Preview: Leinster v Saracens, Sunday April 1, 15:30, BT Sports 2

stephen_n

swiwi_ wrote: »

Are you saying he constantly cheats at the breakdown

When he gets that into his game, he will be the next Richie McCaw

stephen_n

I thought at the game it was a yellow, but looking at the stills there, he clearly makes contact with the head with a shoulder charge, it’s in red card territory and Garces has an unimpeded view as well.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

I thought at the game it was a yellow, but looking at the stills there, he clearly makes contact with the head with a shoulder charge, it’s in red card territory and Garces has an unimpeded view as well.

When you watch it in real time there isn't a whole pile of force in it so yellow would have been right imo. For stupidity as much as anything else.

Faugheen

Janelle Scary Cheddar wrote: »

stephen_n wrote: »

I thought at the game it was a yellow, but looking at the stills there, he clearly makes contact with the head with a shoulder charge, it’s in red card territory and Garces has an unimpeded view as well.

When you watch it in real time there isn't a whole pile of force in it so yellow would have been right imo. For stupidity as much as anything else.

I agree with the force, but it's the intent that does it for me.

stephen_n

Janelle Scary Cheddar wrote: »

When you watch it in real time there isn't a whole pile of force in it so yellow would have been right imo. For stupidity as much as anything else.

I don’t think it warranted a red, but looking at the stills it could easily have got one. There is no even vague attempt to wrap.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

Nah, don't think he was close to sliding over the line. In no universe is that a penalty try.

I know, I'm agreeing with that - I'm saying that if people think it's a card then they have to consider that it's also likely a penalty try and it doesn't pass that test imo.

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

I know, I'm agreeing with that - I'm saying that if people think it's a card then they have to consider that it's also likely a penalty try and it doesn't pass that test imo.

I don't get the connection at all.

It could be a yellow card for a no arms tackle making contact with the head and still be nowhere near a penalty try. They are not related.

GammyHammy

I can see the red argument and with another ref he possibly could have got one however as already posted the lack of substantial force means it’s a yellow for me.

eclipsechaser

Faugheen wrote: »

The jump

The difference is pretty clear for me.

One guy has jumped shoulder first towards a player's head when the player no longer has the ball.

The other is standing up as a player falls into him. Interestingly Kearney was done for no arms. If he had have used his arms to wrap him around the head, would that be a penalty or YC too?

salmocab

swiwi_ wrote: »

Are you saying he constantly cheats at the breakdown

He has an invisibility cloak I think

.ak

IBF nobody is saying it’s illegal to jump into the air to make a tackle, the point is he’s clearing jumping to aim his shoulder up to Sexton’s head. That’s reckless and is covered under the laws.

To give an equivilant if you put your arm out to tackle someone but intentionally raise it to clothes line someone, there’s no law against raising your arm but you can bet a red would be considered in that scenario.

Whether he jumped or not may be irrelevant in terms of the laws, however it’s definitive proof that he intentionally headhunted and if he made contact with Sexton’s head he’d be getting a red there.

Did he make contact with the head? Tbh I’m not sure, the stills above make it look like he did. I’d have liked to see Garces go to TMO tho because frankly that was the exact situation you need to do it in to stamp out dirty gameplay.

irishbucsfan

Whether or not he jumped is not even remotely covered under the laws.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with jumping into a tackle as a tackler, some of the most explosive hits come under exactly this situation and aren't remotely illegal. Whether it shows intent or not is also totally irrelevant because it's not considered by a referee. It could very easily be argued its a matter of generating power, referees don't have time to hear those arguments.

The question is simply whether he was late, whether he made no attempt to wrap, whether he made contact with the head. If all of those things were true then a red card would be considered and he'll be cited (around now I think). At that point, after the citing, questions about intent and evidence to that end would be considered, and at that point it becomes relevant that he jumped, but until that point it's not taken into consideration.

One thing is for sure, the citing commissioner certainly wouldn't be using still images, so don't be surprised if he reaches a different conclusion from different evidence.

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I know, I'm agreeing with that - I'm saying that if people think it's a card then they have to consider that it's also likely a penalty try and it doesn't pass that test imo.

No, you really don't need to consider a penalty try if you consider a card for the tackle. The tackle can be worth a card on it's own merits.

Live in the stadium I thought he was walking for sure. On the replay I think he's a little fortunate still. But once Williams slipped the PT was off the table imo.

.ak

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Whether or not he jumped is not even remotely covered under the laws.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with jumping into a tackle as a tackler, some of the most explosive hits come under exactly this situation and aren't remotely illegal. Whether it shows intent or not is also totally irrelevant because it's not considered by a referee. It could very easily be argued its a matter of generating power, referees don't have time to hear those arguments.

The question is simply whether he was late, whether he made no attempt to wrap, whether he made contact with the head. If all of those things were true then a red card would be considered and he'll be cited (around now I think). At that point, after the citing, questions about intent and evidence to that end would be considered, and at that point it becomes relevant that he jumped, but until that point it's not taken into consideration.

One thing is for sure, the citing commissioner certainly wouldn't be using still images, so don't be surprised if he reaches a different conclusion from different evidence.

I’m agreeing with you that jumping has no relevance in terms of the laws. I said as much above.

However, it would definitely be used as consideration of intent to aim the shoulder at the head. Like SBW against the Lions, he aimed his shoulder at a head. How he got there may be irrelevant in terms of the laws, however it is not ignored by the officials making the decision.

irishbucsfan

.ak wrote: »

I’m agreeing with you that jumping has no relevance in terms of the laws. I said as much above.

However, it would definitely be used as consideration of intent to aim the shoulder at the head. Like SBW against the Lions, he aimed his shoulder at a head. How he got there may be irrelevant in terms of the laws, however it is not ignored by the officials making the decision.

It wouldn't be used as consideration of intent by the referee on the field. Way too much scope for a referee to be wrong when judging intent, so the laws are framed in a way that means they don't have to.

By the JO afterwards, it would be looked at.

It was the same ref who sent SBW off, wasn't it? So he'd have had no issue doing the same to Wigglesworth. Sent Payne off against Sarries as well, he's not afraid of making the big calls.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Whether or not he jumped is not even remotely covered under the laws.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with jumping into a tackle as a tackler, some of the most explosive hits come under exactly this situation and aren't remotely illegal. Whether it shows intent or not is also totally irrelevant because it's not considered by a referee. It could very easily be argued its a matter of generating power, referees don't have time to hear those arguments.

So I can clobber someone in the head with my shoulder as long as I jump? Right so.

Another angle



He's definitely in red card territory.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

So I can clobber someone in the head with my shoulder as long as I jump?

You have a very severe comprehension problem I'm afraid. I didn't say anything like that.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

So I can clobber someone in the head with my shoulder as long as I jump?

You have a very severe comprehension problem I'm afraid. I didn't say anything like that.

Then you'll understand that the fact Wigglesworth jumped into the challenge which hits Sexton on the head is very relevant, instead of harping on about how the jump is irrelevant.

Synode

It looks a lot worse than it was when viewing stills or watching in slow motion. I think Garces should have went to the TMO and it deserved at least a yellow. Absolutely no attempt to wrap, led with shoulder, high and late

.ak

Yeah I’d have thought a yellow, but based on Cian Healy’s citing around the Exeter game, gotta say the two aren’t a million miles off each other; both players clearly using their shoulder high on a player without the ball.

Dubinusa

I think it was a deliberate attempt to hurt Sexton. Leo complained about this afterwards. This is a constant issue when Sexton plays for Ireland and Leinster. 4 late hits in the 1st half.
To end this type of goonery the opposition 10 should be targeted. Obviously the refs will let this go, Sextons teammates should not.
Sometimes Murray gets targeted too, it's fairly obvious that opponents realize that Munster without Murray and Leinster without Sexton are easier to beat. I think this is a deliberate tactic by opposing teams. Irish teams should respond in kind imo.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

I think it was a deliberate attempt to hurt Sexton. Leo complained about this afterwards. This is a constant issue when Sexton plays for Ireland and Leinster. 4 late hits in the 1st half.
To end this type of goonery the opposition 10 should be targeted. Obviously the refs will let this go, Sextons teammates should not.
Sometimes Murray gets targeted too, it's fairly obvious that opponents realize that Munster without Murray and Leinster without Sexton are easier to beat. I think this is a deliberate tactic by opposing teams. Irish teams should respond in kind imo.

The poor fools don't realise that Joey Carbery is on the bench. They should be side stepping Johnny when he has the ball to avoid hurting him and unleashing the Carvery from the bench.

Podge_irl

Dubinusa wrote: »

To end this type of goonery the opposition 10 should be targeted. Obviously the refs will let this go, Sextons teammates should not.

That's a slightly bizarre sentiment. What are they supposed to do exactly?

clsmooth

Haven’t seen a replay yet but I thought the one from Kruis looked the worst when watching it live in the stadium. He seemed to clothesline Sexton from behind before Garccame back and called an end to the advantage. I’m assuming it was no where near as bad as it seemed if no one else has made a fuss about it.

joseywhales

Podge_irl wrote: »

Dubinusa wrote: »

To end this type of goonery the opposition 10 should be targeted. Obviously the refs will let this go, Sextons teammates should not.

That's a slightly bizarre sentiment. What are they supposed to do exactly?

well I agree with the sentiment that if the referee is letting things go you must take advantage of that instead of being the victim. Last All Blacks game in Dublin, we should have been swinging arms in tackles all day instead of feeling aggrieved afterward. Play the Ref.

Dubinusa

Hitting Farrell late. Simple really, target ours and yours will be targeted. The refs are not protecting Sexton. It can't be open season for late hits on key players. It's becoming a tactic and a dirty one at that.

Weepsie

irishbucsfan wrote: »

. We benefitted from having one of the best refs in the game but some people will never be happy.

He was crap. All game. Entirely inconsistent. You could see it in how he spoke to each team any time the ball wasn't moving.

He looked over some very easy things, not even on the foul play. Just watch his positioning when Leinster were defending compared to when Sarries where.

He was not looking at the ball a lot of the time when Sarries were on the attack, he was too busy telling individual Leinster players to stay onside all while taking up space in an important channel.

When it was the other way round he stood behind the play a lot more, Sarries crept offside a bit more and were not lectures or treated the same.

Its perhaps not hugely game changing, but it was striking how obviously different he was treating players around the exact same situations

Dubinusa

Just my opinion. Pointing out the myriad dirty late hits on Sexton these past few years.

Weepsie

Weepsie wrote: »

He looked over some very easy things, not even on the foul play. Just watch his positioning when Leinster were defending compared to when Sarries where.

He was not looking at the ball a lot of the time when Sarries were on the attack, he was too busy telling individual Leinster players to stay onside all while taking up space in an important channel.

There was definitely one occasion it was very obvious when we were attacking in the 2nd half that he was standing completely in the wrong position. Luke had to take an extra step or two to throw the ball to the correct intended player so as not to hit the referee. It was absolutely ridiculous and frankly amateurish by the ref.

Dubinusa

Dubinusa wrote: »

Just my opinion. Pointing out the myriad dirty late hits on Sexton these past few years.

It IS obvious, and even though McCaul was asked by BT after about it and he denied it as he would, that this is a tactic taken by opposition teams. Hit late/high/hard when he is vulnerable. Its seen as his weakness so they are targeting it.

Podge_irl

Dubinusa wrote: »

Hitting Farrell late. Simple really, target ours and yours will be targeted. The refs are not protecting Sexton. It can't be open season for late hits on key players. It's becoming a tactic and a dirty one at that.

Irish teams are, in general, reasonably well disciplined and I would rather they kept it that way to be honest. Pretty easy to slide down into being an overly penalised team if you're not careful.

They should direct the refs attention to it and then concentrate on their own game.

Faugheen

If Sexton is ever forced to retire (which he's probably only one head shot away from) then I hope this sort of thing isn't forgotten.

While he'll deserve plaudits like everyone else, I really hope it would be used to highlight just how cynical it is and how it forced one of the greats out because of it.

Faugheen

Podge_irl wrote: »

Irish teams are, in general, reasonably well disciplined and I would rather they kept it that way to be honest. Pretty easy to slide down into being an overly penalised team if you're not careful.

They should direct the refs attention to it and then concentrate on their own game.

The thing is, though, how many times over the years have we heard Best, Cullen, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Nacewa etc point it out to the refs.

Nothing has changed.

Podge_irl

Faugheen wrote: »

The thing is, though, how many times over the years have we heard Best, Cullen, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Nacewa etc point it out to the refs.

Nothing has changed.

Nothing will change if Leinster start engaging in the same tactics - except opening themselves up to being penalised more often.

Maybe if Saracens spent less time concentrating on getting cheap late hits in and more time on marshaling their defence Leinster would not have found it so easy to score?

Faugheen

Podge_irl wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

The thing is, though, how many times over the years have we heard Best, Cullen, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Nacewa etc point it out to the refs.

Nothing has changed.

Nothing will change if Leinster start engaging in the same tactics - except opening themselves up to being penalised more often.

Maybe if Saracens spent less time concentrating on getting cheap late hits in and more time on marshaling their defence Leinster would not have found it so easy to score?

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that Leinster fight fire with fire. Anything that opens Leinster or any Irish team up to poor discipline is never a good idea.

I was just pointing out that the captains talking to the ref never seems to work either. They're very quickly dismissed.

I feel like not enough is done by the province to keep the issue in the spotlight. It's potentially a very serious one.

Podge_irl

Faugheen wrote: »

For the record, I wasn't suggesting that Leinster fight fire with fire. Anything that opens Leinster or any Irish team up to poor discipline is never a good idea.

I was just pointing out that the captains talking to the ref never seems to work either. They're very quickly dismissed.

I feel like not enough is done by the province to keep the issue in the spotlight. It's potentially a very serious one.

I agree, but I don't really think they can do anything else (at least on the pitch). You want to be careful not to be seen to be overly whingey about it either I think.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

It IS obvious, and even though McCaul was asked by BT after about it and he denied it as he would, that this is a tactic taken by opposition teams. Hit late/high/hard when he is vulnerable. Its seen as his weakness so they are targeting it.

Well he denied it, but how he denied it is interesting:

There certainly wasn’t any plan to do that. We wanted to make him make his decisions early. We wanted him to pass a little bit sooner than he wanted to, to kick a little bit earlier. But apart from that, there was no other plan.

Now you can apply that kind of pressure in different ways, but the obvious one is to let Sexton know he's going to be hit every time he gets the ball, whether he's got rid of it or not. So he'll try and get rid of it earlier to avoid the impact.

Dubinusa

Just imagine late hits like those on B. Barrett. It's dirty, and in Sexton's case could be career ending. Glasgow did the same to Murray, targeting his planted leg as he kicks. The refs are not protecting our best players and if Murray was seriously injured Munster would be doomed. I'd say the saffers fly halves were not targeted when Bakkies Botha was playing. It seems to me, that the opposition take liberties knowing that there will be no response. I'm not saying start brawling with them, just cream them hard enough and a little late to let them know our fh's are not target practice. It's just an opinion.

Podge_irl

I really, really don't see why you think Leinster engaging in the same behaviour would stop opposition doing it. If anything it is more likely to just encourage even more of it. Both Leinster and Munster have a stand out player that they rely on - there is very little that can be done to change that particular scenario.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

I really, really don't see why you think Leinster engaging in the same behaviour would stop opposition doing it. If anything it is more likely to just encourage even more of it. Both Leinster and Munster have a stand out player that they rely on - there is very little that can be done to change that particular scenario.

Yeah. Pointless and will only end up in needless handbags and yellow cards. You do your talking on the scoreboard is what I've always been told and it's the best way.

arsebiscuits1

2 points I took from the game.

1) I think people are reading far too much into the missed tackles. It is frustrating to see tackles being missed. But it is clear that our defensive system is sound. We have had lads fall off tackles all season and we still have some of the fewest tries conceded in both competitions. That's no accident.

I cannot pretend to be an expert on defensive coordination, but I can only assume some of the tackles missed are high risk tackles to put people under pressure with them unlikely to be successful in completing it.

2) I think Garces had a good game, aside from the Sexton hit. Ball in play time was very high and this is certainly in part of him being very lenient - but consistent - when reffing the breakdown. There were countless times for both sides that another ref would have pinged for holding on but Garces let them get on with it. Cracking showpiece of rugby was the result.

He also let things go because he understood the context of what was happening.

Eg. Lowe kicked the ball out, a member of the Leinster coaching staff deliberately played it to stop Sarries playing it quick. Garces spotted this and allowed the quick throw and warned the staff member to cut out the gamesmanship. No harm done, correct call.

Also, Lowe was pushed into the jumper, jumper fell. Not dangerously but enough for a penalty. Garces called both captains over and explained how one infrigement led to the other. Play on. Excellent officiating

AdamD

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

2 points I took from the game.

1) I think people are reading far too much into the missed tackles. It is frustrating to see tackles being missed. But it is clear that our defensive system is sound. We have had lads fall off tackles all season and we still have some of the fewest tries conceded in both competitions. That's no accident.

I cannot pretend to be an expert on defensive coordination, but I can only assume some of the tackles missed are high risk tackles to put people under pressure with them unlikely to be successful in completing it.

2) I think Garces had a good game, aside from the Sexton hit. Ball in play time was very high and this is certainly in part of him being very lenient - but consistent - when reffing the breakdown. There were countless times for both sides that another ref would have pinged for holding on but Garces let them get on with it. Cracking showpiece of rugby was the result.

He also let things go because he understood the context of what was happening.

Eg. Lowe kicked the ball out, a member of the Leinster coaching staff deliberately played it to stop Sarries playing it quick. Garces spotted this and allowed the quick throw and warned the staff member to cut out the gamesmanship. No harm done, correct call.

Also, Lowe was pushed into the jumper, jumper fell. Not dangerously but enough for a penalty. Garces called both captains over and explained how one infrigement led to the other. Play on. Excellent officiating

I watched that one back, the logic seemed way off. Schalk Burger impedes Lowe, forcing him into contact with a player in the air. Should have been a Leinster penalty if we're calling Burger's impediment an infringement (which it was).

Buer

Indeed. Doesn't make sense. They don't cancel each other out. A piece of foul play directly led to a potentially dangerous incident with the man who was pushed colliding with a player in the air.

I think Garces was determined to let the game flow as much as possible but that's odd logic.

Bridge93

Can anyone who's watched it back confirm or deny:

That Goode knocked on or didn't of that kick near the end that led to a break

McGrath knocked on off the restart that ultimately led to Sarries try a few mins later

irishbucsfan

I actually didn't agree with Garces there on that one. Clubmates I was watching the game with said that Burger's movement wasn't an infringement, but I definitely think it was.

Synode

Bridge93 wrote: »

Can anyone who's watched it back confirm or deny:

That Goode knocked on or didn't of that kick near the end that led to a break

McGrath knocked on off the restart that ultimately led to Sarries try a few mins later

I watched that incident a few times yesterday. For me it came off his arm

baas baa

In that incident with Lowe and Goode, had Goode landed awkwardly surely there's an argument for carding Burger for causing the collision.

Another anomaly in the laws that I noticed during the game is where a team can cynically kill the ball 5 metres from their own line when penalty advantage down. It rare that sides are punished for it with a yc.

sydthebeat

Synode wrote: »

I watched that incident a few times yesterday. For me it came off his arm

I was convinced at the time that it had touched his arm on the way down, but in slow motion it wasnt obvious so I think it was the right decision.

Dubinusa

My point is that Sexton should not be a pin cushion for opposing players, nothing more. It's been happening for several years now and the refs just don't protect him. I believe it's valid and Rory Best discussed this with a ref during last years 6nations. I don't know what the answer is, but surely the mans safety should be a priority.
All I am saying is that in my opinion a late hit on Farrell may stop Sarries or other opponents taking liberties. I don't know if it would or not but it's just an opinion.
I don't mind if you all disagree.

prawnsambo

Dubinusa wrote: »

My point is that Sexton should not be a pin cushion for opposing players, nothing more. It's been happening for several years now and the refs just don't protect him. I believe it's valid and Rory Best discussed this with a ref during last years 6nations. I don't know what the answer is, but surely the mans safety should be a priority.
All I am saying is that in my opinion a late hit on Farrell may stop Sarries or other opponents taking liberties. I don't know if it would or not but it's just an opinion.
I don't mind if you all disagree.

It wouldn't have that affect though. You'd just get a free for all starting and pretty soon the yellow cards would appear and that usually ends up with a couple of binnings and a trigger happy ref.
And worse still, the focus would be off the game and onto making cheap shots. That's when you lose games.