swiwi_

Bazzo wrote: »

If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

IBF is a Munster fan. Dyed in the wool.

Buer is Leinster, you're correct on that score.

First Up

Bazzo wrote: »

I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?

Mine would, and more importantly, the ref would agree with me.

First Up

Bazzo wrote: »

If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

I don't think anyone has said there was nothing wrong with the tackle. But I'm among those saying that it only merited a penalty and that talk of yellow, red or penalty tries is hysteria.

Bazzo

swiwi_ wrote: »

IBF is a Munster fan. Dyed in the wool.

Buer is Leinster, you're correct on that score.

What? Pull the other one, next you'll be telling me awec isn't a John Lacey fan or Billysaysno isn't Simon Zebo's number 1 supporter.

swiwi_

Bazzo wrote: »

What? Pull the other one, next you'll be telling me awec isn't a John Lacey fan or Billysaysno isn't Simon Zebo's number 1 supporter.

I have it on good authority that awec has the "Referee's almanac 2016 edition", featuring a John Lacey centrefold, under his bed.

I can't speak for Guillhaumeditnon/Wilhemsagtnein, his (or her) posts no longer appear for me when I browse this forum...

I should have added that IBF is also a closet Super Rugby fan, but the shame of combining that with his Munster allegiance was too much. So he masquerades in Blue.

NB: just to be clear, this "good authority" is not me personally...!

CMOTDibbler

awec wrote: »

Reddan was never catching him and he had already burned Kearney. Without McFadden a try was highly likely IMO.

The thing is you can't just wipe McFadden off the pitch when assessing if a try would have been scored or not. He made a tackle and it went high (My interpretation ) due to Hoyland dipping to recieve the tackle and McFadden pushing up. Putting that aside, if the tackle is deemed (or was deemed) illegal, he still has the option of going lower and still stopping Hoyland. In other words, if it was illegal, he still was in position to at least slow Hoyland for the support to finish it off.

So a penalty try doesn't seem at all likely because it would have been the way he tackled rather than the fact of the tackle being made or not.