Ulster vs. Leinster, Saturday 6th March, 19.35 (Eir Sport 1)

awec

I've seen a lot of nonsense about Madigan dipping apparently being a mitigation.

He's the moment Ian Madigan was essentially headbutted while standing up straight. You can see how high O'Brien aims his tackle. If Warwick was a red, this was a 100% nailed on no questions asked red card, it was infinitely more dangerous.

ujjjjjjjjj

molloyjh wrote: »

I think the use of the word control is better in this context. I dont think Warwick made a conscious decision to hit Byrne in the neck. But he did have control over whether or not he did it. So maybe replace the word "intentional" with the word "control" and we might all be more closely aligned...

Fair point. The decision to lift the elbow was intentional Yes, the intention was not to hurt Ed Byrne but the act was dangerous as the player had no control etc etc when he could have had control.

Look no one is writing off Warwick (just like Heaslip's red card v the All Black's or a load others) the player lost control for split second and did something rash.

To be honest it is amazing it doesn't happen more often and I am constantly amazed at the discipline on the pitch considering the nature of the sport.

Maybe we could move on from this and perhaps look at why Ulster actually lost by 19 points......the difference up front being huge and what exactly can Ulster do to remedy this ? Leinster up front were on a different level to Ulster physically. The most interesting part of the game which highlighted this yesterday was Ulster and they did really well to maintain the attack for so long taking 12 minutes to get over the Leinster when Leinster in similar situations were taking a couple of minutes.

Buer

awec wrote: »

I've seen a lot of nonsense about Madigan dipping apparently being a mitigation.

And that's why dipping isn't mitigation. It's a sudden drop in height (as per the mitigations I listed from the laws) which took place as Madigan jumped up and dropped.

ujjjjjjjjj

awec wrote: »

I've seen a lot of nonsense about Madigan dipping apparently being a mitigation.

He's the moment Ian Madigan was essentially headbutted while standing up straight. You can see how high O'Brien aims his tackle. If Warwick was a red, this was a 100% nailed on no questions asked red card, it was infinitely more dangerous.

TMO's use video not screengrabs for good reason.

First point of contact was shoulder to shoulder, the tight space and closeness of the players forced the contact point to be high. Was it dangerous yes but was there mitigation the ref felt there was as did the TMO. The lack of intent (yes I know its not a law) always helps the player whether that is right or wrong.

Warwick's was entirely different.

yerrahbah

Both are red cards for me.

The fact the TMO had to convince the ref the Warwick one was a red is worrying

awec

Buer wrote: »

And that's why dipping isn't mitigation. It's a sudden drop in height (as per the mitigations I listed from the laws) which took place as Madigan jumped up and dropped.

But this is nonsense. Of course he dropped after he jumped, he can't fly. He was still completely upright when he landed and got hit in the face.

Are you saying O'Brien was approaching the tackle as if he was going to tackle Madigan while he was still in the air?

awec

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

TMO's use video not screengrabs for good reason.

First point of contact was shoulder to shoulder, the tight space and closeness of the players forced the contact point to be high. Was it dangerous yes but was there mitigation the ref felt there was as did the TMO. The lack of intent (yes I know its not a law) always helps the player whether that is right or wrong.

Warwick's was entirely different.

You keep repeating this but it is false.

Anyway, what intention did O'Brien have aiming his tackle so high? It's dangerous, he knows Madigan's head is going to be there.

Buer

awec wrote: »

But this is nonsense. Of course he dropped after he jumped, he can't fly. He was still completely upright when he landed and got hit in the face.

Are you saying O'Brien was approaching the tackle as if he was going to tackle Madigan while he was still in the air?

I'm not saying anything.

I'm explaining the presence of available mitigation for Murphy to decline the red card.

As I said previously, it's a very thorough and methodical process. The officials will go through the checklist to see if any of them can be applied. A sudden drop by Madigan took place, putting his head into the collision location. That was enough for the officials to be able to avoid the red card.

The officials don't want to give red cards. They know the ****storm they'll endure. Murphy was very eager to avoid the red for Warwick too but none of the mitigations were applicable. In fact, under the directive, Warwick raised his arm in advance and had clear sight of Byrne which ticked the boxes in the directive for an action of "a high degree of danger".

It's not realistic or necessarily fair but the referees follow this protocol to remove their personal interpretation from such incidents and give a logic. Unfortunately, nobody really wants to hear that there is a process which was followed. Most are unaware of a detailed directive providing guidance for these incidents.

theVersatile

Nothing like a dodgy refereeing performance to take the public eye away from quiet games for Cooney and Ruddock.

molloyjh

Yep, Murphy didn't want to give any reds last night. He used whatever mitigations he could to avoid them he had none to use in the Warwick case. That's not his fault. Or the TMOs. Or the laws/directives.

And equating what JOB did to slamming his head into Madigan or headbutting Madigan isn't helping. That isnt what happened and such dramatic licence doesn't exactly help the argument.

ujjjjjjjjj

Buer wrote: »

I'm not saying anything.

I'm explaining the presence of available mitigation for Murphy to decline the red card.

As I said previously, it's a very thorough and methodical process. The officials will go through the checklist to see if any of them can be applied. A sudden drop by Madigan took place, putting his head into the collision location. That was enough for the officials to be able to avoid the red card.

The officials don't want to give red cards. They know the ****storm they'll endure. Murphy was very eager to avoid the red for Warwick too but none of the mitigations were applicable. In fact, under the directive, Warwick raised his arm in advance and had clear sight of Byrne which ticked the boxes in the directive for an action of "a high degree of danger".

It's not realistic or necessarily fair but the referees follow this protocol to remove their personal interpretation from such incidents and give a logic. Unfortunately, nobody really wants to hear that there is a process which was followed. Most are unaware of a detailed directive providing guidance for these incidents.

I think unfortunately if the Warwick red card had not happened we wouldn't even be talking about JOB but like so often happens when one side gets a red the magnifying glass comes out on other decisions that went the other way.

Ulster didn't lose because of Warwick they lost because they got minced up front and Leinster's forwards were exceptional and Leinster also recognised the threat Ulster had out wide and mitigated this by keeping it tight.

19 points is a huge margin in a game of this nature.

clsmooth

Warwick separated his arm from his body and lead with his forearm which is a penalty so calling it a fend isn’t correct. Unfortunately for him, he caught Byrne in the throat with the elbow. You leave yourself open to the mercy of the referee when you do that. Murphy didn’t want to send him off, but the TMO and linesman felt it was a red. I have some sympathy for the position he was put in.

We’ve been calling out TMOs recently for not challenging the referee’s on the pitch decision when in many cases they’re in a better position to make the call as they’re watching it from a ‘detached’ viewpoint. If they ignore that advice, we’d criticise them. When they reluctantly go with the common consensus of the officiating team, we also have a pop at them. Who’d want to be a ref?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

Yep, Murphy didn't want to give any reds last night. He used whatever mitigations he could to avoid them he had none to use in the Warwick case. That's not his fault. Or the TMOs. Or the laws/directives.

And equating what JOB did to slamming his head into Madigan or headbutting Madigan isn't helping. That isnt what happened and such dramatic licence doesn't exactly help the argument.

There is no dramatic license.

Madigan went into that tackle with his head as high as it could be. It would be physically impossible for Madigan to get his head any higher without going through some sort of instantaneous growth spurt or donning a pair of stilts.

O'Brien's tackle was so high, that even with Madigan standing completely upright he got smashed in the head.

There are no mitigating circumstances here. There was no drop. There was no ducking. There was no falling into the tackle. It was head on head. I agreed with a yellow at the time cause the games are crap when teams lose a man, but then he gave Warwick a red so it's clear that there is no consistency and Ulster can quite rightly feel they got absolutely shafted yet again.

The most dangerous incident in that game last night resulted in a yellow card. The absolutely appalling standard of refereeing is destroying this league. It is an ongoing concern, every week you just don't know what lunacy you'll have to endure from those with the whistle. A total lottery.

Buer

theVersatile wrote: »

Nothing like a dodgy refereeing performance to take the public eye away from quiet games for Cooney and Ruddock.

I think the fact that both have been barely mentioned says enough. Ruddock isn't in the Irish 23. He gave the typical performance. Carried lots, tackled lots but he doesn't have the ability to come up with big moments consistently. I'm a big fan but there's a clear reason he has never been a consistent test selection.

Cooney had his opportunity last night to really boss the game in tough circumstances and failed to do so. It's harsh on him because his pack was beaten but that doesn't excuse him kicking it away against 13 men or kicking it back to Leinster when Ulster were down to 13 rather than managing the clock and getting in to halftime 5 points down.

sydthebeat

What pisses me off is the inconsistencies.

Look at what happened with Thorley yesterday.

He clearly takes a leading elbow to the head from the Wasps player, but he gets sent off cos he's "upright in the tackle"

Look at what Ben lam did in his tackle as well. He almost takes the guys head off with a "driving upwards" tackle and its not even a pen.

Zebre Glasgow has a head on head collision where both players have to go off yet no sanction. The tackler would have gotten 5 reds if out had have been Murphy reffing him yesterday.

People talk about all contact to the head being sanctioned but that's patently workforce. Either ever single head contact is illegal or its not. If you decide its not, which is the way its been reffed then there needs to be clear base line ways of determination of the framework.... And not being left subjective to the particular ref or tmo.

awec

Buer wrote: »

I think the fact that both have been barely mentioned says enough. Ruddock isn't in the Irish 23. He gave the typical performance. Carried lots, tackled lots but he doesn't have the ability to come up with big moments consistently. I'm a big fan but there's a clear reason he has never been a consistent test selection.

Cooney had his opportunity last night to really boss the game in tough circumstances and failed to do so. It's harsh on him because his pack was beaten but that doesn't excuse him kicking it away against 13 men or kicking it back to Leinster when Ulster were down to 13 rather than managing the clock and getting in to halftime 5 points down.

Cooney's form has been middling for a while now. His time for Ireland has come and gone.

Bazzo

Buer wrote: »

"Baloucoune scored two tries... Oh one try".

Was just a really good way of conveying his annoyance at the decision without being a dope and mouthing off.

A real coach would bring a laptop to the interview and start playing clips of crap reffing decisions

clsmooth

So when do we think we’ll see Baloucoune in an Irish 15? Is there any confirmation/cancellation of a summer tour this year? Extremely unlucky to have got injured when he did as I reckon he would have got a runout in the AIs last year.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

There is no dramatic license.

You called it a headbutt. It wasn't. That was dramatic licence. Yourself and Paul S have both completely overblown the incident for dramatic effect to paint Ulster as being so badly wronged. Calling the JOB incident something that it wasn't cannot but harm any case you're trying to make here.

Anyway, I thought Murphy mentioned a change in the point of contact as the mitigation as opposed to a change in height?

irishbucsfan

Is Ulster rugby dead now?

irishbucsfan

clsmooth wrote: »

So when do we think we’ll see Baloucoune in an Irish 15? Is there any confirmation/cancellation of a summer tour this year? Extremely unlucky to have got injured when he did as I reckon he would have got a runout in the AIs last year.

Hopefully ASAP

If he stays fit and he’s not capped by the end of 2021 I will print off this post and eat it.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Hopefully ASAP

If he stays fit and he’s not capped by the end of 2021 I will print off this post and eat it.

Hmmm, I had been hoping to see him capped ASAP.

But now I'm conflicted.

Clegg

Baloucoune would have been capped in the Autumn series were it not for injury. Farrell included him in his wider Six Nations squad last year. He's clearly on the radar.

pickarooney

Buer wrote: »

There's not a hope in hell of Penny staying at 8 and keeping Conan out. I don't think it's even a consideration. Penny is an emergency 8 who has done excellently.

I've been fairly critical of Conan earlier in his career but he's incredibly underrated now. He wins MOTM in back to back weeks and has a significant impact in a 6N game after coming on and nobody bats an eyelid. That's why he's ahead of those guys.

It's not exactly a head scratcher to see a guy who is a proven performer in green and in good form selected ahead of uncapped players.

Between Ruddock, Conan and Penny has anyone not playing at 8 won Potm for Leinster this year?

pickarooney

bilston wrote: »

No it doesn't, if it did there were be very few red cards. Hardly anyone intentionally sets out to make head contact. The red cards are for wrecklessness. O'Brien was wreckless and made head to head contact with Madigan. Whether he meant it or not is 100% irrelevant.

As I said last night I wouldnt have sent O'Brien off either, but you send neither off or both off otherwise the game is completely imbalanced.

I don't know if the laws allow for this interpretation but in my own view there's a distinction between a gesture that has no legal outcome (elbow strike, diving into a ruck) and one that does if it's correctly executed (high tackle, failed intercept knocked on). You can rarely be certain of a player's intentions but if the action taken is illegal regardless of the outcome it has to be penalised harshly if combined with recklessness there is even the possibility box serious injury.

sebdavis

We really are going a bit over the top. The O'Brien head - head was a pure accident end of story. You can freeze frame all day and look at every angle and it won't make a difference. He entered the tackle with no intent to hit Madigan's head

The Warwick tackle, well he led with the arm straight into the throat. End of story. No accident. Just a bad action from a player. Red card.

If O'Brien tried to recreate the head to head 100 times he might do it 1-2 times, if Warwick tried to he could do 100 times. To be honest in the France v Ireland game I seen Lowe do something similar to Warwick on the try that wasn't, they never really had a replay but he was lucky.

pickarooney

bilston wrote: »

Most red cards are careless rather than intentional!

I have no idea what sport you've been watching for the last few years!

I'd be amazed if any player sets out to deliberately smack their opponent round the head

Exhibit A for the prosecution: Mr Joe Moody

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Anyway, I thought Murphy mentioned a change in the point of contact as the mitigation as opposed to a change in height?

If I recall correctly he referred to the fact that madigan jumped, which is correct, and which changed the nature of the impact such as it was, which is also correct.

Again, my view, it was a rugby collision. The laws have to be capable of being applied to recognise this. JOB in no way "led with his head" but there was a head-to-head impact. It happens in a contact sport.

ujjjjjjjjj

sebdavis wrote: »

We really are going a bit over the top. The O'Brien head - head was a pure accident end of story. You can freeze frame all day and look at every angle and it won't make a difference. He entered the tackle with no intent to hit Madigan's head

The Warwick tackle, well he led with the arm straight into the throat. End of story. No accident. Just a bad action from a player. Red card.

If O'Brien tried to recreate the head to head 100 times he might do it 1-2 times, if Warwick tried to he could do 100 times. To be honest in the France v Ireland game I seen Lowe do something similar to Warwick on the try that wasn't, they never really had a replay but he was lucky.

Yup good post.

TomsOnTheRoof

People keep mentioning intent but it's irrelevant. There was clear head on head contact and it was wreckless. If Warwick's action was deemed dangerous or wrecklessness enough to constitute a red then O'Brien should have seen red also. Ulster fans have good reason to be annoyed with the officiating last night.

Also, that McCloskey block was a joke. 9 times out of 10 that's given. McCloskey never changes his angle after going ahead of the ball carrier and Ruddock bites in and tackles him. If that's obstruction then most plays off rucks are obstruction.

sebdavis

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

People keep mentioning intent but it's irrelevant. There was clear head on head contact and it was wreckless. If Warwick's action was deemed dangerous or wrecklessness enough to constitute a red then O'Brien should have seen red also. Ulster fans have good reason to be annoyed with the officiating last night.

Also, that McCloskey block was a joke. 9 times out of 10 that's given. McCloskey never changes his angle after going ahead of the ball carrier and Ruddock bites in and tackles him. If that's obstruction then most plays off rucks are obstruction.

I said at the time and still say it that try should have been allowed. When you see Ruddock himself didn't call it you know it was a good try. An excellent try actually.

Former Former Former

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

People keep mentioning intent but it's irrelevant. There was clear head on head contact and it was wreckless. If Warwick's action was deemed dangerous or wrecklessness enough to constitute a red then O'Brien should have seen red also. Ulster fans have good reason to be annoyed with the officiating last night.

Also, that McCloskey block was a joke. 9 times out of 10 that's given. McCloskey never changes his angle after going ahead of the ball carrier and Ruddock bites in and tackles him. If that's obstruction then most plays off rucks are obstruction.

But Baloucoune changes his angle. He changes to go through a gap that doesn't exist if McCloskey isn't there. That's what makes it obstruction rather than a decoy.

Scratchly

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

People keep mentioning intent but it's irrelevant. There was clear head on head contact and it was wreckless. If Warwick's action was deemed dangerous or wrecklessness enough to constitute a red then O'Brien should have seen red also. Ulster fans have good reason to be annoyed with the officiating last night.

Also, that McCloskey block was a joke. 9 times out of 10 that's given. McCloskey never changes his angle after going ahead of the ball carrier and Ruddock bites in and tackles him. If that's obstruction then most plays off rucks are obstruction.

I only watched the game today and was expecting some huge controversial decisions given all the whinging by Ulster fans. All 3 were reds. There was mitigation for the first 2 but none for Warwick. All good decisions.

It's hilarious how Ulster always seem to be robbed yet with a man advantage for 10 minutes and a 2 man advantage for 5 they couldnt even maintain a lead.

degsie

Sad to think that most of the post match discussion is taken up by refereeing decisions. Says a lot about how the game of rugby is going in a somewhat spiraling downward direction!

awec

Scratchly wrote: »

I only watched the game today and was expecting some huge controversial decisions given all the whinging by Ulster fans. All 3 were reds. There was mitigation for the first 2 but none for Warwick. All good decisions.

It's hilarious how Ulster always seem to be robbed yet with a man advantage for 10 minutes and a 2 man advantage for 5 they couldnt even maintain a lead.

Give us a laugh, what was your mitigation for the first incident?

Scratchly

awec wrote: »

Give us a laugh, what was your mitigation for the first incident?

Give you a laugh?

Perhaps you should watch the match and actually pay attention instead of whinging? The ref clearly explains all the calls and the mitigation for each.

awec

Scratchly wrote: »

Give you a laugh?

Perhaps you should watch the match and actually pay attention instead of whinging? The ref clearly explains all the calls and the mitigation for each.

Big man vs small man?

Can you find that one in the laws for me?

uptherebels

Former Former Former wrote: »

But Baloucoune changes his angle. He changes to go through a gap that doesn't exist if McCloskey isn't there. That's what makes it obstruction rather than a decoy.

He goes through a gap that doesn't exist if ruddock doesn't decide to tackle the decoy runner. He wasn't prevented from tackling the ball carrier he decided to tackle the wrong man

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

Give us a laugh, what was your mitigation for the first incident?

Lowrys head dropped. It was pretty obvious on first viewing.

awec

awec wrote: »

Give us a laugh, what was your mitigation for the first incident?

This is pathetic. It was never a red card in a million years.

Scratchly

awec wrote: »

Big man vs small man?

Can you find that one in the laws for me?

What would you think "still, has to do better to get lower" means in relation to that? You think it means he was making an attempt to compensate for the height difference but didn't quite manage it?

awec

Tyson Skinny Waste wrote: »

This is pathetic. It was never a red card in a million years.

I agree it was never a red card in a million years.

But Scratchly said it was a red except for mitigating circumstances.

awec

awec wrote: »

I agree it was never a red card in a million years.

But Scratchly said it was a red except for mitigating circumstances.

Fair enough, my mistake.

lotmc

Rewatched the game, admittedly through my blue tinted glasses. Paid particular attention to the contentious refereeing decisions. Some observations....

JOB tackle could have been given as red, but was in no way intentional. To balance this out something almost identical happened when the match clock was at 20.14 - O'Toole went into a tackle on O'Loughlin leading with the head, and resulting in a heavy clash of heads. O'Toole seems to have come off worse as he had a cut lip after the clash, but was very lucky to escape any sanction.

On the disallowed try, McCloskey unnecessarily continued his dummy run to collide with Ruddock, who was static. McCloskey was fully entitled to do a dummy run, but he was not entitled to run into a defender. Yes Ruddock took the bait and tackled him, but that becomes almost irrelevant after the initial transgression by McCloskey. If McCloskey had been smarter he should have run past Ruddock, but not into him.

Leinster's pack were awesome, and would have won that game just as easily if it was 15 V 15 for the full game.

Scratchly

awec wrote: »

I agree it was never a red card in a million years.

But Scratchly said it was a red except for mitigating circumstances.

Pull the other one. You're all of a sudden in agreement it wasn't a red in a million years? After telling me to give you a laugh my saying why it wasn't a red?

When someone said earlier that all tackles above the chest should be a red you said "except if you're toner or obrien". But you think toner shouldn't be red carded in a million years?

awec

lotmc wrote: »

Rewatched the game, admittedly through my blue tinted glasses. Paid particular attention to the contentious refereeing decisions. Some observations....

JOB tackle could have been given as red, but was in no way intentional. To balance this out something almost identical happened when the match clock was at 20.14 - O'Toole went into a tackle on O'Loughlin leading with the head, and resulting in a heavy clash of heads. O'Toole seems to have come off worse as he had a cut lip after the clash, but was very lucky to escape any sanction.

On the disallowed try, McCloskey unnecessarily continued his dummy run to collide with Ruddock, who was static. McCloskey was fully entitled to do a dummy run, but he was not entitled to run into a defender. Yes Ruddock took the bait and tackled him, but that becomes almost irrelevant after the initial transgression by McCloskey. If McCloskey had been smarter he should have run past Ruddock, but not into him.

Leinster's pack were awesome, and would have won that game just as easily if it was 15 V 15 for the full game.

McCloskey couldn't run past Ruddock because Ruddock decided to tackle McCloskey.

awec

Scratchly wrote: »

Pull the other one. You're all of a sudden in agreement it wasn't a red in a million years? After telling me to give you a laugh my saying why it wasn't a red?

When someone said earlier that all tackles above the chest should be a red you said "except if you're toner or obrien". But you think toner shouldn't be red carded in a million years?

I never said Toner's tackle was a red. You did.

Scratchly

awec wrote: »

I never said Toner's tackle was a red. You did.

I said yellow was the correct decision. If you agree why did you decide to start a fight over it and tell me to give you a laugh by explaining why it wasn't a red ? Just to be a dick?

Former Former Former

awec wrote: »

McCloskey couldn't run past Ruddock because Ruddock decided to tackle McCloskey.

He didn't though. He doesn't wrap around McCloskey and he's looking at Baloucoune. They bump off each other, neither gets knocked over. You think that if Rhys Ruddock decides to tackle Stuart McCloskey, that there wouldn't have been a bit more impact?

It's against the rules of the game. McCloskey isn't allowed to be there.

theVersatile

Boards.ie if everybody knew the laws.