Rainbow Cup 2021

Bazzo

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

Ulster missed out on Pro14 playoffs for this.

Ulster and Connacht both did

Paul Smeenus

Bazzo wrote: »

Ulster and Connacht both did

It's a shambles.

Cookiemunster

Bazzo wrote: »

Ulster and Connacht both did

Meh. Leinster would have beaten Connacht, Munster would probably have beaten Ulster and Leinster would still be champions.

Bazzo

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Meh. Leinster would have beaten Connacht, Munster would probably have beaten Ulster and Leinster would still be champions.

Sure why bother playing the league at all? Just do a trophy presentation to Leinster every September.

Paul Smeenus

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Meh. Leinster would have beaten Connacht, Munster would probably have beaten Ulster and Leinster would still be champions.

Yes. It's imperative that this conversation becomes about how great Leinster are.

Paul Smeenus

Bazzo wrote: »

Sure why bother playing the league at all? Just do a trophy presentation to Leinster every September.

It'd be better. Then we wouldn't have to worry about upsets or anything exciting or unpredictable happening.

bilston

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Meh. Leinster would have beaten Connacht, Munster would probably have beaten Ulster and Leinster would still be champions.

I'm tempted to have a nibble, but I'll not bother

irishbucsfan

This was always the most likely outcome, as we said way back when this was announced. Ulster and Connacht absolutely robbed.

I am a Leinster fan but if Ulster or Connacht do turn Leinster or Munster over in a playoff whenever the next season is, there’ll be a certain undeniable justice to that.

Dubinusa

What a haphazard situation! Total cluster fcuk and mismanagement.
I would hope the the SA teams can come to Ireland and play the provinces?

thomond2006

Dubinusa wrote: »

What a haphazard situation! Total cluster fcuk and mismanagement.
I would hope the the SA teams can come to Ireland and play the provinces?

Mismanagement? Mandatory Hotel Quarantine wasn't a thing when this was announced.

It was a risk, with much more than the Proxx in mind, and it didn't pay off.

Ulster and Connacht can feel rightly aggrieved, however.

Cookiemunster

Thinking on it a while I don't see the point of cancelling it immediately. The SA teams aren't due to play up North until the end of May which means they don't have to travel for another two months and the situation with the UK could easily have changed in that time. They'll have to play games amongst themselves anyway, so IMO they should just go ahead with rounds 1-3 (as should we) and see what the story is come early May before deciding to can it or not.

Akrasia

I know it would be politically incorrect to do this, but if there were a few hundred spare J&J vaccines lying around, they could vaccinate all the players and officials and then they could come over and stay in Thurles and play their games in the spare venues we have in Ireland. Munster have 2 Pro-14 standard venues, Leinster have 2, Ulster have 2, just need somewhere for the 4th team to play.

(yeah I know that would never happen)

Lost Ormond

Akrasia wrote: »

I know it would be politically incorrect to do this, but if there were a few hundred spare J&J vaccines lying around, they could vaccinate all the players and officials and then they could come over and stay in Thurles and play their games in the spare venues we have in Ireland. Munster have 2 Pro-14 standard venues, Leinster have 2, Ulster have 2, just need somewhere for the 4th team to play.

(yeah I know that would never happen)

where's Ulsters 2nd btw?
Leinster only have 2 if you are counting Aviva as theres which it isnt.
You wouldnt have to vaccinate all players and officials to do this. Just test players prior to arrival and on arrival. Any positives and players/coaches isolate for 2 weeks before rejoining the rest

thomond2006

https://twitter.com/RuaidhriOC/status/1381323836239581186

Reading this Twitter thread from ROC of the Indo, the RC may not be buried just yet.
I imagine they'll release some form of statement tomorrow to address the reports.

Tigerandahalf

This isn't good for any Rainbow Cup or Pro16 for next season.
CNBC: Covid variant from South Africa was able to ‘break through’ Pfizer vaccine in Israeli study.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/11/covid-variant-from-south-africa-was-able-to-break-through-pfizer-vaccine-in-israeli-study.html

yerrahbah

https://www.the42.ie/rainbow-cup-south-africa-5407204-Apr2021/

The Rainbow Cup will go ahead, just don't know if the SA sides will be in it or not yet

FrannoFan

just to add some outrage to people who love their movements restricted

https://www.rte.ie/sport/other-sport/2021/0412/1209290-elite-athletes-may-receive-quarantine-exemption/

jacothelad

Lost Ormond wrote: »

where's Ulsters 2nd btw?

Sadly the Casement Park refurbishment has become a debacle though Ulster GAA might veto it's use for rugby if it ever gets completed..

The first redevelopment to be completed was the 18,000-capacity rugby stadium at Ravenhill.Now called the Kingspan Stadium, work finished in May 2014.


Next was the 18,500-capacity revamped Windsor Park soccer stadium in October 2016.


As for Casement Park, it lies empty, decaying with every passing day. Happily planning consent has been approved and works shoul begin this year....but we've been there before of course. Access to it is horrendous from the point of view of travelling fans arriving by car. There is nowhere to park.





I suppose Windsor Park could be used for rugby in extreme circs. It's a nice modern ground with a great pitch.

Eod100

Fixtures out for 1st 3 rounds

Confirmation for Rounds 4-6 will follow once PRO14 Rugby has received all necessary approvals and permissions from the relevant governments and health authorities for the South African teams to travel.

https://twitter.com/PRO14Official/status/1381927897699651586

Sabre0001

Law variations announced. Going to get to see the impact of the new red card rule for ourselves, which should be interesting...Wonder if we'll see less pick and drives at the line as it benefits defences to hold the ball up over the line.

Replacement for Red Card player after 20 minutes
For red cards the offending player will be removed from the field for 20 minutes. After this time the team can replace this player with one of their nominated substitutes. The player who is given the red card will not be able to return to the pitch.

Just like the awarding of a yellow card, the 20 minutes will be measured in ‘game time’ meaning that the clock will not run during stoppages in play. The Red Card Replacement law will also apply to players who receive two yellow cards (which results in an automatic red).

Players who have been substituted for tactical reasons may be used to replace a player who has received a red card. The usual replacement laws continue to apply in that a replaced player may return for an injured front rower, injury due to foul play, HIA or blood.

Captain’s Challenge
The Captain’s Challenge is aimed at enhancing the accuracy of decisions already under the remit of the match officials. Each team is allowed one captain’s challenge in the match. These can be used for try-scoring and foul play incidents, or to challenge any refereeing decision in the last five minutes of a match.

The challenge will be referred to the TMO who will review the footage with the match referee making the final decision. If a challenge is successful, then the team keeps their challenge but if it is unsuccessful then the team loses the challenge. Challenges can only be made up to 20 seconds after the referee has blown his whistle for a stoppage in play and only incidents from the last passage of play can be challenged.

Prior to the 75-minute mark, the Captain’s Challenge can only be used to check for an infringement in the lead up to a try or to review foul play. The Captain’s Challenge will be applied more broadly from the 75-minute mark in any match at which point the captain, provided they have not already lost their Challenge, can use it to check any whistled decision regardless of whether a try has been scored. Injury time is included in the post 75-minute period.

TMOs will be able to go back to the last stoppage in play, regardless of how many phases have been played

Foul play challenges can be made after any stoppage in play if the captain believes foul play has been missed by the match officials

Captains must reference ‘specific’ incidents or infringements

Footage must be ‘clear and obvious’ for a challenge to be upheld

Captains cannot refer a scrum or lineout penalty, where the referee’s decision will be final

For the avoidance of doubt, there is no extra challenge available after 75 minutes. Teams receive one challenge per match and will only retain it if they are successful in a previous challenge.

What cannot be challenged

A restart in play has happened including a quick tap or quick throw in has been taken, so the team has chosen to play quickly

Non-decisions – where a referee does not blow their whistle for a decision and play continues (unless there is foul play)

Set-piece decisions cannot be challenged because they are technical decisions that could provide multiple outcomes based on the interpretations of players and referees

Goal-line drop-out
For held-up over the line, knock-ons that occur in goal or when the ball is grounded by a defending player in the in-goal area after a kick through, the defending team will take a drop-out from anywhere on the goal line.

The drop-out must be taken on or behind the defending team’s goal line and it must occur without delay. The ball must cut across the goal line and travel 5 metres. If this does not occur a sanction will apply and the non-kicking team may request the kick to be retaken or receive a 5m scrum in line with where the kick was taken.

For the avoidance of doubt, a missed penalty kick at goal or a missed drop-goal attempt will still result in a 22m drop-out for the defending team.

Podge_irl

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Dave_The_Sheep

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

- Don't like the held up over the line either. What happened to "benefit of the doubt to the attacking team"? Why should you get a turnover simply because you held someone up? If that's a tackle in normal play, it would turn into a ruck and the attacking team would (probably) keep possession and play would go on. This one seems non-sensical to me.

Like, what's the problem they're trying to fix here? Pick and goes are seen as a problem?

errlloyd

Podge_irl wrote: »

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Yeah, I think in the stadiums with long end zones, Murrayfield for example. A kicker sending a long one down the middle will become more viable in the hopes of earning a goal line dropout will become more viable.

irishbucsfan

This is why I think the drop out rule change is good, and I hope it works out as expected and is kept.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I think the drop out rule is a positive change. At the moment you can effectively use being held up as a form of attacking exit because you get a 5 meter scrum from it which is very often a better attacking platform than where you started from. A really good example was the second time Leinster got held up last weekend, that carry would not happen that way if this law was in place.

Now we’ll see teams having to start again from between the 22 and 10 meter line. That should reduce the amount of those kinds of situations.

The red card one doesn't exite me hugely tbh

sydthebeat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

the problem here is that the scope for giving red cards has been opened significantly wider than originally intended in the laws.

reds arent given for only serious elements of foul play any more, they are often given for bad timing, bad technique or pure unluckiness.

there have been 14 red cards so far in the premiership this season, and we're only 2/3rds into the season.

There was 7 red cards in the whole of the 17/18 season.
There was 4 in the 2010/2011 season.
There was 2 in the 2000/2001 season.
There was none in the first full premiership in 97/98

are we saying players are infinitely more thuggish now than 24 years ago?

arsebiscuits1

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

- Don't like the red card idea. A red should be for serious incidents, and the punishment for them shouldn't be simply double a yellow card punishment.

- Don't like the held up over the line either. What happened to "benefit of the doubt to the attacking team"? Why should you get a turnover simply because you held someone up? If that's a tackle in normal play, it would turn into a ruck and the attacking team would (probably) keep possession and play would go on. This one seems non-sensical to me.

Like, what's the problem they're trying to fix here? Pick and goes are seen as a problem?

You're not turned over though. The chances of the team who sends the goal line drop out regathering are quite slim as most will use it as an exit strategy. Those who chance a 5m distance and regather will just add a bit of excitement I feel.

90% of the time the team held up with regather the ball still in their opposition third which is still a prime attacking position.

I do think they're trying to move away from pick and goes though yes. The general consensus to these rules is they'd prefer to see teams actively create and exploit space in the oppo 22 rather than brute force and latching for 20 phases until the defending team cracks.

arsebiscuits1

One thing that I'm not so sure about regarding the held up rule though....

We might see a few teams actively pulling players back towards their own line

sydthebeat

the held up rule invariably means the attacking team get an attacking platform usually central just outside the 22 pretty much immediately.

no collapsed 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc scrum like we had in france wales 2019 which was a mind melt of a watch

Tigerandahalf

Strange rule changes. It seems like they want teams to pass it out wide rather than repeat collisions near the goal line with pick and go's.

But will teams pile in even more now as if the referee can't see it does he give an attacking scrum?

This will go against Ireland as our gameplan has been very reliant on scoring from these scenarios.

The red card is a dangerous one. Take the best opposition player out and you lose 20 mins before you get a replacement.

Tigerandahalf

sydthebeat wrote: »

the held up rule invariably means the attacking team get an attacking platform usually central just outside the 22 pretty much immediately.

no collapsed 1st, 2nd, 3rd 4th etc scrum like we had in france wales 2019 which was a mind melt of a watch

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Squidgy Black

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Same as a 22 drop out, you lose the chance of competing for it to win possession if you kick it long. And it'd be a monster of a kick to get it past your own 10 metre line from your goal line, which then opens space right up for a team to run it back.

sydthebeat

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

thats usually what they do... remember the fdrop out is from the its from the goal line

the balls caught usually around the halfway line, and the receiver runs it back to (usually) just outside the 22 before the defensive line catches him.

Tigerandahalf

Most drop outs kicked long from the 22 would go as far as the opposition 10m. They'd be met at half way no?

arsebiscuits1

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

What is to stop the defending team booting the drop out as far as they can down the field?

This rule seems to be rewarding defence rather than attack.

Even the furthest kicker in the world wont be able to prevent a scenario in which the opposition can attack in them in their third of the pitch.

Advantage is very much still with the team receiving the kick

Dave_The_Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

are we saying players are infinitely more thuggish now than 24 years ago?

No, we're saying that players need to change their tackle technique and stop hitting other players in the head/neck area. Because let's be honest, that's what the vast majority of these cards have been.

I agree the number of red cards this year seems really off, because it is, but there's a reason for that.

Do you think that lessening the punishment for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

You're not turned over though.The chances of the team who sends the goal line drop out regathering are quite slim as most will use it as an exit strategy. Those who chance a 5m distance and regather will just add a bit of excitement I feel.

90% of the time the team held up with regather the ball still in their opposition third which is still a prime attacking position.

I do think they're trying to move away from pick and goes though yes. The general consensus to these rules is they'd prefer to see teams actively create and exploit space in the oppo 22 rather than brute force and latching for 20 phases until the defending team cracks.

You're 100% turned over. The defending team gets possession of the ball, and what will happen there is they will simply dropkick the ball as far as they can up the pitch and chase after it. You're going to see attacking teams losing 30 metres for being held up.

The clearing dropgoal isn't going to require accuracy, just power. If a teams kicker can accurately knock over a drop goal from 20-25 metres out, how far will they get it just going exclusively for power?

I agree with your last sentence, by the way. It's what they're going for. I just don't like it.

[edit] (ok maybe 40m was optimistic)

sydthebeat

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

Most drop outs kicked long from the 22 would go as far as the opposition 10m. They'd be met at half way no?

nope

the defense is running from their behind their tryline, as they have to be behind the kicker

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out

thelad95

I really don't like the red card idea. At a time when the game is in an extremely delicate situation in regards to protecting player's welfare I'm surprised that they're happy to be seen to be lessening the impact of a red card.

So a South African team comes to Dublin fired up and goes for a cheap head shot on Johnny Sexton putting a key player for Leinster out for a HIA? No problem, grind through twenty minutes and bring on a replacement. It's a truly truly awful idea

sydthebeat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Do you think that lessening the punishement for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?

i dont think it will impact the number of reds either way.

we are seeing a growth in red cards

if that growth stops and this law variation is in place.. will it be because of the variation or behaviour change?

look, im not an advocate for the law variation, but i do recognise that the increase in red card offenses has lead to an increase in red cards... and rugby is a game where a red card can have a significant impact on both the result of the game, and the points differential with other teams.

arsebiscuits1

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

No, we're saying that players need to change their tackle technique and stop hitting other players in the head/neck area. Because let's be honest, that's what the vast majority of these cards have been.

I agree the number of red cards this year seems really off, because it is, but there's a reason for that.

Do you think that lessening the punishment for red cards will lead to more red cards, or less?



You're 100% turned over. The defending team gets possession of the ball, and what will happen there is they will simply dropkick the ball as far as they can up the pitch and chase after it. You're going to see attacking teams losing 30 metres for being held up.

The clearing dropgoal isn't going to require accuracy, just power. If a teams kicker can accurately knock over a drop goal from 20-25 metres out, how far will they get it just going exclusively for power?

I agree with your last sentence, by the way. It's what they're going for. I just don't like it.

[edit] (ok maybe 40m was optimistic)

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

breezy1985

Pussyhands wrote: »

They should have just called this the Money Cup.

That's the only reason for it. Change the structure of the Pro 14 mid way through the league to create this money grabbing thing.

You would want to be very cynical to be watching Vodacom vs DHL and think it's all about the money

pickarooney

Podge_irl wrote: »

Having the same outcome for the attacking team being held up and the attacking team putting through a speculative kick that the defending team easily recovers seems odd.

Maybe but 5 metre scrums against you after a heroic last ditch tackle always seemed like a ****ty reward

Dave_The_Sheep

sydthebeat wrote: »

look, im not an advocate for the law variation, but i do recognise that the increase in red card offenses has lead to an increase in red cards... and rugby is a game where a red card can have a significant impact on both the result of the game, and the points differential with other teams.

Which is fair, but I think the red card should have a significant impact on a game and this lessens that quite a bit.

Any change in red card frequency (assuming ref's keep their behaviour - hah - consistent, big ask given it's hardly consistent at the moment) will be down to the players.

Will they continue to make hits and risk getting a red card and their team being down a player for the rest of the game, or their team being down a player for 20 minutes? Rugby players are cynical, and that's not an insult, it's simply part of the game. How far can I push this ref, how much can I get away with in this ruck before I get pinged, how much can I risk this dominant tackle going high without getting carded? Lessen the punishment and I think you're increasing the likelyhood they'll go for it.

Dave_The_Sheep

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

More favourable than a 5 metre scrum?

This is favouring defense over attack, because it's not the right form of attack, it seems (presumably the claim is it's to stop player-risking pick and drives?).

Lost Ormond

pickarooney wrote: »

Maybe but 5 metre scrums against you after a heroic last ditch tackle always seemed like a ****ty reward

But heroic last ditch tackles should reward the defensive team with a line clearance kick down thirty/forty metres and a lot of work the attacking team did to get to the try line is for nothing and theyve to work through the defensive line yet again to get to same position.

Tigerandahalf

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out[/quote]

So the attacking team will lose at least 25m?

This will encourage more and more long kicking. Hopefully players will counter from it and not just boot the ball down field.

A rule change that they need to look at is rewarding players who make a break and who could gain 50m side stepping 4 or 5 players. The player then gets tackled and is deemed to have held and a penalty is awarded against him. A scrum should be awarded at most.

It is not allowing flair players to run with the ball as they are afraid of their life of giving away a penalty if they get isolated.

Tigerandahalf

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

Ok yes in the technical sense of the word you're turned over.

But in a broader context you're getting the ball back immediately in a favorable position on the pitch

You aren't though. You first have to ensure that you field the ball. Knock it on a wet day and you could lose 50m.

If I was dropping the ball out from my goal line I would kick it low and hard - makes it very hard for the opposition to field the ball, either having to stop it first with their foot to control the ball and then pick it up, or risk handling it at the first opportunity. The drop out team would be upon you. Strange rule.

Squidgy Black

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

They usually meet just outside the 22

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0wwEsWrhEM

prime example here in the first ever super rugby aotearoa goal line drop out

So the attacking team will lose at least 25m?

This will encourage more and more long kicking. Hopefully players will counter from it and not just boot the ball down field.

A rule change that they need to look at is rewarding players who make a break and who could gain 50m side stepping 4 or 5 players. The player then gets tackled and is deemed to have held and a penalty is awarded against him. A scrum should be awarded at most.

It is not allowing flair players to run with the ball as they are afraid of their life of giving away a penalty if they get isolated.

That makes no sense, why penalise the defensive team for a good turnover because the attacking team didn't have any players running in support and couldn't execute a clearout properly?

Tigerandahalf

Squidgy Black wrote: »

That makes no sense, why penalise the defensive team for a good turnover because the attacking team didn't have any players running in support and couldn't execute a clearout properly?

Because the attacking player made 50m and side stepped a number of players - isn't that what we want rugby players to be doing, not crashing into each other.

A lot of players take the ball up close to the ruck and traffic as they are afraid of getting isolated. If they knew the most they'd give away was a scrum players would be a lot more inclined to run the ball and take a chance (with less likehihood of collisions).

The game is boring to watch at the moment.

A good example is Michael Lowry at the moment. A small player easily turned over if he gete isolated. Yet he has the pace and step to go past many players but will get penalised for that effort if he holds on. He has been pinged a number of times for this already. As has Hugo Keenan, another fairly light player.

irishbucsfan

Holding on is either a penalty or a scrum. It can’t be dependent on what the attacker did with the ball, that’s ridiculous hard to enforce.

Now, would it be worth a trial to change it from a penalty to a scrum against? I’d be very interested to see it, but the implications would be absolutely huge.

Cookiemunster

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

More favourable than a 5 metre scrum?

This is favouring defense over attack, because it's not the right form of attack, it seems (presumably the claim is it's to stop player-risking pick and drives?).

This smacks of more Southern Hemisphere tinkering to reduce the influence of the scrum. I still think that on a ****ty wet December night (or any time between November and March really) that more often than not, after the drop out the play will very quickly end up back at the try line with more pick and drives. It's just a different way of getting there.