Munster in the Aviva 2018 Edition

[curates_egg]

I was very surprised at the difficulties we had with the Munster scrum, particularly in quarters 3 & 4 on Saturday.
Nothwitstanding both Munster looseheads scrummaging with their backsides facing the touchline, I could not understand how we could not deal with it.

On second inspection it appeared That Peter O'Mahony was binding with his arm through and under his looseheads leg, which had the effect of making Munster have a 4 man front row.

I had a quick look at the laws, and the relevant law : 20.3 (f)
" Binding by all other players. All players in a scrum, other than front-row players, must bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm prior to the scrum engagement. The locks must bind with the props in front of them. No other player other than a prop may hold an opponent. Sanction: Penalty kick"

And as always, Munster fans believe they were the team that were victims of poor refereeing decisions.

Welcome to the thread Bails. This has been discussed pretty exhaustively on earlier pages.

[curates_egg]

One thing that hasn't been really discussed is our maul, which struggled both offensively and defensively. Credit where credit's due, I thought Munster were very strong in the maul, a few cheap tricks aside.

[bails]

Sorry Curates
Was just intrigued by the amount of whining about the referee, coming from Munster Fans, so I looked up the law.

As I said previously, its the result that matters, you can only be robbed so many times !

[BlueBlue]

Regarding the scrum. POM's bind was on Archer the prop, not on the 2nd row. POM using his Left arm bound around the leg of the Prop (Archer), so Leinster's prop was effectively scrummaging against 2 men. Highly illegal and was not picked up by the referee's , you can be sure POM will not be allowed do that in a 2nd game.

[BlueBlue]

Don't need to reread it, I just didn't think it made sense that you'd give out about the feed being crooked if the solution was to be strict on the law as opposed to going back to the old one. The law is there to give the advantage to the team feeding it, that's pretty much the point. It also has to be hooked which helps to ensure it's not thrown straight into the second row as it is. I can't see I've seen many blatantly illegal feeds, it's certainly not any kind of major issue in the game.

If it is indeed rife then there must be loads of hookers who are at full stretch and almost falling over when they try to hook it back, can't say I've seen that.

The point of the rule change was to give some advantage to the attacking team- not remove the competition. So it is not "pretty much the point" at all. A non-competitive way of restarting the game is what the Rugby League scrum is. The Union law wasn't changed to do mimic that.

So feeding the ball in crooked directly to the feet of the hookers is the norm - but still illegal. Feeding it in beyond even that (behind his feet), is a very regular practice. As to whether hookers would be falling over, etc- don't see how that's likely- they just hook to help the ball through on its original route. Sometimes they get blown if they don't at least pretend to hook- as often they are let away with it.

But all that's a distraction to the point- that in contradiction of your claim on my original post. So now that we are agreed that you are not allowed to feed the ball in crooked, we can argue if you choose on how much there is of that in the game. I see plenty; you don't. That's fine...

Actually there is a tolerance built into the laws. A scrum half has 2 choices, 1. As you correctly say is to align a shoulder with the centre of the scrum, giving a shoulder width advantage as you have said, but the scrum half can also take option 2, feed the ball on a diagonal line that does not exceed the width of the ball, that's a crooked feed that's allowed, its a tolerance on the straight feed. What a scrum half cannot do is combine these 2 or feed it so crooked that its at a locks feet.

Also, a small but important detail, any front row can hook the ball. And a ball has to be hooked, if it is not hooked its illegal.

What most spectators see as a crooked feed, is actually a feed within the width of a ball tolerance, that's legal.

[Jcahill1]

One thing that hasn't been really discussed is our maul, which struggled both offensively and defensively. Credit where credit's due, I thought Munster were very strong in the maul, a few cheap tricks aside.

Yeah I was really concerned, Munster were driving us back 10-15 metres at some mauls, with what wasn't far off a full choice pack. We were essentially only missing furlong in the second half.

[hugonaut]

One thing that hasn't been really discussed is our maul, which struggled both offensively and defensively. Credit where credit's due, I thought Munster were very strong in the maul, a few cheap tricks aside.

Munster have had a strong maul practically forever. They're consistently one of the best mauling teams in Europe.

They have a lot of the same personnel in the tight five week-in, week-out, which I think is a real benefit. We're constantly chopping and changing to accommodate international oversight and to keep lads involved.

For example, we've started four looseheads in six games [Dooley against Cardiff; Ed Byrne against the Dragons; Healy against the Scarlets, Edinburgh and Connacht; and Jack McGrath against Munster] whereas Munster have started 2 [Kilcoyne vs Cheetahs, Glasgow, Ulster and us, Cronin against Cardiff and Ospreys].

We've started three tightheads [Bent three times, Furlong twice, Porter once] and they've started two [Archer four times, Ryan twice]. We've started five second rows and used the same pairing only twice [Ryan and Toner against Edinburgh and Munster], they've started four and used two pairings twice [Holland and Kleyn vs Cheetahs and Glasgow; Kleyn and Beirne vs Cardiff and us].

They have more consistency in selection in that regard. I also think there's a greater worth put on mauling with regards to their selection of props, while we would put more emphasis on passing and tackling.

[blockhead]

Woody and Eddie on OTB, neither knew if POMs binding was illegal or not.
On the Earles intercept, Eddie was sure Arnold did not knock the ball forward, Woody assumed he did.

[bluemagic]

Woody and Eddie on OTB, neither knew if POMs binding was illegal or not.
On the Earles intercept, Eddie was sure Arnold did not knock the ball forward, Woody assumed he did.

Insightful as always from those two on a Monday evening.

Genuinely convinced that only seeing the score and not the game itself would produce no less analysis than what they provide currently. Cliche ridden drivel

[Avenger]

Woody and Eddie on OTB, neither knew if POMs binding was illegal or not.
On the Earles intercept, Eddie was sure Arnold did not knock the ball forward, Woody assumed he did.

EOS was aghast at the mention of offside. Woodie said that as Arnold played the ball Earls was offside. Eddie tried to jump in a disagree but it sounded like his miq was off.

I can see why no clubs go near O’Sullivan. He hasn’t a breeze. He sounded like he was fuming too. Nice and unbiased

[hugonaut]

Woody and Eddie on OTB, neither knew if POMs binding was illegal or not.
On the Earles intercept, Eddie was sure Arnold did not knock the ball forward, Woody assumed he did.

I hear a three minute snippet of this with Eddie insisting that there's no offside in open play. Law 10 is titled "Offside and Onside in Open Play" .
[source: https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10 ]

This sh*t is not a secret. It hasn't materially changed in about a decade. In fairness to Keith Wood, he knew the law. But O'Sullivan not knowing it was mind-boggling. Think it through Eddie: if there's no offside in open play, I could run down the pitch and you could kick it to me once I'm over the tryline. "It's open play!" How you can talk about rugby for a living without knowing such a fundamental law is cringe-inducing.

Similarly, the law on penalty tries is not rocket science: "foul play by the opposing team prevents a probably try being scored."

It has been that way for as long as I've been alive. The ref decides [not the crowd, not the coach, not some ex-pro a couple of days after the event] if a player probably would have scored. The ref doesn't have to be certain, and it's not "if there was a slim chance a try might have been scored" – it's the referee's idea of what probable is. It's a hell of a lot easier now that there are video replays and three people to discuss it with.

If you had to make a decision on Earls' early tackle in real time, you could argue that it's a difficult decision. When there's a recording of it with four camera angles, it's a piece of piss. He hits Lowe early 5m from the line with an open goal. It's a penalty try in every match in the league. In any league.

[blockhead]

The players in the scrum bind in the following way:

The props bind to the hooker.
The hooker binds with both arms. This can be either over or under the arms of the props.
The locks bind with the props immediately in front of them and with each other.
All other players in the scrum bind on a lock’s body with at least one arm.
Sanction: Penalty.

It goes on to say that the bindings must be maintained for the duration of the scrum.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I always defend EOS (along with the caveat that I can see how he's clearly a control freak) but jesus that's fairly shocking stuff.

As I said in the Whiff of Cordite thread, I can understand how people might have got caught up in the atmosphere or whatever but even if you did miss stuff on Saturday there's no way any journalist or pundit should be unaware of the rules at this stage.

[blockhead]

Woody and Eddie on OTB, neither knew if POMs binding was illegal or not.
On the Earles intercept, Eddie was sure Arnold did not knock the ball forward, Woody assumed he did.

I hear a three minute snippet of this with Eddie insisting that there's no offside in open play. Law 10 is titled "Offside and Onside in Open Play" .
[source: https://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=10 ]

This sh*t is not a secret. It hasn't materially changed in about a decade. In fairness to Keith Wood, he knew the law. But O'Sullivan not knowing it was mind-boggling. Think it through Eddie: if there's no offside in open play, I could run down the pitch and you could kick it to me once I'm over the tryline. "It's open play!" How you can talk about rugby for a living without knowing such a fundamental law is cringe-inducing.

Similarly, the law on penalty tries is not rocket science: "foul play by the opposing team prevents a probably try being scored."

It has been that way for as long as I've been alive. The ref decides [not the crowd, not the coach, not some ex-pro a couple of days after the event] if a player probably would have scored. The ref doesn't have to be certain, and it's not "if there was a slim chance a try might have been scored" – it's the referee's idea of what probable is. It's a hell of a lot easier now that there are video replays and three people to discuss it with.

If you had to make a decision on Earls' early tackle in real time, you could argue that it's a difficult decision. When there's a recording of it with four camera angles, it's a piece of piss. He hits Lowe early 5m from the line with an open goal. It's a penalty try in every match in the league. In any league.

In fairness to Woody, he agreed with the ref on the Yellow/Pen try incident.

[cormac]

On second captains, when one of the hosts mentioned that Earls was offside, Thornley says maybe. MAYBE???????????????? I'd swear from listening to him it was the first time the very thought had ever occurred to him.

At the game I'd assumed the penalty was given against Earls and anyone saying there's a 14-point swing there is simply off their head. If it had gone to the TMO it still would have been a penalty to Leinster.

[riocard911]

You have to give it to the Munster lads though, they know how to keep their fans' prejudices stoked. This was Earls in the the42 earlier today:

“I do come into contact with him, but he’s a big enough lad, I didn’t think he would go down that easy. But look, if you go by the letter of the law, yeah, it probably is a yellow card but a penalty try? I don’t think so. Whether I was going to hold him up or the ball was going away from him, he was reaching but that’s the decision the referee made.”

Dog ate my breakfast?....

[olaf the fat]

Yes Keith, But he wouldn't have had to reach if your weren't already tackling him!

[FLIP]

Munster post match whining is always a turnip for the books

[Flash Gordon]

Yes Keith, But he wouldn't have had to reach if your weren't already tackling him!

Exactly!!! I think if I were Munster I'd be more concerned about the fact that they had 70% territory, scrum dominance (albeit illegally) and their maul was excellent yet they still couldn't break down Leinster. The try off the scrum was a Leinster mistake. Their running lines and angles of attack were entirely predictable and easy to defend. The model of promotion from within hasn't served Munster well recently and Felix Jones had a bit to prove in my view.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

You have to give it to the Munster lads though, they know how to keep their fans' prejudices stoked. This was Earls in the the42 earlier today:

“I do come into contact with him, but he’s a big enough lad, I didn’t think he would go down that easy. But look, if you go by the letter of the law, yeah, it probably is a yellow card but a penalty try? I don’t think so. Whether I was going to hold him up or the ball was going away from him, he was reaching but that’s the decision the referee made.”

Dog ate my breakfast?....

Right so he thinks he's hard done by...so will he do it again on Saturday because he thinks that decision was wrong? Will Van Graan encourage him to do it because he also thought it was a bad decision?

Look I'm not saying that you always have to be happy with the ref's decisions, but the reaction to those calls has been myopic in the extreme. Earls made contact with Lowe therefore there will be consequences...simple as that. It's pathetic stuff.

I was thinking about this last night. If you have a culture where excuses are allowed and people don't own up to what they've done then do you know where it leads to? Stephen Archer thinking he can take Ferg out for no good reason and costing Munster a chance of winning it, that's where. If they focused on what they were responsible for then they might actually have a better chance of winning from here on.

I'm reminded of when Leavy gave away the penalty against Clermont last year. IIRC the reaction was that we were caught fair and square and just had to be smarter in future, we didn't blame anyone but ourselves.