Munster vs Blues 7.35 pm Eir Sport and TG4

yerrahbah

I see the Haley yellow card is getting a lot of traction on twitter. People calling it a blatant red

I'm biased but I think a yellow card was sufficient,

It was poor technique by Haley and there was contact to the head but Haley gets low to make the tackle and the Blues player dips.

The captains challenge at the end I'm not so sure about,

1: For me the ball hadn't left the ruck and when then SH kicked it, it didn't make contact with anyone

2: I thought you couldn't challenge a non whistled decision unless it was foul play

Jerry Attrick

yerrahbah wrote: »

The captain's challenge at the end I'm not so sure about,

1: For me the ball hadn't left the ruck and when then SH kicked it, it didn't make contact with anyone

2: I thought you couldn't challenge a non whistled decision unless it was foul play

1. Correct. Ollie Hodges knew that, Brace didn't.

2. My understanding is that in the final 5 minutes the captain's challenge can be used for virtually everything under the sun.

Buer

Watched the game this morning. Mitigation was clear in the shape of the Blues player already having been tackled and falling. The referee said he could see a clear attempt to wrap however which I didn't see at all so, in that respect, it was more than just clumsy (which the referee called it). Haley appeared to go in with a shoulder to my eyes; we often see covering players make that sort of hit on a guy as they try to shunt them into touch. But I think there's clear mitigation to not give a red for it. I'd probably be salty if I was a Blues fan but with my neutral hat on, the yellow card was the correct call.

On the last whistle, I can't see how the ball had clearly left the ruck. It was shown about a dozen times and there's no clear angle of the ball having been past the hindmost foot fully. So that was a significant let off as the Blues looked extremely dangerous and had advantage there. I think we've seen in some cases where the referees are absolutely fed up with the challenges and just want a game to end. It's put them under massive pressure and scrutiny unnecessarily. For every good, deserved challenge, I think we've seen three pointless/incorrect ones.

2: I thought you couldn't challenge a non whistled decision unless it was foul play

I know you can challenge anything in the final 5 minutes but there has been an incredible lack of clarity on this process. In this instance, I think there's a whistled decision in that passage of play which gives Munster the opportunity to make a challenge. If the ball had just gone out of play (and no advantage/penalty), then I don't think either side could challenge.

stephen_n

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

1. Correct. Ollie Hodges knew that, Brace didn't.

2. My understanding is that in the final 10 minutes the captain's challenge can be used for virtually everything under the sun.

Final 5 minutes according to the commentators last night.

yerrahbah

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

1. Correct. Ollie Hodges knew that, Brace didn't.

2. My understanding is that in the final 10 minutes the captain's challenge can be used for virtually everything under the sun.

At the final whistle of the Leinster Munster match, Munster were chasing a TBP and wanted to challenge something but the ref wouldn't let them.

KaneToad

yerrahbah wrote: »

At the final whistle of the Leinster Munster match, Munster were chasing a TBP and wanted to challenge something but the ref wouldn't let them.

Ref wouldn't let them because the team doctor had suggested it to the captain. Ref didn't like that. Not sure what law it was against though. Ref just seemed to have had enough...much like Brace not listening to his TMO...

Buer

KaneToad wrote: »

Ref wouldn't let them because the team doctor had suggested it to the captain. Ref didn't like that. Not sure what law it was against though. Ref just seemed to have had enough...much like Brace not listening to his TMO...

That was the Leinster vs Ulster game.

In the Leinster vs Munster game, the ball went dead, POM wanted to challenge but the referee advised (correctly) that the challenge can be applied for a try scoring incident, foul play or against any refereeing decision in the last 5 minutes. There was no decision to challenge.

Last night, there was a penalty to Cardiff which allowed Munster challenge although it's very ambiguous as to what extent the challenge can be implemented as it clearly wasn't related to the penalty but did occur in that passage of play.

yerrahbah

KaneToad wrote: »

Ref wouldn't let them because the team doctor had suggested it to the captain. Ref didn't like that. Not sure what law it was against though. Ref just seemed to have had enough...much like Brace not listening to his TMO...

You're thinking of the Leinster Ulster game, 1.54.00 into the video

At the end of the Leinster Munster game the ref said something along the likes of, you cant challenge that, I'll explain later

aloooof

I’d be interested to hear other thoughts on the obstruction / high tackle incident, especially if any ref’s still come on here.

Brace’s reasoning seemed to be he stuck with the pen for the more dangerous incident. I’ve seen that before when the 2 incidents are against the same (defending) team, say.

But I don’t know if I’ve ever seen it when the penalties are against opposing teams; in that scenario, I would’ve thought typically it goes back for the earlier incident?

yerrahbah

There has been examples of refs reversing penalties for the more dangerous offence.

Especially when the first offence is a technical one

yerrahbah

Thought Cronin, Wycherley, Kleyn and Casey were the best of the bunch last night.

Kleyn has had a good run of form lately (bar some handling errors vs Connacht)

TomsOnTheRoof

Jerry Attrick wrote: »

1. Correct. Ollie Hodges knew that, Brace didn't.

2. My understanding is that in the final 5 minutes the captain's challenge can be used for virtually everything under the sun.

TMO was looking for an accidental offside. Brace was looking at whether the ball had left the ruck. They were reffing two different technical infringements. The laws offer no guidance on how much of the ball has to be outside the ruck for it to be considered "outside". They also state that you can't put the ball back inside. It's a matter of interpretation.

razorblunt

Regarding Haley, for me, it’s red, his left arm is tucked for the shoulder hit, no way is that wrapping properly.

POM got lucky too, I can’t decide if he pulled out last minute or the Cardiff prop changed his body position to show more of his back than head but POM was lining him up for a tucked forearm/elbow, similar to the Wales game.

I say both as a Munster fan too, fwiw.

shootermacg

Buer wrote: »

Watched the game this morning. Mitigation was clear in the shape of the Blues player already having been tackled and falling. The referee said he could see a clear attempt to wrap however which I didn't see at all so, in that respect, it was more than just clumsy (which the referee called it). Haley appeared to go in with a shoulder to my eyes; we often see covering players make that sort of hit on a guy as they try to shunt them into touch. But I think there's clear mitigation to not give a red for it. I'd probably be salty if I was a Blues fan but with my neutral hat on, the yellow card was the correct call.

There was a clear attempt to wrap, but his arm gets knocked away by the ball carrier.

molloyjh

yerrahbah wrote: »

I see the Haley yellow card is getting a lot of traction on twitter. People calling it a blatant red

I'm biased but I think a yellow card was sufficient,

It was poor technique by Haley and there was contact to the head but Haley gets low to make the tackle and the Blues player dips.

The captains challenge at the end I'm not so sure about,

1: For me the ball hadn't left the ruck and when then SH kicked it, it didn't make contact with anyone

2: I thought you couldn't challenge a non whistled decision unless it was foul play

Re the card, agree with the yellow. Player was dropping and had dipped a good distance. It was the right call. However I'd agree with Buer re the shoulder charge. Brace was very generous in saying he saw saw attempt to wrap. It didn't matter though as a yellow was the right call.

Douglas Eegit

yerrahbah wrote: »

At the end of the Leinster Munster game the ref said something along the likes of, you cant challenge that, I'll explain later

To which CJ said something along the lines - what good is talking about this on Monday. We need the bonus point and it might cost us finishing top....

Tomtom364

TomsOnTheRoof wrote: »

TMO was looking for an accidental offside. Brace was looking at whether the ball had left the ruck. They were reffing two different technical infringements. The laws offer no guidance on how much of the ball has to be outside the ruck for it to be considered "outside". They also state that you can't put the ball back inside. It's a matter of interpretation.

Brace didn't care if the ball had left the ruck or not.
The law states a player may not return the ball into a ruck.
Brace interpreted that to be you can only play the ball backwards & out of a ruck and not forwards into a ruck, he said as much to the tmo if I remember correctly.

I'd agree with that interpretation.
An argument could also be made that as the player kicked the ball forwards players in the ruck are now offside regardless if the ball touches any of them And as they prevent Munster players playing the ball it's at least an accidental offside.

So ultimately I think a free kick to Munster was the right call, if a little unclear as the exact explanation on the pitch and something that could very well have been missed and probably is missed regularly

Burkie1203

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Brace didn't care if the ball had left the ruck or not.
The law states a player may not return the ball into a ruck.
Brace interpreted that to be you can only play the ball backwards & out of a ruck and not forwards into a ruck, he said as much to the tmo if I remember correctly.

I'd agree with that interpretation.
An argument could also be made that as the player kicked the ball forwards players in the ruck are now offside regardless if the ball touches any of them And as they prevent Munster players playing the ball it's at least an accidental offside.

So ultimately I think a free kick to Munster was the right call, if a little unclear as the exact explanation on the pitch and something that could very well have been missed and probably is missed regularly

I've no problem with the decision. But how many times a game does it happen and no action is taken.

TomsOnTheRoof

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Brace didn't care if the ball had left the ruck or not.
The law states a player may not return the ball into a ruck.
Brace interpreted that to be you can only play the ball backwards & out of a ruck and not forwards into a ruck, he said as much to the tmo if I remember correctly.

I'd agree with that interpretation.
An argument could also be made that as the player kicked the ball forwards players in the ruck are now offside regardless if the ball touches any of them And as they prevent Munster players playing the ball it's at least an accidental offside.

So ultimately I think a free kick to Munster was the right call, if a little unclear as the exact explanation on the pitch and something that could very well have been missed and probably is missed regularly

Agreed

Shaka Hislop

Burkie1203 wrote: »

I've no problem with the decision. But how many times a game does it happen and no action is taken.

It's almost as if we're calling for consistency in refereeing decisions...

theVersatile

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

It's almost as if we're calling for consistency in refereeing decisions...

Don't be daft Shaka, we all know refs are only talked about when Munster lose and the decisions go against them!

molloyjh

Tomtom364 wrote: »

Brace didn't care if the ball had left the ruck or not.
The law states a player may not return the ball into a ruck.
Brace interpreted that to be you can only play the ball backwards & out of a ruck and not forwards into a ruck, he said as much to the tmo if I remember correctly.

I'd agree with that interpretation.
An argument could also be made that as the player kicked the ball forwards players in the ruck are now offside regardless if the ball touches any of them And as they prevent Munster players playing the ball it's at least an accidental offside.

So ultimately I think a free kick to Munster was the right call, if a little unclear as the exact explanation on the pitch and something that could very well have been missed and probably is missed regularly

To return the ball into a ruck the ball must first leave the ruck. If it hasn't left, it can't return. You're looking for a bunch of reasons to agree with a decision that referees never make in a game.

irelandrover

molloyjh wrote: »

To return the ball into a ruck the ball must first leave the ruck. If it hasn't left, it can't return. You're looking for a bunch of reasons to agree with a decision that referees never make in a game.

Brace said 'put' the ball into the ruck, rather than return the ball into the ruck. The way he interpret its seems to be that the ball doesn't need to leave the ruck.

If it was against me I'd be pissed. But I can see why he deems it that way.

sydthebeat

irelandrover wrote: »

Brace said 'put' the ball into the ruck, rather than return the ball into the ruck. The way he interpret its seems to be that the ball doesn't need to leave the ruck.

If it was against me I'd be pissed. But I can see why he deems it that way.

The law says you must not "return the ball into the ruck"

In order to return something into something, it must first have left it.

Brace doesn't have to verbalise it for him to have considered that it left the ruck, but that period of communication wasn't a good look for the game.

irelandrover

sydthebeat wrote: »

The law says you must not "return the ball into the ruck"

In order to return something into something, it must first have left it.

Brace doesn't have to verbalise it for him to have considered that it left the ruck, but that period of communication wasn't a good look for the game.

This is fair enough.

But the ball is on it way out. The player kicks it back in. That is what the ref deemed as returning it.

I dont agree. But I see why the ref makes that decision.

Akrasia

razorblunt wrote: »

Regarding Haley, for me, it’s red, his left arm is tucked for the shoulder hit, no way is that wrapping properly.

POM got lucky too, I can’t decide if he pulled out last minute or the Cardiff prop changed his body position to show more of his back than head but POM was lining him up for a tucked forearm/elbow, similar to the Wales game.

I say both as a Munster fan too, fwiw.

Haleys left arm certainly was not tucked it was coming up to wrap but in the split second before, the player changed position significantly having been tackled by someone else

I can clearly see his arm coming up, it definitely was not tucked as it would be for a shoulder charge into touch

Hopefully Haley gets cited (though I don't expect much), absolutely filthy play. Though I see according to this forum a Munster player has still never ever committed an act of foul play.

Brace should have a few questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1398675694679433219?s=20

irelandrover

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

Hopefully Haley gets cited (though I don't expect much), absolutely filthy play. Though I see according to this forum a Munster player has still never ever committed an act of foul play.

Brace should have a few questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1398675694679433219?s=20

Do you not think that the tackle immediately before that drops the player mitigates it down to a yellow?

Akrasia

irelandrover wrote: »

This is fair enough.

But the ball is on it way out. The player kicks it back in. That is what the ref deemed as returning it.

I dont agree. But I see why the ref makes that decision.

When a player kicks a ball forwards any player ahead of the kicker is out of the game and cannot interfere in play, in this case, when the 9 kicked the ball forward and he put everyone in the ruck offside. Whether they touch the ball or not, any offside player preventing contest for the ball is obstruction.

We all know intuitively that a player outside of the ruck should not kick the ball forwards into the ruck. A player outside a ruck can use their feet to move the ball backwards out of the ruck, or while on their feet, they can pick the ball out of the ruck and play it

The blues broke the rules, got caught, CJ was aware enough to highlight it and it was enough to seal the win

theVersatile

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

Hopefully Haley gets cited (though I don't expect much), absolutely filthy play. Though I see according to this forum a Munster player has still never ever committed an act of foul play.

Brace should have a few questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1398675694679433219?s=20

You do realise it needs to be a red card offence to be cited successfully? Mind explaining the reasoning why you think Brace was wrong instead of taking a swipe at Munster fans out of bitterness?

Akrasia

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

Hopefully Haley gets cited (though I don't expect much), absolutely filthy play. Though I see according to this forum a Munster player has still never ever committed an act of foul play.

Brace should have a few questions to answer.

https://twitter.com/simonrug/status/1398675694679433219?s=20

How can you watch this and not see Haley’s left arm rising up to wrap in the tackle?
If it’s ‘absolutely filthy play’ why isn’t Haley’s left arm tucked at the point of contact?

irelandrover

irelandrover wrote: »

Do you not think that the tackle immediately before that drops the player mitigates it down to a yellow?

No. There's not a hint of a wrap and it's a shoulder straight to the head.

irelandrover

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

No. There's not a hint of a wrap and it's a shoulder straight to the head.

Fair enough. I think the tackle by conway drops the player quickly and that's a mitigation

Akrasia

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

No. There's not a hint of a wrap and it's a shoulder straight to the head.

Where is Haley’s left arm when contact is made? Is it tucked or coming up
?

Buer

The tackled player is falling. It's clear mitigation although one of those angles does not look good. The arm coming up is not looking to wrap at all. It just extending outwards as he launches himself.

Clearly dangerous hit with mitigation. Yellow is correct but he's fortunate. He was just looking to smash the carrier. Not unusual for a covering player to try and blast someone into touch like that.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote: »

Where is Haley’s left arm when contact is made? Is it tucked or coming up
?

If my post had have said "there's not a hint of his arm coming up" then you might have some sort of point but that isn't what I said. There is no wrap. Not even a tiny bit of a wrap. Absolutely zero wrapping going on.

Burkie1203

Akrasia wrote: »

The blues broke the rules, got caught, CJ was aware enough to highlight it and it was enough to seal the win

Only the captains challenge shouldn't have been allowed. Which is hopefully why it gets binned

Burkie1203

Akrasia wrote: »

Where is Haley’s left arm when contact is made? Is it tucked or coming up
?

It's flailing off his left shoulder. It's no more an attempt to wrap then some of Owen Farrells efforts from a few seasons back.

Buer

Akrasia wrote: »

When a player kicks a ball forwards any player ahead of the kicker is out of the game and cannot interfere in play, in this case, when the 9 kicked the ball forward and he put everyone in the ruck offside. Whether they touch the ball or not, any offside player preventing contest for the ball is obstruction.

This isn't the basis of the decision at all though. There's a ruck formed. No contest can occur unless the defending team counter ruck which they still can. The law isn't to just assume they now aren't there as they're potentially offside. Just the same as a chaser can't run directly into an offside player who hasn't altered his position or made an active involvement. They can remain in place and have do not alter the situation by their presence.

Akrasia

Buer wrote: »

The tackled player is falling. It's clear mitigation although one of those angles does not look good. The arm coming up is not looking to wrap at all. It just extending outwards as he launches himself.

Clearly dangerous hit with mitigation. Yellow is correct but he's fortunate. He was just looking to smash the carrier. Not unusual for a covering player to try and blast someone into touch like that.

There’s nothing wrong with looking to blast a player as long as he goes in low and attempts to wrap, Haley did both, player falls just before the tackle and contact is made with the head. Yellow was right decision but red would have been incredibly harsh
And calling it absolutely filthy is way OTT there was never any intention to hurt in that tackle, but rugby is a high intensity contact sport where accidents like this can happen

Compare this with Henshaws tackle 2 weeks ago, he went high and hard and there were no mitigating factors other than the pure luck that contact was an inch lower than it could have been.....

Akrasia

Burkie1203 wrote: »

It's flailing off his left shoulder. It's no more an attempt to wrap then some of Owen Farrells efforts from a few seasons back.

Totally different given that Farrell lined up the player and charged them. Haley lined up the player and right before the tackle, the target got tackled and their position dropped hence the mitigation

Buer

Akrasia wrote: »

And calling it absolutely filthy is way OTT there was never any intention to hurt in that tackle, but rugby is a high intensity contact sport where accidents like this can happen.

I think you're confusing me with another poster.

Burkie1203

Akrasia wrote: »

Totally different given that Farrell lined up the player and charged them. Haley lined up the player and right before the tackle, the target got tackled and their position dropped hence the mitigation

Well I don't believe Haley was every likely to make a legit tackle.

Akrasia

Buer wrote: »

This isn't the basis of the decision at all though. There's a ruck formed. No contest can occur unless the defending team counter ruck which they still can. The law isn't to just assume they now aren't there as they're potentially offside. Just the same as a chaser can't run directly into an offside player who hasn't altered his position or made an active involvement. They can remain in place and have do not alter the situation by their presence.

Cj challenged on the fact that 9 kicked the ball back into the ruck
On what basis do you think it is legal for a 9 to deliberately kick a ball back into a ruck when it’s about to come out?

There are loads of laws dealing with ‘preventing fair contest’
And what constitutes a ruck. In a scrum the hooker can keep the ball in the scrum with his foot, in a ruck no player is entitled to deliberately keep the ball in the ruck, players can bring it out of the ruck on their side do it can be played, but not deliberately play it to keep it in the ruck

On the heat of the game, the challenge was made and the right decision was made based on the spirit of the laws of rugby

Akrasia

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Well I don't believe Haley was every likely to make a legit tackle.

You are entitled to that belief but the fact is there was mitigation in the change of the tackled players height immediately prior to the tackle, this was judged to be enough mitigation to reduce the tackle from red up yellow. There is no question that Haley intentionally went in to tackle that player high, so the mitigation was justified

Even if the player never intended to wrap, without the head contact it was not more than yellow

stephen_n

Akrasia wrote: »

Cj challenged on the fact that 9 kicked the ball back into the ruck
On what basis do you think it is legal for a 9 to deliberately kick a ball back into a ruck when it’s about to come out?

The ball was stationary when he put his foot on it, how was it about to come out?

Akrasia

stephen_n wrote: »

The ball was stationary when he put his foot on it, how was it about to come out?

He didn’t put his foot on it, he deliberately kicked it back into the ruck
Why would he do this?

Probably because it was in their interests to keep the ruck while they were setting up an attack, and 9 was concerned that the ball could be kicked out by accident or emerge from the ruck by his own team driving forward, or because he was aware that a Munster player was ready to pounce the second that ball came out

Regardless, there is no legal play that allows 9 to kick that ball into the ruck deliberately

Buer

Akrasia wrote: »

Cj challenged on the fact that 9 kicked the ball back into the ruck
On what basis do you think it is legal for a 9 to deliberately kick a ball back into a ruck when it’s about to come out?

There are loads of laws dealing with ‘preventing fair contest’
And what constitutes a ruck. Ina scrum the booker can keep the ball in the scrum with his foot, in a ruck no player is entitled to deliberately keep the ball in the ruck, players can bring it out of the ruck on their side do it can be played, but not deliberately play it to keep it in the ruck

On the heat of the game, the challenge was made and the right decision was made based on the spirit of the laws of rugby

A lot of what you're saying isn't really relevant at all.

Regarding what basis is it legal for a 9 to kick the ball back into a ruck...it's not. If the ball is out of a ruck it's available to be played by either side as it's in open play. To illegally move it back into the ruck prevents that. I never suggested otherwise.

The point I made was the assertion that nudging it forward makes everyone else offside and preventing a turnover which, as a ruck is already formed, is not relevant.

You're trying to shoehorn in other interpretations of the laws which aren't applicable. It was a straightforward challenge and decision based on same. Brace believed the ball had been kicked back into the ruck thereby preventing it being open play, the ruck being over and Munster being allowed to walk around and pick up the ball. The players in the ruck aren't preventing a contest by being offside. The laws of a ruck are preventing the contest as the only way it can be contested is by a counter ruck now; that hasn't changed. Hands are not allowed.

The idea that anyone in the ruck, who didn't touch the ball or change their position are suddenly offside and their presence prevents a turnover is inaccurate.

Akrasia

Buer wrote: »

A lot of what you're saying isn't really relevant at all.

Regarding what basis is it legal for a 9 to kick the ball back into a ruck...it's not. If the ball is out of a ruck it's available to be played by either side as it's in open play. To illegally move it back into the ruck prevents that. I never suggested otherwise.

The point I made was the assertion that nudging it forward makes everyone else offside and preventing a turnover which, as a ruck is already formed, is not relevant.

You're trying to shoehorn in other interpretations of the laws which aren't applicable. It was a straightforward challenge and decision based on same. Brace believed the ball had been kicked back into the ruck thereby preventing it being open play, the ruck being over and Munster being allowed to walk around and pick up the ball. The players in the ruck aren't preventing a contest by being offside. The laws of a ruck are preventing the contest as the only way it can be contested is by a counter ruck now; that hasn't changed. Hands are not allowed.

The idea that anyone in the ruck, who didn't touch the ball or change their position are suddenly offside and their presence prevents a turnover is inaccurate.

The ruck would cease to be formed when the ball exits the ruck, so all the rules around the ruck no longer apply. By the 9 deliberately kicking the ball forward the ruck is over so anyone from that point onward who prevents a Munster getting to the ball from a position ahead of the ball, is obstruction

There are lots of reasons why kicking that ball forward was illegal/ caused other players to become illegal . It’s just.a matter of picking which one to put down on the official ref report

The right decision was made unless someone wants to tell me the legal basis that allowed the 9 to kick that ball into that ruck

thomond2006

Chaya Uneven Paperwork wrote: »

Though I see according to this forum a Munster player has still never ever committed an act of foul play.

You love trotting out this line and it remains bitter and pathetic. Grow up.