RAILWAY1 wrote:Back in the far distant past when I was coaching underage I was often asked by young players @ what is illegal@ and the answer was always the same whatever the referee says. In other words do what you need to do until you are told it is illegal and no one in charge has told Peter O'Mahoney that he is binding illegally YET
Indeed. We can all look back on games and count numerous areas where teams are being illegal. The offside line springs to mind. That's hardly ever policed correctly.
RAILWAY1 wrote:Back in the far distant past when I was coaching underage I was often asked by young players @ what is illegal@ and the answer was always the same whatever the referee says. In other words do what you need to do until you are told it is illegal and no one in charge has told Peter O'Mahoney that he is binding illegally YET
Indeed. We can all look back on games and count numerous areas where teams are being illegal. The offside line springs to mind. That's hardly ever policed correctly.
So stop complaining about being ripped off by refs then.
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
RAILWAY1 wrote:Back in the far distant past when I was coaching underage I was often asked by young players @ what is illegal@ and the answer was always the same whatever the referee says. In other words do what you need to do until you are told it is illegal and no one in charge has told Peter O'Mahoney that he is binding illegally YET
Indeed. We can all look back on games and count numerous areas where teams are being illegal. The offside line springs to mind. That's hardly ever policed correctly.
So stop complaining about being ripped off by refs then.
RAILWAY1 wrote:Back in the far distant past when I was coaching underage I was often asked by young players @ what is illegal@ and the answer was always the same whatever the referee says. In other words do what you need to do until you are told it is illegal and no one in charge has told Peter O'Mahoney that he is binding illegally YET
Anyone else a bit surprised more wasn't made of Conway's chargedown after Exeter's try? He catches Steenson in the head with his elbow. Given how World Rugby are clamping down on contact with the head I felt it was strange that Garces didn't even go to the TMO.
cormac wrote:Anyone else a bit surprised more wasn't made of Conway's chargedown after Exeter's try? He catches Steenson in the head with his elbow. Given how World Rugby are clamping down on contact with the head I felt it was strange that Garces didn't even go to the TMO.
Yeah i thought he was very lucky. Didn't even look at it.
Ruddock's tackle stats consistently too low for me to be taken seriously as a Six Nations blindside..... Ruddock's defensive stats don't stack up. - All Blacks Nil, Jan 15th, 2014
England A 8 - 14 Ireland A, 25th Jan 2014 Ruddock(c) 19/2 Tackles
cormac wrote:Anyone else a bit surprised more wasn't made of Conway's chargedown after Exeter's try? He catches Steenson in the head with his elbow. Given how World Rugby are clamping down on contact with the head I felt it was strange that Garces didn't even go to the TMO.
Yeah very much so. It reminded me a lot of Stander's red card in South Africa, which I always thought was a nonsense call. I realise I'm in a minority of one with that but I just thought he he jumped to block the kick and the momentum of both players meant there was a collision, and the size advantage that Stander had meant that Lambie came off much worse. So very much worth a look even regardless of what my own thoughts on the punishment would be, and I would say that there should be more of an onus on Conway to be in control given the particular circumstances yesterday.
I have to say I thought the fact that Exeter didn't raise POM's binding before or during the game was really really poor on their part. We obviously missed it in our analysis too but I'm really surprised that Exeter didn't become aware of it during the week. I know I'm in a bit of an Irish rugby echo chamber but surely someone in their ranks would have stumbled across it during the week?
I'm inclined to suspect that PO'M might have informed both Refs that he binds like that to protect his shoulder joint. The bind across a 2nd row opens out the shoulder joint and can risk a dislocation.
Ruckedtobits wrote:I'm inclined to suspect that PO'M might have informed both Refs that he binds like that to protect his shoulder joint. The bind across a 2nd row opens out the shoulder joint and can risk a dislocation.
Ruckedtobits wrote:I'm inclined to suspect that PO'M might have informed both Refs that he binds like that to protect his shoulder joint. The bind across a 2nd row opens out the shoulder joint and can risk a dislocation.
Listen Ref, Sir. One of our props had a dose of Delhi Belly this morning, think it was the sardines. Could we have uncontested scrums today if you don't mind. You know it makes sense.
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
Ruckedtobits wrote:I'm inclined to suspect that PO'M might have informed both Refs that he binds like that to protect his shoulder joint. The bind across a 2nd row opens out the shoulder joint and can risk a dislocation.
Not a chance
It's more likely that he told the ref it was only a bit of cute hoorism, like.
I watched the Leinster A v Munster A match- really refreshing to see a Munster team with players actually from Munster. Sad that so many will never get the chance to play for the senior team due to the influx of outsiders.
Another outsider, but it was really great to see Bleyendaal come on in the second half, hopefully he'll put his injury behind him now.
cormac wrote:Anyone else a bit surprised more wasn't made of Conway's chargedown after Exeter's try? He catches Steenson in the head with his elbow. Given how World Rugby are clamping down on contact with the head I felt it was strange that Garces didn't even go to the TMO.
Logorrhea wrote:Didnt think there was anything wrong with it. If the kicker takes 5 seconds to actually kick the ball then that kind of thing could happen.
Law 9.25
"A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball."
He clearly hits him after the ball has been kicked. It's a late hit. The mitigation that it was unintentional should be taken into account in the tariff [i.e. not a yellow card], but I think it should still have been a penalty.
Logorrhea wrote:Didnt think there was anything wrong with it. If the kicker takes 5 seconds to actually kick the ball then that kind of thing could happen.
Nothing wrong with him attempting to charge down the kick but it's up to Conway to not elbow Steenson in the head. It's pretty reckless IMO.
hugonaut wrote:"A player must not intentionally charge or obstruct an opponent who has just kicked the ball."
He was jumped into the air trying to block the kick. He couldnt change direction in the air so I dont see how you can call it intentional. I've no problem with it. Neither did the ref. Neither does the rulebook.
I dont care about it enough to argue about semantics. He was close to charging the kick down, thats a problem with the kicker, not with the charge down.
Munster played more like Exeter than Exeter, and vice versa. A dour 616 metres were chiselled out by the relentless ball-carriers, Munster the only side this weekend to fail to average two metres a carry, with 250 from 130.
I don't know what to make of that match. Conway was lucky in my view but the referee should of had a clear view of the incident though he may have been focussing on the posts. I think it's a great result for Munster to be fair, I didn't think they'd get a point at all. That said it was a brutal game to watch. So many mistakes and stupid bits of play I nearly switched off.
"POC will not be going to Toulon" - All Blacks nil » May 27th, 2015, 12:18 am
