Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Munster Team Talk Thread - New season title pending....

Options
1705706708710711879

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    I totally agree with this. On one of the podcasts during the week, might have been the42, they mentioned Frisch coming back in made sense as the two of them have formed a good partnership, was very much left wondering what the **** games they've been watching. I think Nankivell is a really good player but the partnerships there haven't settled at all.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,178 ✭✭✭Red Silurian


    Murray has an auful habbit of throwing his arms in the air at ruck-time. What we need is for him to use those arms to instead pick the ball up and pass it like a scrum half would

    There were some really good performances by a lot of players, which makes the loss, almost single handed-ly orchestrated, by one of our most experienced players all the more disappointing



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Nah I think this is not fair.

    If you're the scrum half you should have the option of playing both sides of the ruck, and attacking in either direction.

    If two opposition players are ambling back right in the passing channel, and you play it off them, it should be a penalty 100% of the time. Otherwise, they're effectively forcing you to go to the other side. They (the offside players) should hunker down out of the way in an offside position if they need to, but if you're going to just trot back like that right in the SH's passing channel then to me you should be penalised.



  • Registered Users Posts: 7,379 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    Agreed. If someone is offside and in your passing line, they're obstructing you and you should be totally OK to pass it into them. Not your problem they can't get back fast enough/get out of the way.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    I don't really think they are in the passing line. The Exeter players are not in between Murray and the other Munster players, this is pretty clearly demonstrated by the fact he tries to pass into them, completely misses, and the pass is still several yards in front of his nearest teammate.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,379 ✭✭✭Dave_The_Sheep


    I'm not talking about this specific incident, more in general.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I agree with this, but think a lot of it is the way Munster are using him. He's being asked to stay in those wide channels (and is obviously highly effective there), but it does minimise his ability to hit a huge amount of rucks. He's a huge man, but he's not as physically abrasive as POM obviously, or some other noteworthy blindsides out there.

    As a similar player in a similar role, I thought Ryan Baird had his best ever game for Leinster in the win down in La Rochelle. He's a guy who we know is unbelievably explosive in open country with the ball in his hand, but in that game against La Rochelle it was his intensity in getting off the line, smashing into tackles, pressuring receivers, and making a nuisance of himself at ruck time that, for the first time, told me he can be an elite blindside flanker. We haven't seen that yet from Ahern in the position.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Schorpio


    I presume there is a case for them to be substantially interfering with play in an offside position? Slade pops out from between two of his offside teammates. From Murray's perspective, those players are probably (likely) preventing him from being able to see Slade coming?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    Again, Murray can just pass to one of his own teammates rather than try buy a penalty, and this whole situation doesn't happen. They're only interfering with play in the sense they tempt Murray into doing something totally daft, imo.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    Even granting this, what you're saying is they have, from an offside position tempted Murray to do something he otherwise wouldn't have? Is that not the definition of interfering with play?



  • Advertisement
  • Hosted Moderators Posts: 8,114 ✭✭✭fitz


    I never said not to communicate. I said tell them once, that's their warning...then penalize them. Telling them three separate times in the space of 30 seconds is just letting them slow down the ball illegally and buy time to reset defence. Its effectively penalizing the attacking team, and leads to a less free flowing game as every breakdown then becomes a mess.



  • Registered Users Posts: 4,046 ✭✭✭Lost Ormond


    But you don't and will not see refs do that as it isn't going to work. There's good reason refs don't act like that all the time and don't say rhe players will just adapt. Don't be naive.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I understand where you're coming from, but feel like it's another one of those aspects of the game where it rewards cynical play.

    Some teams know they'll get away with pushing the boundaries a bit as they'll get a couple of bumps from the ref before they'll be penalised.

    It's similar to how referees tell scrum halves to use it at the base of the ruck, but 9s know they have at least 8-10 seconds in reality before they'll ever be penalised from that point. I saw Chris Busby penalise a team for it in the Quins-Toulouse game yesterday in one of the first examples of it I've ever seen.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,314 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Warn, warn warn warn warn and nothing changes


    Warn, warn, penalty, penalty and you get less cynical play.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    The thing they tempted him to do was pass the ball nowhere near any of his teammates. If you remove them from existence what would have happened? The ball would have sailed along 5m in front of any Munster player and into touch.



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    If you remove them from existence what would have happened?

    Attempted a different pass?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    That's his and Munster's problem. There was nothing stopping him attempting that different pass. I'd also question whether he attempted a "pass" at all, that comes with a connotation he was actually trying to reach a teammate, which he wasn't. We should all be pleased it backfired, it was a useless, cynical piece of play.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,134 ✭✭✭flatty


    As regards that last Exeter try, can slade run forward as soon as Murray has hands on the ball, or does he have to pick it up?



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,260 ✭✭✭Schorpio


    I'm certainly not trying to defend Murray - trying to milk a penalty (if that is what he was intending to do) was brainless at that stage.

    All I'm saying is that, without the retreating Exeter players Murray would have taken a different option. If you take the pass in good faith, and presume it wasn't trying to force a penalty - take the offside players out of it, and I think Murray is more aware of the threat of Slade because he has a better visual of him.

    The fact that Slade collects the pass from in between two of his offside teammates is proof enough for me that there was interference in play by the offside Exeter players.

    Obviously it wasn't called on the day, but hey-ho.



  • Registered Users Posts: 8,557 ✭✭✭Dubinusa


    I though Crowley played well. He had the backline clicking. Munster though, didn't. Gret 1st 40 and then Exeter made inroads.



  • Advertisement
  • Subscribers Posts: 41,589 ✭✭✭✭sydthebeat




  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 10,597 Mod ✭✭✭✭aloooof


    We should all be please it backfired

    Again, even granting this, you don't see how Munster fans on the Munster thread would not pleased it backfired?



  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 26,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Podge_irl


    I don't know if he was trying to milk a penalty, it's possible it was just a horrendous pass. I would add that one of the retreating players was impeded by the ref.

    While discussing being offside in open play the Laws say this:

    An offside player must not interfere with play. This includes :

    a. Playing the ball.

    b. Tackling the ball-carrier.

    c. Preventing the opposition from playing as they wish. 

    Considering that there were no Munster players in a vicinity it is hard to argue that they were preventing Munster from playing as they wished.


    Would I have been shocked if the ref had called it back? Not really. But I do think this was the right decision.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,105 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    The argument here seems to be Murray "wished" to make a pass into thin air therefore it should have been a penalty. It makes no sense.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I don't agree with this take - if you look at it, after Gleeson's carry, there are three Munster players to Murray's left, and one of them, Shane Daly, was absolutely reachable with the pass I think if Slade doesn't jump the line perfectly.

    I do think it's credible that Murray didn't have full sight of Slade because of the presence of the retreating Exeter players, and to me, that should have been a penalty to Munster. Those retreating players are clearly interfering with play IMO.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,258 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    I think Murray was trying to draw the penalty. I also think the pass was (just about) catchable by a Munster player. It was BOC who was the potential recipient. With Frisch and Crowley on the openside, it was surprising that he decided to go to the 19 year old who was on the field 30 seconds.

    I think letting it go was fair enough but I also think Beirne was absolutely right to challenge it. If it works, everyone is talking about Murray's experience and cleverness. It didn't and he's savaged. Fine margins.

    The thing is, if he actually hit BOC with a good pass, Munster were in with a good chance of a big break. A decent pass to BOC gives a 3 on 2. Slade will be out of the picture as he has shot up. The two remaining defenders are (unsurprisingly) very narrow. A simple skip pass and Munster are away. We can see the set up below. We can also see that BOC is lunging forward to try and catch the pass if it makes it the distance which highlights that it was a) an attempt to draw the penalty or b) a brutal pass.




  • Registered Users Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    I'll admit I have only reffed once or twice a very long time ago, and have never taken a refereeing course or read into the logic of "preventative communication".

    But what exactly is the "good reason" for refs not being more direct with punishment?

    If I do something and get punished, I stop doing it if I don't want to get punished again (possibly more severely). My team mates see that I have been punished, they should stop doing it.

    If I do something five times, each time only being asked to stop, I will probably continue to do it. My team mates will see that I was not punished and similarly give it a go themselves.

    What's the counter argument to this?



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    I agree with your take on this, but think the counter generally is that if rugby referees took the most literal interpretation of the law book, they could potentially find a reason to blow the whistle for a penalty at almost every single ruck.



  • Registered Users Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    I think this is fair, yeah. No coincidence that fortunes improved considerably last season when Fekitoa and Frisch got on the same page.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,985 ✭✭✭almostover


    He's not a blindside flanker, I agree with you. He's our ready made replacement for RG Synman. Thought we got that wrong against Exeter, Ahern should have been at 4 with Coombes at no.8 and JOD at 6. Everyone playing in their correct position then. We missed Coombes carrying in open field because he was in the engine room.



Advertisement