Connacht Team Talk Thread V - The Friend Zone

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

A poster above implied a lenghy ban as "a high tackle is a high tackle" .
No.
They are reds close to yellows (are even yellows sometimes for some refs)
If Papali'i and Farrell undergo the same duration, that's insane.
Wait and see

if thats aimed at me, i said no such thing. Papaili hit Murray with A shoulder/upper arm to the head. Its a stonewall red card.

IMO the time off thing needs to be chucked out the window in such cases. Papaili should get a 6 week ban and Farrell, should be seeing far more but thats not what will happen

connachta

Former Former wrote: »

The minimum ban is six weeks. Since Papali'i has no priors (easy enough with no career to date), he'll get full remission and get a three week ban.

I'm not sure where Farrell fits into this.

How do weeks count now we're not in final phases?

salmocab

connachta wrote: »

A poster above implied a lenghy ban as "a high tackle is a high tackle".
No.
They are reds close to yellows (are even yellows sometimes for some refs)
If Papali'i and Farrell undergo the same duration, that's insane.
Wait and see

I think the poster just said it was definitely a red, he’ll definitely get a reduction as it is first offence although I doubt it’s the last the disciplinary board will see of him.

Former Former

You've got a Friend in me

connachta wrote: »

How do weeks count now we're not in final phases?

If he gets three weeks, he has to miss three matches.

Connacht will claim that he was always going to be playing for the Eagles and whatever Ail club he's registered to, and he'll miss zero games.

I'd be more worried about his next offence to be honest, this will count against him then.

connachta

These A games would have had been useful to adapt, but good to know he could play n°20 for the 1st game as I hope for..

We don't have to rest him any time, as he may face a 6weeks+ ban at some moment this season...

That's the main difficulty to come from XIII, lowering the position...

Bazzo

Mul, it's over

salmocab wrote: »

I think the poster just said it was definitely a red, he’ll definitely get a reduction as it is first offence although I doubt it’s the last the disciplinary board will see of him.

Do you think he's a dirty player or something?

salmocab

Bazzo wrote: »

Do you think he's a dirty player or something?

Not dirty as such but a combination of bad techniques and poor fitness would make me think things like that tackle whilst probably without malice are going to be happening more than rare occasions. The league background won’t help.

Bazzo

Mul, it's over

salmocab wrote: »

Not dirty as such but a combination of bad techniques and poor fitness would make me think things like that tackle whilst probably without malice are going to be happening more than rare occasions. The league background won’t help.

Yeah fair enough. I'll probably hold judgement until I see a bit more of him to be honest but he wouldn't be the first rugby league convert to have issues with his tackling technique and the new interpretations and his size won't make life easier for him.

ElisaAtWar

Hard to watch Frank Murphy anymore. Every move is a penalty. He kills the fun in the game of rugby. His performance last weekend was simply shocking and again he destroys a game tonight.

ElisaAtWar

While connachts performance was a realhorrowshow last weekend it does show how a referee can completely blow a game wide apart

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

ElisaAtWar wrote: »

While connachts performance was a realhorrowshow last weekend it does show how a referee can completely blow a game wide apart

The ref didn't put in a head high shot on Conor Murray, or an elbow into the face of Stander

Diabhal Beag

Won't lie here. Delighted for McFarland.

Lucas44

Actually think a bit of his red card v Munster was down to fatigue if you go to 25 mins in the link (22 in the game) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_YShtM4ZFHI and just watch papali until the sending off it’s clear he’s out on his feet.. he does have one more good carry that he was unlucky to get pinged for holding on but no second effort on the ground probably cause of fatigue.. even the play with the hit on Murray he’s about 5m behind Fitzgerald... would love to see him given the first 2-3 weeks of next season off or ease him in with ail, a games and bench appearances to maximise his potential

Buer

ElisaAtWar wrote: »

Hard to watch Frank Murphy anymore. Every move is a penalty. He kills the fun in the game of rugby. His performance last weekend was simply shocking and again he destroys a game tonight.

21 penalties in tonight's match. Not a particularly high total at all and could have been higher. Edinburgh's discipline was brutal and most were clear penalties. He let a lot go. The poor handling was the biggest hindrance to the game tonight.

connachta

Lucas44 wrote: »

Actually think a bit of his red card v Munster was down to fatigue if you go to 25 mins in the link (22 in the game) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_YShtM4ZFHI and just watch papali until the sending off it’s clear he’s out on his feet.. he does have one more good carry that he was unlucky to get pinged for holding on but no second effort on the ground probably cause of fatigue.. even the play with the hit on Murray he’s about 5m behind Fitzgerald... would love to see him given the first 2-3 weeks of next season off or ease him in with ail, a games and bench appearances to maximise his potential

10 cm too high, maybe because of being tired but gosh that tackle clearing Murray AND 100Kg Farrell in the same time was impressive...
Head-to-head with Stander fulfilled my expectations too

Papali'i will make us lose games, and win others. It's a bet. He has to prove we'll get on the good side of the coin often

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

than




10 cm too high, maybe because of being tired but gosh that tackle clearing Murray AND 100Kg Farrell in the same time was impressive...

There is nothing impressive about a head shot

thomond2006

Some Like It TOH

The tackle causing a red card and a likely suspension was impressive. :pac:

connachta

I've never said illegal tackling is good and you know it
I've said the physicality in it was great, and at first sight that's what the commentators said

Burkie1203

Mul, it's over

connachta wrote: »

I've never said illegal tackling is good and you know it
I've said the physicality in it was great, and at first sight that's what the commentators said

Physicality is great if its used properly. If its a head shot, its not great physicality. It's piss poor play.

b.gud

connachta wrote: »

10 cm too high, maybe because of being tired but gosh that tackle clearing Murray AND 100Kg Farrell in the same time was impressive...
Head-to-head with Stander fulfilled my expectations too

Papali'i will make us lose games, and win others. It's a bet. He has to prove we'll get on the good side of the coin often

I get the point you're trying to make but it's hard to judge the outcome of the physicality without taking into account the illegality of the tackle. If I recall correctly a lot of the reason Farrell went down as well as Murray was due to the impact of Murray falling back into him as a result of the challenge. I know your counter to this is that it was the physicality of Papali'is challenge that caused Murray to fall but we can't say for certain that Murray would have fallen in the same way had the challenge been legal.

It's great that you are excited by Papali'i and there were definitely some glimpses in the game that showed that he has promise but I don't think a red card tackle should be one of them

sydthebeat

The Friend Zone

connachta wrote: »

10 cm too high, maybe because of being tired but gosh that tackle clearing Murray AND 100Kg Farrell in the same time was impressive...

Have we just time travelled back ten years to where uncontrolled high hits on players heads were seen as a thing to admire??

connachta

b.gud wrote: »

I get the point you're trying to make but it's hard to judge the outcome of the physicality without taking into account the illegality of the tackle. If I recall correctly a lot of the reason Farrell went down as well as Murray was due to the impact of Murray falling back into him as a result of the challenge. I know your counter to this is that it was the physicality of Papali'is challenge that caused Murray to fall but we can't say for certain that Murray would have fallen in the same way had the challenge been legal.

It's great that you are excited by Papali'i and there were definitely some glimpses in the game that showed that he has promise but I don't think a red card tackle should be one of them

I agree perfectly with this ponderate stance. I do think Murray and Farrell fall would have been the same with a tackle 10 cm lower, but I can't be sure it would have been 100% that impressive.


I quoted the face-to-face with Stander Papali'i won, which is, we can all agree, a great sign about his physicality

JohnniDrama

The game has moved on so much now we don’t want to see those types of incidents anymore. From anyone.

I feel the intent was a big, clean hit and he made a ****e of it and saw the right card. And a ban is fair. I am sure some attention to the details will fix this going forward for him.

It was also nice to read he sought out Murray after the game and apologised personally about it.

Other fans suggestIng it was more dirty and sinister are wide of the mark.

Zzippy

Burkie1203 wrote: »

The ref didn't put in a head high shot on Conor Murray, or an elbow into the face of Stander

I know Stander has a big jaw, but it doesn't actually cover his neck, where Delahunt elbowed him. It was several inches below his face, and Murphy actually suggested to the TMO that initial contact was to the chest. The TMO disagreed. Neither thought it was to the face, though, so we can be thankful they have better eyesight than you.

gally74

The Friend Zone

When is the new gear out ?

FACECUTTR

gally74 wrote: »

When is the new gear out ?

I thought it would be quite soon.

Bazzo

Mul, it's over

Still no word on Papali'i and Delahunt?

Squidgy Black

Bazzo wrote: »

Still no word on Papali'i and Delahunt?

No fixtures so they just might have not bothered doing a citing commission yet. Might be one after the final maybe.

realhorrorshow

Squidgy Black wrote: »

No fixtures so they just might have not bothered doing a citing commission yet. Might be one after the final maybe.

There's A games on the 19th and 26th so it would be handy if they counted towards any potential bans.

Squidgy Black

realhorrorshow wrote: »

There's A games on the 19th and 26th so it would be handy if they counted towards any potential bans.

I don't know if those games would be counted or just seen as exhibition games/friendlies in that respect.