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

molloyjh

The cards killed the game but hard to really argue with any of them even if a few felt harsh while also correct. The only real poor call today was the McCloskey blocking call. Rhys only had eyes for McCloskey and was never even looking at Baloucoune. Should have stood as a try for me.

I was really impressed with Leinsters performance up until the red though. To take the lead despite 2 yellows was impressive. The forwards were really good as a unit, Ross Byrne had some nice involvements and JOB, while he made some errors, was pretty good overall. Kelleher was lively but I was a but disappointed with Dave K, particularly in defence where I thought he made some bad reads/decisions.

Ulster had their moments. Looked very good defensively even with 14 men. Payne is doing a bloody fine job there. Baloucoune looks class and I liked what I saw from Izuchukwu. Stockdale doesn't look quite at the races yet and I'd be bringing Baloucoune into Ireland camp ahead of him as it stands. What's the consensus on McCloskey? Mixed the good with the bad for me. Some lovely work going forward but some pretty poor penalties too.

thegreycity

Can someone clarify the rule around the disallowed Balacoune try. A few people saying Ruddock “bit in”, but my understanding always was that if the defending player was in a realistic position to reach the player with ball and another attacking player gets in his way, it’s obstruction. Does what the defending player does actually come into it?

arsebiscuits1

I cannot wait to watch this game back and have a proper look at it. No useful stats available yet that I've found.

I wont comment much on the referee performance as it's been heartily discussed already. I will say Leinster got the rub of the green but a big part of this was Ulster totally crumbling under pressure.

At first glance:

Baloucoune is box office. Few if any noticeable weaknesses to his game. Very few Irish wingers who'd have taken both those tries that well tonight. I look forward to seeing him get a proper crack at fitness.

Cooney unfortunately showed why he doesn't get more international involvement. Luke McGrath (who I've been vocally critical of in the past) had a much more influential game at 9. Even Ulster at full compliment needed more assurance from their half backs tonight and they just didn't get enough of it. If Cooneys biggest fans want him capped at the highest level, they need to ask why these games pass him by.

I'll take Penny over Coombes all day as a back row option. Much more complete player (but they'd compliment each other wonderfully) but it's no accident that he's gotten motm at 8 now 2 weeks in a row. Super player who out performed Marcel Coetzee at 8

Izzy is a breath of fresh air. There is shades of Nakarawa about how he tries to keep it alive (excellent article in the 42 about him). I hope he keeps developing as well and quickly as he has.

Full credit to Marty Moore for having to scrum at loosehead. Had a tough time but took one for the team (if I am not mistaken if they had to go uncontested Ulster would have had to go to 13?)

I think Ross Byrne was excellent tonight, passing, kicking and carrying were all good and controlled things as needed

molloyjh

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

I'll say it again, what about when he didn't give a toss about JOB slamming his head into Madigan's chin?Whhat was the control situation them?

Ah Paul, you're better than this hyperbolic nonsense. JOB didn't slam his head into Madigan. They clashed heads in contact. The way you're describing this here is as if JOB deliberately launched his head straight into Madigans. That isnt what happened. JOB was just too upright in thr tackle. There was nothing really in it but it was deserving of a yellow as tacklers need to get themselves lower and in a position not to make contact with the head.

Murphy did exactly the same thing for all 3 high contact incidents. Looked and them and tried to find mitigating factors to reduce the sanction. He did it for Warwick as much as he did it for Toner or JOB. It isnt his fault that the laws are set up the way that they are. He got all those calls right by the letter of the law.

Now I do think there is a conversation to be had about tweaking the laws because I do feel that there needs to be a fairer way of dealing with these incidents. Warwick should probably have been a yellow, but thats just not what the laws say (or the directions from WR on their interpretation).

In terms of Murphy performance the only real issues were the McCloskey non-block and the Byrne clear out. I was also amused that he missed McCloskey taking a Leinster player past the ruck and straight into Murphy himself and Murphy still didn't do anything, but that was just funny tbh. A couple of calls went against Ulster tonight, but the cards were all 100% understandable, even if we all would rather see some of them treated a bit differently.

Bluwave

Larbre34 wrote: »

Show me a good ref these days and I'll show you a liar.

Jan verhass

thegreycity

thegreycity wrote: »

Can someone clarify the rule around the disallowed Balacoune try. A few people saying Ruddock “bit in”, but my understanding always was that if the defending player was in a realistic position to reach the player with ball and another attacking player gets in his way, it’s blocking. Does what the defending player does actually come into it?

In a situation like that where the decoy runner is part of the last 'play' before the try is scored then there appears to be an increased onus on the decoy runners not to plot a line between a potential tackler and the carrier.

Decoy runners generally run either well beyond the play or short of it - not creating any kind of obvious block.

The difference today is that Ruddock tackled the blocking player. It appears that because the blocking player was in the way regardless, the the try was disallowed. It could be a semantic interpretation, but at the same time - there was a player ahead of the ball between the actual ball carrier and a defender.

It's a marginal call - I personally would have let the try stand, but there are direct interpretations of the laws that could well say I'd be wrong.

molloyjh

thegreycity wrote: »

Can someone clarify the rule around the disallowed Balacoune try. A few people saying Ruddock “bit in”, but my understanding always was that if the defending player was in a realistic position to reach the player with ball and another attacking player gets in his way, it’s obstruction. Does what the defending player does actually come into it?

I'm not sure of WR have issued any instructions on this, which they sometimes do outside of the official laws of the game, but the actual law itself is just that a player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball carrier.

So this is where we can get into semantics. Does that mean that it matters what the defender does or does it just matter what the decoy runner does. If the decoy runner runs directly at the defender with the intention of preventing the tackle, is this enough to breach the law? Or if he intends to but is only penalised because the defender actually attempts the tackle, is this the right interpretation? In all honesty I haven't a clue. I'd like to think the defenders action is relevant, but it isn't mentioned in the law and unless there is guidance from WR (which there may be) then its simply not that clear cut.

thegreycity

Thanks guys, just don’t see that try ever being allowed at international level, blocking runner was far too close to the defender who could reach man with ball, regardless of defender’s actions.

molloyjh

thegreycity wrote: »

Thanks guys, just don’t see that try ever being allowed at international level, blocking runner was far too close to the defender who could reach man with ball, regardless of defender’s actions.

Yeah, that's a perfectly valid interpretation of what's in the laws. And given that both TMO and referee used the very same logic then it's probably a very fair reflection on how they are expected to interpret it too.

Former Former Former

thegreycity wrote: »

Thanks guys, just don’t see that try ever being allowed at international level, blocking runner was far too close to the defender who could reach man with ball, regardless of defender’s actions.

Yeah, I think that's probably it. Did Ruddock have any realistic chance of resetting to tackle Baloucoune after McCloskey makes contact? I don't think so.

It's a subjective call but I think any ref would have called it the same way.

bilston

The officiating tonight killed a little bit of my love of rugby tonight.

FWIW on both the Toner and O'Brien incidents, I was watching them thinking either could be a red by the letter of the law, especially the O'Brien incident, but I was also thinking, come on ref give a yellow and let it go for the sake of the match. Then the Warwick incident happens. Again, it is by letter of the law a red card, but it was far less dangerous than other incidents.

As for the disallowed try, my view is that Ruddock tackled McCloskey as opposed to McCloskey taking Ruddock out, that's a decoy line, that happens all the time.

Anyway, I'm just feeling a bit pissed off right now. The laws around head contact exist for a very good reason, but they are also destroying the game as a spectacle. Wales could well be the worst team in modern history to win a GS because of this! Rugby titles are literally being decided by this. I would just like to see a bit of common sense introduced. How can anyone say Warwick's offence is more dangerous than O'Brien's? I wouldn't have sent either player off!

All that said, irrespective of tonight, Leinster are a machine, they are an exceptional rugby team/organisation. The quality of coaching appears to be of the highest quality and they have 3 or 4 players in every position of good quality.

As for Ulster...truthfully, I switched off after Baloucoune's disallowed try I was that annoyed...but the lads appear to have shown good spirit in the second half, and the aforementioned Baloucoune is a class act. Once again I'm left to conclude that we are never going to beat Leinster with a team containing 5 or 6 ex Leinster players who were surplus to requirements there.

Roll on the last two games, Challenge Cup and hopefully Rainbow Cup, hopefully there is plenty of rugby left this season.

FrannoFan

bilston wrote: »

The officiating tonight killed a little bit of my love of rugby tonight.

FWIW on both the Toner and O'Brien incidents, I was watching them thinking either could be a red by the letter of the law, especially the O'Brien incident, but I was also thinking, come on ref give a yellow and let it go for the sake of the match. Then the Warwick incident happens. Again, it is by letter of the law a red card, but it was far less dangerous than other incidents.

As for the disallowed try, my view is that Ruddock tackled McCloskey as opposed to McCloskey taking Ruddock out, that's a decoy line, that happens all the time.

Anyway, I'm just feeling a bit pissed off right now. The laws around head contact exist for a very good reason, but they are also destroying the game as a spectacle. Wales could well be the worst team in modern history to win a GS because of this! Rugby titles are literally being decided by this. I would just like to see a bit of common sense introduced. How can anyone say Warwick's offence is more dangerous than O'Brien's? I wouldn't have sent either player off!

All that said, irrespective of tonight, Leinster are a machine, they are an exceptional rugby team/organisation. The quality of coaching appears to be of the highest quality and they have 3 or 4 players in every position of good quality.

As for Ulster...truthfully, I switched off after Baloucoune's disallowed try I was that annoyed...but the lads appear to have shown good spirit in the second half, and the aforementioned Baloucoune is a class act. Once again I'm left to conclude that we are never going to beat Leinster with a team containing 5 or 6 ex Leinster players who were surplus to requirements there.

Roll on the last two games, Challenge Cup and hopefully Rainbow Cup, hopefully there is plenty of rugby left this season.

Murphy set his stall out when he carded toner for a seat belt high tackle "he has to do better" he's 7 foot and it's lowry! Game only began and you knew if that's the bar for yellow we were going to see a red at some point.

For me neither jimmy o'brien or warwick were cards. I hate the "games gone soft" brigade but there is spirit of the law as well as letter of the law that needs to be taken into account.

Commentary missed the point on balacoune disallowed try, the problem is mccloskey is ahead of the pass so he's never a valid option to receive it. If ball released to balacoune while mccloskey behind the passer I think he's ok. He's just ahead. Harsh enough though hell of a finish. How conway and daly in irish squad and he isn't is beyond me

sydthebeat

bilston wrote: »

The officiating tonight killed a little bit of my love of rugby tonight.

FWIW on both the Toner and O'Brien incidents, I was watching them thinking either could be a red by the letter of the law, especially the O'Brien incident, but I was also thinking, come on ref give a yellow and let it go for the sake of the match. Then the Warwick incident happens. Again, it is by letter of the law a red card, but it was far less dangerous than other incidents.

As for the disallowed try, my view is that Ruddock tackled McCloskey as opposed to McCloskey taking Ruddock out, that's a decoy line, that happens all the time.

Anyway, I'm just feeling a bit pissed off right now. The laws around head contact exist for a very good reason, but they are also destroying the game as a spectacle. Wales could well be the worst team in modern history to win a GS because of this! Rugby titles are literally being decided by this. I would just like to see a bit of common sense introduced. How can anyone say Warwick's offence is more dangerous than O'Brien's? I wouldn't have sent either player off!

All that said, irrespective of tonight, Leinster are a machine, they are an exceptional rugby team/organisation. The quality of coaching appears to be of the highest quality and they have 3 or 4 players in every position of good quality.

As for Ulster...truthfully, I switched off after Baloucoune's disallowed try I was that annoyed...but the lads appear to have shown good spirit in the second half, and the aforementioned Baloucoune is a class act. Once again I'm left to conclude that we are never going to beat Leinster with a team containing 5 or 6 ex Leinster players who were surplus to requirements there.

Roll on the last two games, Challenge Cup and hopefully Rainbow Cup, hopefully there is plenty of rugby left this season.

Its so unconvincing that we can see different competitions from across the world, but being reffed as of they are different sports.
As said already, moody hits Regan 2 or 3 decent head slaps and nothing happens.
That offload in jap rugby which leads to the player hitting the deck head first... We have the Glasgow 6 and zebre 9 clashing head on head... And we have that flambé gimp in top 14 jumping into a double tackle..

All these have consequences which have absolutely no effect on the game.

Yet we have what 6 cards in the pro 14 game this evening for incidents which I personally think are lesser than any of those, and are singularly instrumental in the result.

Theres a huge disconnect between got the game is played and how the game is reffed.

pickarooney

thomond2006 wrote: »

https://twitter.com/thesimonokeeffe/status/1368302127592902661

:pac:

I'm pretty sure that's a penalty.

If Cooney is any taller it's a red card. Ridiculous to let this 'launching yourself at a ruck' nonsense go. Yellow card minimum for dangerous play, regardless of the outcome.

I'd love to know Murphy's cards per game compared to other refs.

I think all the high tackles etc could be considered "rugby incidents" nobody was trying to hit anyone high and I don't see how the red cards make anything safer. I don't think the Ulster player should have been sent off.

I also think disallowing Balacoune's try was just wrong, at full speed it looked a bit like crossing but Ruddock got drawn in by a dummy line, he was free to try fill the gap.

Having said that, Leinster won by 20pts and had 3 yellows. Frank wasn't decisive

razorblunt

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

I'll take Penny over Coombes all day as a back row option. Much more complete player (but they'd compliment each other wonderfully) but it's no accident that he's gotten motm at 8 now 2 weeks in a row. Super player who out performed Marcel Coetzee at 8

Doesn’t matter Jack Conan walks in to the team for some reason ahead of both. Interesting to see what happens at Leinster post 6 Nations if Penney can keep Conan out.

Buer

razorblunt wrote: »

Doesn’t matter Jack Conan walks in to the team for some reason ahead of both. Interesting to see what happens at Leinster post 6 Nations if Penney can keep Conan out.

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.

Former Former Former

sydthebeat wrote: »

All these have consequences which have absolutely no effect on the game.

Yet we have what 6 cards in the pro 14 game this evening for incidents which I personally think are lesser than any of those, and are singularly instrumental in the result.

Theres a huge disconnect between got the game is played and how the game is reffed.

Effect on the game is utterly irrelevant though. That's what people are missing here.

The rugby authorities have to reduce contact with the head. They have to, have to, have to. The game will be bankrupted within 10 years by lawsuits if the unions can't say they made legitimate efforts to protect players.

We have to change the way the game is played. Warwick leading with an elbow to the throat, Toner just flailing out an arm as he's being beaten, we have to train players not to do these things.

Buer

Akrasia wrote: »

The Ulster red was fair, it’s the JOB yellow that was unfair. If JOB was yellow, then The Ulster should have been yellow too given that Jimmy’s collision was more dangerous than the offense that caused the red card

Just coming back to this (I know, I know)...the list of mitigations provided by WR for contact with the head or neck includes a ball carrier dropping in height. This is what gave Murphy an out on the red.

I agree JOB's contact was significant however and he's a lucky man to avoid the red card regardless.

Former Former Former

And it's incredibly unfair and bitter for people to accuse Murphy not only of being a bad ref, but of deliberately screwing Ulster, simply for enforcing the rules of the game.

I think we'll find that when Ulster get better players, they'll miraculously get a better deal from refs.

irishbucsfan

pickarooney wrote: »

If Cooney is any taller it's a red card. Ridiculous to let this 'launching yourself at a ruck' nonsense go. Yellow card minimum for dangerous play, regardless of the outcome.

His feet are on the ground when he would have made contact there. Coney retreated and that’s what makes that one look worse than it is, although if he hadn’t there’s a good chance there would have been head contact which would have been trouble.

Buer

Two decisions by Cooney I thought were very poor and hurt his team. Against 13 men, he kicked it away leading to a scramble, break in play and Toner gets back on the field. Similar to Ross Byrne a couple of weeks ago (although that game was over by then), you should never kick it away when you have a 2 man advantage.

Similarly, Ulster were down to 13 men for a few minutes. They had possession and Cooney again decided to kick it to Leinster. Ed Byrne went over a couple of minutes later. Not as bad as the first but again, when there's a massive advantage to the opposition, why give them the ball?

armchaircoach

On the warwick incident, I agree that a lot of the replays shown didn't make it look too bad. But there was one replay (only shown once) from a camera behind the tacklers right shoulder. This clearly showed him swinging his elbow up and into the throat. It's like to see it again to be sure (as for some reason eir didn't repeat it) but that had me thinking clear red before it was given.

On Jimmy's yellow, it was an accidental clash of heads. Yellow is deserved for being careless, but refs will try to mitigate that down from a red.

warwick's was a swinging elbow to the head/neck in order to gain an advantage. Refs are going to be less enthusiastic in looking for mitigation (and rightly so).

Finally, anyone pushing this absurd notion that Murphy is somehow Leinster biased needs their head examined.

Interesting piece in ST aligns with my sense of the ref issues.

Essentially, low pay and the fact that you're dispensed with in your 40s makes it a very unattractive choice of career path for anyone with good prospects elsewhere (ie reasonably well-rounded individuals with a bit of intelligence and ambition about them).

Mainly because despite the nature of the commitment involved, it's simply not a career path.

And it's suggested that over-reliance on the TMO has led to a decrease in the whole "seeing and understanding things as they happen" thing that used to be a key skill.

My view on last nights incidents:

Toner's tackle should have been penalty only.

JOB v Madigan was a rugby collision play on.

Warwick deserved yellow for an intentional leading elbow but with no great force so yellow only.

Ulster try correctly disallowed for a block. I agree Ruddock bit which he might also have done if they decoy line was legal but it wasn't.

I'm worried that the game will eat itself if the laws and refs can't work to better distinguish between play on/penalty/yellow/red.

Ps anyone who thinks Murphy is biased is delusional but he is in my own personal view a poor referee in general. Not suggesting he misapplied the letter of the law on the cards but around the park he's very bad.

ujjjjjjjjj

armchaircoach wrote: »

On the warwick incident, I agree that a lot of the replays shown didn't make it look too bad. But there was one replay (only shown once) from a camera behind the tacklers right shoulder. This clearly showed him swinging his elbow up and into the throat. It's like to see it again to be sure (as for some reason eir didn't repeat it) but that had me thinking clear red before it was given.

On Jimmy's yellow, it was an accidental clash of heads. Yellow is deserved for being careless, but refs will try to mitigate that down from a red.

warwick's was a swinging elbow to the head/neck in order to gain an advantage. Refs are going to be less enthusiastic in looking for mitigation (and rightly so).

Finally, anyone pushing this absurd notion that Murphy is somehow Leinster biased needs their head examined.

Yes that camera angle was the bad one, clearly showed Warwick deliberately lifting the elbow well out from Byrne and going for it.....it was entirely intentional and stupid. Interestingly if you note he had just before had a handbags moment and seemed to be getting wound up and this incident followed shortly after. Clear red due to the act, intention and result.

JOB incident was not intentional and careless at worst. No way it was a red.

Anyway Ulster lost not because of Frank Murphy but because their pack was very poor and the Leinster pack beat them in every area, so much more physical and cohesive.

Harsh reality for Ulster is they have some decent backs but they will win nothing or even get close to competing with Leinster with that pack. The quality just isn't there. Harsh reality but it is the truth.

bilston

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

JOB incident was not intentional and careless at worst. No way it was a red.

.

Intention isn't a factor whatsoever

ujjjjjjjjj

bilston wrote: »

Intention isn't a factor whatsoever

May not be by a letter of the law but whether you like it or not it comes into a refs decision making process.

bilston

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

May not be by a letter of the law but whether you like it or not it comes into a refs decision making process.

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.

bilston

bilston wrote: »

No it doesn't

It pretty clearly did with Toner (big vs small) and also MOB (Madigan dipped). Both are implicit acknowledgements of lack of intent imo. They have various ways to mitigate their decisions.

I see your edit above, you're saying intent doesn't come into the decision making while saying the ref got it wrong with MOB. Doesn't really make sense.

ujjjjjjjjj

bilston wrote: »

No it doesn't

No idea what sport you have been watching in recent years.....refs are far more likely to look for mitigation if they can see it was careless or an accident whereas less likely to like Warwick you can clearly see the player has decided to do this.....

Disagree is you want but it is a reality of refs decisions.......

Buer

There are specific mitigations listed in the directive to referees. These are what Murphy looked for when he reviewed the incidents. It's a fairly methodical process.

Drop in height by ball carrier, point of contact starting elsewhere, reactionary action with immediate release, tackler was unsighted etc. Can't remember what others there are. There's about 5 to look for.

Warwick wasn't able to tick any box.

Edit: here we go...

Tackler makes a definite attempt to change height in an effort to avoid ball carrier’s head

BC suddenly drops in height

Tackler is unsighted prior to contact

“Reactionary” tackle, immediate release

Head contact is indirect (starts elsewhere on the body and then slips or moves up resulting in minor contact to the BC’s head or neck)

blackcard

ecoli3136 wrote: »

Interesting piece in ST aligns with my sense of the ref issues.

Essentially, low pay and the fact that you're dispensed with in your 40s makes it a very unattractive choice of career path for anyone with good prospects elsewhere (ie reasonably well-rounded individuals with a bit of intelligence and ambition about them).

Mainly because despite the nature of the commitment involved, it's simply not a career path.

And it's suggested that over-reliance on the TMO has led to a decrease in the whole "seeing and understanding things as they happen" thing that used to be a key skill.

My view on last nights incidents:

Toner's tackle should have been penalty only.

JOB v Madigan was a rugby collision play on.

Warwick deserved yellow for a leading elbow but with no great force so yellow only.

Ulster try correctly disallowed for a block. I agree Ruddock bit which he might also have done if they decoy line was legal but it wasn't.

I'm worried that the game will eat itself if the laws and refs can't work to better distinguish between play on/penalty/yellow/red.

Ps anyone who thinks Murphy is biased is delusional but he is in my own personal view a poor referee in general. Not suggesting he misapplied the letter of the law on the cards but around the park he's very bad.

With the amount of head injuries and HIA's still occurring, rugby has to change. You might say that a player was unlucky as his opponent was ducking and if he hadn't ducked the table would have been 6 inches below the shoulder. But if he gets a yellow card, maybe the next time he tackles 12 inches below the shoulder. JOB had a terrible tackle technique and could have caused a serious injury to Madigan. If he got a red card, he might think a bit more about his body position the next time

Akrasia

thegreycity wrote: »

Can someone clarify the rule around the disallowed Balacoune try. A few people saying Ruddock “bit in”, but my understanding always was that if the defending player was in a realistic position to reach the player with ball and another attacking player gets in his way, it’s obstruction. Does what the defending player does actually come into it?

If a defending player is prevented from tackling the ball carrier by an attacking player who is ahead of the ball then it is obstruction. In this case the defending player wasn’t trying to tackle the ball carrier, he had already engaged the decoy runner, he ‘bit in’ by coming out of the defensive line to tackle 12 before he received the ball in a gamble that shouldn’t have paid off but did because the referees screwed up

ujjjjjjjjj

Buer wrote: »

There are specific mitigations listed in the directive to referees. These are what Murphy looked for when he reviewed the incidents.

Drop in height by ball carrier, point of contact starting elsewhere, tackler was unsighted etc. Can't remember what others there are. There's about 5 to look for.

And human nature being human nature a ref will be much more likely to look for mitigation when they can see it was accidently done and less likely to use mitigation factors when the act was visibly intentional like Warwick where from that one camera angle behind Ed Byrne you can clearly see him decide to lift the elbow high and drive it into Byrne.

Laws in rugby are of course fixed but there is a degree of interpretation and it has always been like this.......

Buer

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

And human nature being human nature a ref will be much more likely to look for mitigation when they can see it was accidently done and less likely to use mitigation factors when the act was visibly intentional like Warwick where from that one camera angle behind Ed Byrne you can clearly see him decide to lift the elbow Hugh and drive it into Byrne.

Laws in rugby are of course fixed but there is a degree of interpretation and it has always been like this.......

Lifting the arm in advance is set out as one of the instances of a "high degree of danger" in the directive. It's very thorough to specifically eliminate referees making decisions based on anything other than the action, removing personal interpretation.

aloooof

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

No idea what sport you have been watching in recent years..l..

I’m a neutral for this game, but I really hate some of the posts after inter-pro’s on here at times...

awec

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

And human nature being human nature a ref will be much more likely to look for mitigation when they can see it was accidently done and less likely to use mitigation factors when the act was visibly intentional like Warwick where from that one camera angle behind Ed Byrne you can clearly see him decide to lift the elbow high and drive it into Byrne.

Laws in rugby are of course fixed but there is a degree of interpretation and it has always been like this.......

What absolute scutter.

Warwick raised his arm to fend, and his forearm made light contact with Byrne's throat, he did not intentionally drive his elbow into Byrne.

ujjjjjjjjj

Buer wrote: »

Lifting the arm in advance is set out as one of the instances of a "high degree of danger" in the directive. It's very thorough to specifically eliminate referees making decisions based on anything other than the action, removing personal interpretation.

Agreed. Guidance and laws are thorough but from decades of watching rugby and refs and even reffing myself human nature plays a part in that final act of pulling a card and which card. It shouldn't and it takes a remarkably calm ref to work through a process and be absolutely correct. A clear and obviously intentional act is (and I don't care what the rights and wrongs of it are) is much less likely to have a ref looking for mitigation.

Murphy was heading for a yellow with Warwick (that was his interpretation) but the TMO decided in his interpretation it was a red. Highlights the way two people can take the same set of laws and guidance and make two different decisions.

In fairness the TMO had more views of replays (presumably) so may have had more info to work with.

Clear intention of foul play isn't exactly helping your cause.

ujjjjjjjjj

awec wrote: »

What absolute scutter.

Warwick raised his arm to fend, and his forearm made light contact with Byrne's throat, he did not intentionally drive his elbow into Byrne.

Running at a guy with your elbow up isn't intentional ??

Warwick did it on purpose and if you choose not to see that that is your call.

awec

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Running at a guy with your elbow up isn't intentional ??

Warwick did it on purpose and if you choose not to see that that is your call.

He didn't do this.

Players fend with their arm all the time. Every carry in fact. Nobody runs into contact with their arms down by their sides.

ujjjjjjjjj

aloooof wrote: »

I’m a neutral for this game, but I really hate some of the posts after inter-pro’s on here at times...

Why because some cheesed off Ulster fan can't admit that clearly intentional foul play is more likely to end you up in trouble with the ref....obvious reality to me and many who watch the game.

Unfortunately this thread and the game will now go down as a debate over reffing rather than looking at why Leinster won by 19 points. Ulster have some cracking backs but need to desperately look at their pack where a largely second/third string Leinster pack played a largely first choice Ulster pack off the park.

bilston

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

No idea what sport you have been watching in recent years.....refs are far more likely to look for mitigation if they can see it was careless or an accident whereas less likely to like Warwick you can clearly see the player has decided to do this.....

Disagree is you want but it is a reality of refs decisions.......

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

molloyjh

At the end of the day the only stuff that matters is what Buer referenced with the mitigations. Refs don't want to red card players. And they have a very specific process to follow in relation to these incidents. Contact to the head starts off as a red card, then they have to see if there are any mitigations (from a set of predefined mitigations) that can reduce the sanction.

Murphy did exactly this in all 3 cases. In all 3 he clearly did not want to produce a red card. But in Warwicks case there were no mitigating factors and so there was no choice. Everything else like the force, the intent or whatever is just noise. Warwick made a really dumb mistake and cost his team. Players cannot lead with the forearm into the head or neck. We all know that. They all know that. It was up to him to control what he did. He didn't. And both he and Ulster paid the price.

Was the incident any better or worse than the JOB in reality? Probably not. Does it seem somewhat unfair? A little. But JOB clashed heads in contact after pushing off a decoy runner onto Madigan. It was an unfortunate clash, no more. Warwick lifted his forearm into a players throat. It would have been far easier for Warwick not to do what he did than JOB. Warwick was in complete control of what happened. And that's a pretty big difference in itself.

ujjjjjjjjj

awec wrote: »

He didn't do this.

Players fend with their arm all the time. Every carry in fact. Nobody runs into contact with their arms down by their sides.

You fend with your upper arm, shoulder (dip into contact) , leading with the elbow up and out is dangerous foul play.

Sorry but this is a pretty clear case of it......

Talk about flogging a dead horse.......

Former Former Former

awec wrote: »

He didn't do this.

Players fend with their arm all the time. Every carry in fact. Nobody runs into contact with their arms down by their sides.

But you can't lead into the tackler's neck with your forearm either.

Twenty years ago, it's play on.
Ten years ago, it's a penalty.
In 2021, it's a stonewall red card.

bilston

Tyson Skinny Waste wrote: »

It pretty clearly did with Toner (big vs small) and also MOB (Madigan dipped). Both are implicit acknowledgements of lack of intent imo. They have various ways to mitigate their decisions.

I see your edit above, you're saying intent doesn't come into the decision making while saying the ref got it wrong with MOB. Doesn't really make sense.

For the good of the game I wouldn't have sent O'Brien off. Letter of the law I believe should have been sent off. Same applies to Warwick.

The fact Toner is very big doesnt give him permission to make contact with another players head. Maybe its OK if a really big player hits a small player round the head and the small dude just has to suck it up?

redmca2

Even apart from the numerous cards and the effect of stopping the game so many times, the match as a spectacle was dreadful.



For all Leinster's dominance all their tries were through their forwards. Great power, great control etc but as a TV spectacle (which is what's trying to pay the bills these days) the only "attractive" rugby was by Ulster


Can't see many new fans embracing this kind of rugby

ujjjjjjjjj

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

Yes Warwick that day didn't decide he wanted to intentionally injure Ed Byrne.....of course not. But in that fraction of a second and in the heat of battle he lifted the elbow dangerously prior to contact....conscious decision and jeepers anyone who has played rugby and is entirely honest will admit to doing something similar. In the professional game the best players control that, Warwick like so many others before him in that split second didn't. I am sure Warwick will happily admit that on reflection and that is the end of the matter. He will have learnt from this and I am sure it is unlikely to happen to him again. Not a slight on him or anything personal, has happened to many players in their career.

molloyjh

bilston wrote: »

For the good of the game I wouldn't have sent O'Brien off. Letter of the law I believe should have been sent off. Same applies to Warwick.

The fact Toner is very big doesnt give him permission to make contact with another players head. Maybe its OK if a really big player hits a small player round the head and the small dude just has to suck it up?

Agree with that second paragraph. I really hate the "what else was he meant to do" argument. If players can't make a legal tackle then they shouldn't make a tackle at all. It doesn't matter about anything else. A tackle is either legal or it isn't.

molloyjh

ujjjjjjjjj wrote: »

Yes Warwick that day didn't decide he wanted to intentionally injure Ed Byrne.....of course not. But in that fraction of a second and in the heat of battle he lifted the elbow dangerously prior to contact....conscious decision and jeepers anyone who has played rugby and is entirely honest will admit to doing something similar. In the professional game the best players control that, Warwick like so many others before him in that split second didn't. I am sure Warwick will happily admit that on reflection and that is the end of the matter. He will have learnt from this and I am sure it is unlikely to happen happen him again. Not a slight on him or anything personal, has happened to many players in their career.

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...