Leinster Vs Munster buildup

Faugheen

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

thecomedian wrote: »

Ah give over. If he was playing for Munster it would be called passion.

No I'd be saying his a moron needlessly trying to start sh!t off the ball/after the whistle

What's your opinion on Arnold going straight into his back before Stander's try?

That was certainly needless but let's focus on Lowe being annoyed with it.

Where the **** was all this BEFORE the match happened ? ? ? ?

PetKing

Clegg and Faugheen, it's between ye for man of the thread... it's so close now!

Peregrine

Oh my. I take back everything I said about this thread not having enough bite.

The Specialist

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

No I'd be saying his a moron needlessly trying to start sh!t off the ball/after the whistle

He really is and I hope someone eventually feeds him a slap for all the grinning he does. Zebo can be annoying but he's nowhere near that ****.

Flincher

Faugheen wrote: »

Mookie Blaylock wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

But he was offside, and as a result is a Leinster penalty.

The call was wrong, the outcome was correct.

What’s your point here?

The call was wrong... everything else afterwards is fruit if the poisoned tree...lots of maybes and conjecture.

No-one who watched the game thinks the better team lost.... but anyone who thinks the scoreline wasnt affected by piss-poor officiating is either high or drunk

So you think Earls' try should have stood then?

If you don't think so, then this conversation is irrelevant.

And if you want to talk about the scoreline, let's talk about POM's illegal binding in the scrums that helped lead to that try in the second half. So yeah, poor officiating did lead to the scoreline being much closer.

Take your beating. Stop crying about a decision that resulted in the correct outcome and just accept that Munster came up short again.

I want this to be a genuine discussion on the call rather that a partisan back and forth.....here goes....

I think we're all agreed that Earls was ahead of the ball, and had Arnold deliberately played the ball he would have been offside.

Law 10.1: A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it

However, in the latest version of the laws, "Played" has now been defined as "The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player". See link below. In this case, Arnold didn't deliberately touch the ball, as it hit off his head while making the tackle. Therefore, under this new interpretation does it follow that Earls isn't offside?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2#let16

thecomedian

Flincher wrote: »

I want this to be a genuine discussion on the call rather that a partisan back and forth.....here goes....

I think we're all agreed that Earls was ahead of the ball, and had Arnold deliberately played the ball he would have been offside.

Law 10.1: A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it

However, in the latest version of the laws, "Played" has now been defined as "The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player". See link below. In this case, Arnold didn't deliberately touch the ball, as it hit off his head while making the tackle. Therefore, under this new interpretation does it follow that Earls isn't offside?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2#let16

If that’s the definition of played now, then it wasn’t offside.
A new one to me.

Burkie1203

lawred2 wrote: »

Earls was ahead of the receiver. It was ridiculous. How could you gurantee that the receiver would have touched it down?

Earls played Lowe illegally. So he is removed from the equation altogether.

iminterestd0

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

No I'd be saying his a moron needlessly trying to start sh!t off the ball/after the whistle

sounds like every Munster "ligind"

razorblunt

I’ve just remember someone mentioned Quinlan in this thread when talking about Toland. I didn’t realise how much I was enjoying not having to listen to Quinlan and the rest of the Sky gowls.

Still have to listen to Toland though.

CJay1

razorblunt wrote: »

I’ve just remember someone mentioned Quinlan in this thread when talking about Toland. I didn’t realise how much I was enjoying not having to listen to Quinlan and the rest of the Sky gowls.

Still have to listen to Toland though.

What's wrong with Toland? I think he's a very good commentator.

pickarooney

[Deleted User] wrote: »

James Lowe's new nickname?

pickarooney

Ernest Shy Script wrote: »

This puts Earls offside.

In open play, with no knock on?

The Rape of Lucretia

Deleted User wrote: »

Munster have no faith in their 9's outside Murray.

It did seem that way, although quite why, I'm not sure, and maybe it will come in time : the two Rock boys are certainly of the right stuff, and Earlsie still has something to offer. What's the deal with Farrell ? When is he back.

Overall, utterly deserved win from Leinster. Head and shoulders above Munster in fundamental player quality.
Seanie looked a bit muted, but great to see him on a pitch - there is only one goal here, with Leinster and Ireland games only steps on the road to Japan.

And - hasnt Lowe got the most gorgeous hands ? He is a different breed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJH3pXLa8o0

Let's keep those tears coming folks, they make the win even more delicious.

Former Former

Flincher wrote: »

I want this to be a genuine discussion on the call rather that a partisan back and forth.....here goes....

I think we're all agreed that Earls was ahead of the ball, and had Arnold deliberately played the ball he would have been offside.

Law 10.1: A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it

However, in the latest version of the laws, "Played" has now been defined as "The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player". See link below. In this case, Arnold didn't deliberately touch the ball, as it hit off his head while making the tackle. Therefore, under this new interpretation does it follow that Earls isn't offside?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2#let16

No.

I mean, I'm sorry to be dismissive but that's not how the game is reffed. The conclusion of this argument is that you can only be offside from a kick or deliberate knock on. That's not how it works.

This is getting really desperate lads

Burkie1203

Flincher wrote: »

I want this to be a genuine discussion on the call rather that a partisan back and forth.....here goes....

I think we're all agreed that Earls was ahead of the ball, and had Arnold deliberately played the ball he would have been offside.

Law 10.1: A player is offside in open play if that player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball or who last played it

However, in the latest version of the laws, "Played" has now been defined as "The ball is played when it is intentionally touched by a player". See link below. In this case, Arnold didn't deliberately touch the ball, as it hit off his head while making the tackle. Therefore, under this new interpretation does it follow that Earls isn't offside?

https://laws.worldrugby.org/?domain=2#let16

Arnold goes to tackle Henshaw at the exact height the ball happens to be at. If you are tackling the ball carrier at the height the ball is being held then that's playing the ball IMO

Arnold went for man and ball tackle

Burkie1203

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Arnold goes to tackle Henshaw at the exact height the ball happens to be at. If you are tackling the ball carrier at the height the ball is being held then that's playing the ball IMO

Arnold went for man and ball tackle

We all need to stop entertaining this line of discussion.

It's fundamental to rugby that you have to be behind the ball.

The Rape of Lucretia

Ernest Shy Script wrote: »

It's fundamental to rugby that you have to be behind the ball.

Whatever the Laws state ?

Squatter

CJay1 wrote: »

What's wrong with Toland? I think he's a very good commentator.

Cyclopean analysis.

He's the Munster yin to Mark Robson's Ulster yang.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Whatever the Laws state ?

There's an entire section of the laws dedicated to offside.

DD Mikasa

Faugheen wrote: »

What's your opinion on Arnold going straight into his back before Stander's try?

That was certainly needless but let's focus on Lowe being annoyed with it.

You keep saying this. Lowe hit Arnold with a no arms tackle on right wing b4 that, so if you want to go down that route over and over again ad nauseum then at least get the sequence right

Faugheen

DD Mikasa wrote: »

You keep saying this. Lowe hit Arnold with a no arms tackle on right wing b4 that, so if you want to go down that route over and over again ad nauseum then at least get the sequence right

Right arm was clearly wrapped my friend. Try again.

You can also give me your opinion on the above incident since no Munster fan has actually provided one for me so far.

DD Mikasa

Faugheen wrote: »

Right arm was clearly wrapped my friend. Try again.

You can also give me your opinion on the above incident since no Munster fan has actually provided one for me so far.

He dropped the shoulder, there was no wrap. This was clearly what sparked subsequent event

Faugheen

DD Mikasa wrote: »

He dropped the shoulder, there was no wrap. This was clearly what sparked subsequent event

You need to watch it again my good man, there is a clear attempt to wrap.

Once again a Munster fan can’t actually answer my question about Lowe getting a shoulder to the back, yet Lowe is a scumbag for reacting to it.

However if Arnold reacts to some made-up fantasy challenge he’s all good.

DD Mikasa

Faugheen wrote: »

You need to watch it again my good man, there is a clear attempt to wrap.

Once again a Munster fan can’t actually answer my question about Lowe getting a shoulder to the back, yet Lowe is a scumbag for reacting to it.

However if Arnold reacts to some made-up fantasy challenge he’s all good.

Calling me friend or good man does not automatically place you in some self perceived position of righteousness.

I didn't actually see this shoulder you refer to but will assume you are correct that it happened. I have already explained that Arnold would have been getting his retaliation in, but cos it doesn't sit well with ur narrative...

I know a couple Leinster fans who have acknowledged voluntarily that the ref was incredibly one sided last night. I would have no problem admitting it if a side i supported was on the 'right' side of a blatant home town ref performance.

Leinster are the better side at the minute. They are the best side in Europe by some distance. They have deservedly dominated this rivalry for a decade now. Have no issue with this. Leinster are a great side and are the yard stick for Munster right now.

But if you can't see, or acknowledge, that the ref last night massively favoured one team over another then that says all that needs to be said and there is no point continuing this conversation.

prawnsambo

DD Mikasa wrote: »

Calling me friend or good man does not automatically place you in some self perceived position of righteousness.

I didn't actually see this shoulder you refer to but will assume you are correct that it happened. I have already explained that Arnold would have been getting his retaliation in, but cos it doesn't sit well with ur narrative...

I know a couple Leinster fans who have acknowledged voluntarily that the ref was incredibly one sided last night. I would have no problem admitting it if a side i supported was on the 'right' side of a blatant home town ref performance.

Leinster are the better side at the minute. They are the best side in Europe by some distance. They have deservedly dominated this rivalry for a decade now. Have no issue with this. Leinster are a great side and are the yard stick for Munster right now.

But if you can't see, or acknowledge, that the ref last night massively favoured one team over another then that says all that needs to be said and there is no point continuing this conversation.

And yet allowed POM act as a third second row all game. People see what they want to see.

salmocab

enjoyed the game last night, Leinster soaked up a lot in defense against a Munster team that are looking better and more up for it this season. Lowe was the difference last night which is impressive for a winger to have so much influence.

Heymans

swiwi_ wrote: »

Is James Lowe really “poison”?

Carbery or Byrne?

Speaking of Beirne, how good was he?

Did Leinster get the rub of the ref?

VDF > Leavy?

Was that Cronins best display off the bench for Munster?

Will I go to sleep tonight with Liam Tolands dulcet tones and “phenomenal”, “amazing”, “test match” ringing in my ears?

Didn’t think he was as exceptional barring one solid leg drive for the try. Average at best with no turnovers to keep his reputation all hype going.

Heymans

Deleted User wrote: »

Just in from the game, haven't had a chance to read through the thread so before my thoughts on the game get polluted by all the chatter:

James Lowe was clear man of the match, out of the 46 players involved on the two team sheets he was playing like he had the most skin in the game. Was petulant, aggressive and immense.

Jack McGrath looks quite unfit. He was struggling from 10 minutes in and look around 4 - 5 games away from match fitness. I actually wonder if he is hitting his markers as he looked well off the boil.

Leinster's scrum malfunctioned. I don't particularly rate Munster's set piece and I'd be more inclined to wonder where Leinster's difficulties came from. Seemed to be a tighthead issue throughout but I didn't have the best view of most of the scrums.

POM and SOB gave no quarter, never left each other alone at the breakdown - was a right show from the pair of them. Stander went well, Ryan went well. Thought Leavy carried purposefully.

Carbery just creates time out of thin air on the ball. Mark of a top 10. He took a lot of punishment and glad to see him get on with it, he's become more robust from seasons past. Thought Ross Byrne was good, not necessarily better but he gave his pack more forgiving ball and his kicking was impressive. I'll need to read back on why he got MOTM as I feel I missed something in the performance, there were better performances though he steered the ship capably. Kinda almost felt like it was a statement based around the narrative between him and Carbery. Who awarded it?

Earls yellow felt harsh but understandable. Wasn't sure why his intercept try was called back. Some of the TMO decisions were very obvious from where I was sitting.

Whitehouse has an issue making decisions when the ball isn't coming out of the breakdown and he get's it wrong often because he gives to the team in possession. He ignored his linesman on one such incident when he clearly didn't know why the ball wasn't coming back.

Munster have no faith in their 9's outside Murray. Mathewson was crocked for a good 15 minutes before he came off. Managed to score a try during that time but still.

Big game, lot's of physicality. Leinster dominated the collisions for 20 minutes at the start of the game and 20 minutes at the start of the first half but outside of that went way too within themselves and gifted Munster a way back into the game. They also found far too much space in Munsters back field - Sexton would have crucified them.

Munster's attack still looks blunt, lot of kicking when they failed to make ground through multiple phases.

Enjoyable game, atmosphere was grand but there was very little by way of travelling support.

Healy and VDF both made big impacts on the game when they came on.

Wasps and Exeter will learn a lot about both teams from watching that back - Leinster vulnerable in the scrum potentially and Munster can't break down a solid defence.

Onto Europe!

porter still hasn’t bolted up those weaknesses on his scrummaging. Always drops his side in the scrum a couple of times per match. You never get that with Furlong or bent. He’ll have to work on it imo to be in the frame internationally come the world cup

Heymans

Heymans wrote: »

porter still hasn’t bolted up those weaknesses on his scrummaging. Always drops his side in the scrum a couple of times per match. You never get that with Furlong or bent. He’ll have to work on it imo to be in the frame internationally come the world cup

Porter is still wearing nappies in terms of propping at TH. Of course he'll improve.

DD Mikasa

DD Mikasa wrote: »

Calling me friend or good man does not automatically place you in some self perceived position of righteousness.

I didn't actually see this shoulder you refer to but will assume you are correct that it happened. I have already explained that Arnold would have been getting his retaliation in, but cos it doesn't sit well with ur narrative...

I know a couple Leinster fans who have acknowledged voluntarily that the ref was incredibly one sided last night. I would have no problem admitting it if a side i supported was on the 'right' side of a blatant home town ref performance.

Leinster are the better side at the minute. They are the best side in Europe by some distance. They have deservedly dominated this rivalry for a decade now. Have no issue with this. Leinster are a great side and are the yard stick for Munster right now.

But if you can't see, or acknowledge, that the ref last night massively favoured one team over another then that says all that needs to be said and there is no point continuing this conversation.

What a few Leinster fans have said doesn't matter a fig. How you claim you'd react if Munster got favourable calls matters even less. This pathetic crying about the ref is not standing up to scrutiny.

Faugheen

DD Mikasa wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

You need to watch it again my good man, there is a clear attempt to wrap.

Once again a Munster fan can’t actually answer my question about Lowe getting a shoulder to the back, yet Lowe is a scumbag for reacting to it.

However if Arnold reacts to some made-up fantasy challenge he’s all good.

Calling me friend or good man does not automatically place you in some self perceived position of righteousness.

I didn't actually see this shoulder you refer to but will assume you are correct that it happened. I have already explained that Arnold would have been getting his retaliation in, but cos it doesn't sit well with ur narrative...

I know a couple Leinster fans who have acknowledged voluntarily that the ref was incredibly one sided last night. I would have no problem admitting it if a side i supported was on the 'right' side of a blatant home town ref performance.

Leinster are the better side at the minute. They are the best side in Europe by some distance. They have deservedly dominated this rivalry for a decade now. Have no issue with this. Leinster are a great side and are the yard stick for Munster right now.

But if you can't see, or acknowledge, that the ref last night massively favoured one team over another then that says all that needs to be said and there is no point continuing this conversation.

Arnold got a way with a shoulder to the back of a defenceless Lowe.

POM was allowed to illegally bind to the prop all night, which helped play a part in two tries.

Whitehouse let Munster away with blatant cheating, and I don't mean a few lucky penalties. Munster (specifically POM) were clearly breaking the rules for the entire game. Don't come in here crying that you were hard done by by the ref, and then when it's put to you that you got away with one thing you call it 'retaliation' and then ignore multiple posts about POM's binding.

iminterestd0

the crying about the refs is so sweet

Clegg

Van Graan was very clever with his post match comments. Talking about 14 point swings and referees interpretations focuses the story on that. Nobody is talking about a full strength Munster losing to a weakened Leinster and all the problems that should bring for them.

Clegg

Clegg wrote: »

Van Graan was very clever with his post match comments. Talking about 14 poin swings and referees interpretations focuses the story on that. Nobody is talking about a full strength Munster losing to a weakened Leinster and all the problems that should bring for them.

Not to mention yet another away loss with a very tough away fixture coming up next weekend.

eclipsechaser

Whatever about the debate as to whether the knock-on should have led to a scrum or a penalty, The Sunday Times went with a different angle altogether:

Peter O'Reilly wrote:

Earls was called back because Sammy Arnold was penalised for a deliberate slap-down as he tackled Robbie Henshaw but replays indicated that it was accidental and that play should have been allowed carry on.

Clegg

So Arnold slapped the ball down and it was recovered by Earls who was ahead of the play.

That's offside and is a penalty to Leinster.

eclipsechaser

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Whatever about the debate as to whether the knock-on should have led to a scrum or a penalty, The Sunday Times went with a different angle altogether:

Earls was still in front of Arnold!

How many times does this need to be explained.

Zzippy

There's one thing worse than a sore loser, and that's a sore winner. Some of ye are really letting yourselves down. Cop on with the condescension and rubbing it in. Thread will be closed if this nonsense keeps up.

Former Former

Clegg wrote: »

Van Graan was very clever with his post match comments. Talking about 14 point swings and referees interpretations focuses the story on that. Nobody is talking about a full strength Munster losing to a weakened Leinster and all the problems that should bring for them.

Yep, very clever.

Munster have lost to every half-decent side they've faced this year. Yesterday was their best display but they had two-thirds of possession and territory but came away without even an LBP.

Next up they have an away trip to Exeter who are six from six in the premiership, and they might be going without Mathewson.

But it's ok, Ben Whitehouse isn't the ref next week so it's all good.

c.p.w.g.w

prawnsambo wrote: »

And yet allowed POM act as a third second row all game. People see what they want to see.

His binded like many times before(with Ireland too)and no ref has pulled him. Didn't know it was against the rules

thomond2006

Munster had a great opportunity to win that until Archer thought he would get away with a clear block on a kickoff a second time. Absolutely maddening to watch that error. It's impossible to follow the game from the crap seats us Leinster STHs get behind the goal, but Beirne was my pick of the Munster players and I thought Goggin stepped up well. Whether he starts next week is another question however. I imagine Scannell will get back in.

As for the ref, the only thing that annoyed me was no card in the second half for persistent infringement by Leinster.

A much better derby than the rubbish served up in previous encounters in the Aviva.

PhlegmyMoses

Ernest Shy Script wrote: »

Earls was still in front of Arnold!

How many times does this need to be explained.

It's such a weird argument as well.

"This is unfair your honour, they're accusing me of punching this guy when I was actually kicking the other guy! What a shambles!"

bilston

Ernest Shy Script wrote: »

eclipsechaser wrote: »

Whatever about the debate as to whether the knock-on should have led to a scrum or a penalty, The Sunday Times went with a different angle altogether:

Earls was still in front of Arnold!

How many times does this need to be explained.

Yeah...I haven't read the thread so I assume this has been brought up judging by your post...but yes it was a penalty, however it was given for the wrong reason. That particular touch judge seem to be hallucinating a bit last night.

sydthebeat

Beirne was good, yet I can't forget how he completely butchered a 3 on 1 in the first half, on about half way, by cutting back inside to the 15 with two red jerseys outside him.
Now, unless they were props, it was a criminal thing to do, when there was only one defender in the back field.
Take the tackle and set up an easy 2 on 1 with the last defender

Bridge93

This has been enjoyable to read. To go with what was the best Leinster/Munster game I’ve seen in a fair while. Hopefully this whole event can reignite something. Can only imagine the Thomond crowd on Stephens Day now. Can’t wait

bilston

Clegg wrote: »

Looking back on the game in more detail and James Ryan was definitely the best player on that pitch.

Yep, speaking as a neutral this would be my view as well.

I also finally understood last night why so many Leinster fans were saying last week that they'd take JVDF over Leavy. The guy is an absolute machine. Leavy ain't bad either, although at one point he was sat down by Goggin (I think) in the first half which was a bit disconcerting to see.

As for Munster that's the first time I've really noticed Goggin play. I thought he was good.

eclipsechaser

Ernest Shy Script wrote: »

Earls was still in front of Arnold!

How many times does this need to be explained.

Did I say otherwise? I was quoting a very unusual interpretation from the Sunday Times. No need for the tone.

kuang1

I've just read this thread in its entirety.

I think I'd feel less guilty if I'd just eaten 7 dairy milks.

Well done Leinster. Fair result.