DJP23 wrote:If that's your view, then it suggests you're just more irritated about the Niko incident as it happened against Ulster; the point I'm attempting to make is that there have been far far more serious incidents, which have received far less attention...
Can we get one thing clear, we are talking about the Niko incidents. As in plural as in 3 pieces of blatant gamesmanship.
Now those incidents were not serious, lives were not at risk, but they were deliberate and they were cheating and nothing can detract from that fact. You coming onto our discussion forum with some plausible smartarsery trying to excuse the inexcusable belittles your team and your coach who I hold in the highest regard. As my good friend Baggy Trousers would say, good manners forbid me from being more frank with a guest. Even if that guest is relieving himself all over the living room carpet.
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
The first - where the ball was in the air - I haven't seen back as of yet (I think it was in the 30 something'th minute though, so I'll have a look). My impression a the time - being sat directly in front - was that Niko was played in the air, and Gilroy hadn't turned to track the ball so could only have been attempting to get in the way, BUT, I had no idea how close the ball was (or not). Upon a second watching, I don't think Niko was particularly close, but Gilroy played him in the air - no doubt. Scotland have suffered immensely with this rule this season, and I would argue it's something that really needs to be looked at in the off-season.
DJP23 wrote:If that's your view, then it suggests you're just more irritated about the Niko incident as it happened against Ulster; the point I'm attempting to make is that there have been far far more serious incidents, which have received far less attention...
Can we get one thing clear, we are talking about the Niko incidents. As in plural as in 3 pieces of blatant gamesmanship.
Now those incidents were not serious, lives were not at risk, but they were deliberate and they were cheating and nothing can detract from that fact. You coming onto our discussion forum with some plausible smartarsery trying to excuse the inexcusable belittles your team and your coach who I hold in the highest regard. As my good friend Baggy Trousers would say, good manners forbid me from being more frank with a guest. Even if that guest is relieving himself all over the living room carpet.
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
The first - where the ball was in the air - I haven't seen back as of yet (I think it was in the 30 something'th minute though, so I'll have a look). My impression a the time - being sat directly in front - was that Niko was played in the air, and Gilroy hadn't turned to track the ball so could only have been attempting to get in the way, BUT, I had no idea how close the ball was (or not). Upon a second watching, I don't think Niko was particularly close, but Gilroy played him in the air - no doubt. Scotland have suffered immensely with this rule this season, and I would argue it's something that really needs to be looked at in the off-season.
Niko changes direction away from the ball, runs at Gilroy and hurdles into him
Clear penalty to Ulster and potential yellow card for taking a man without the ball
Gilroy as a winger is tracking his man, and suffers a common occurrence in war zone weegie land. GBH
DJP23 wrote:
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
You see your starting point is that Matawalu was barged which automatically puts him in the right and Gilroy in the wrong. I say no that's not how events played out in reality. First contact was Matawalu with his arm on Gilroy and Gilroy reciprocated followed by Matawalu againand Gilroy again. Then Matawalu seemed to decide that he wasn't going to beat Gilroy to the ball so he turned into him, threw his arms all over Gilroy's back and attempting to draw a penalty or better. That is what actually happened so your starting point is wrong. Go have another look if you don't believe me.
The officials looked at it and ruled that there was no barging. If your entire hypothesis is predicated upon Matawalu being barged, you are barking up the wrong tree.
DJP23 wrote:
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
You see your starting point is that Matawalu was barged which automatically puts him in the right and Gilroy in the wrong. I say no that's not how events played out in reality. First contact was Matawalu with his arm on Gilroy and Gilroy reciprocated followed by Matawalu againand Gilroy again. Then Matawalu seemed to decide that he wasn't going to beat Gilroy to the ball so he turned into him, threw his arms all over Gilroy's back and attempting to draw a penalty or better. That is what actually happened so your starting point is wrong. Go have another look if you don't believe me.
The officials looked at it and ruled that there was no barging. If your entire hypothesis is predicated upon Matawalu being barged, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Laptopbuttonpresser has additional angles available to him
DJP23 wrote:
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
You see your starting point is that Matawalu was barged which automatically puts him in the right and Gilroy in the wrong. I say no that's not how events played out in reality. First contact was Matawalu with his arm on Gilroy and Gilroy reciprocated followed by Matawalu againand Gilroy again. Then Matawalu seemed to decide that he wasn't going to beat Gilroy to the ball so he turned into him, threw his arms all over Gilroy's back and attempting to draw a penalty or better. That is what actually happened so your starting point is wrong. Go have another look if you don't believe me.
The officials looked at it and ruled that there was no barging. If your entire hypothesis is predicated upon Matawalu being barged, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Well this has all escalated rather quickly. Come on Snipe, by telling DH34D, or whatever his name is, that he's barking up the wrong tree, that would suggest there is a right tree for him to bark up, I'd prefer we just left it at he was barking.
I'll reserve judgement until the portfolio of footage, from 300 different angles, including toonie's selfie cam, is brought to us by our Glaswegian friend.
DJP23 wrote:
Absolutely not my intention to irritate; just to engage in open and frank discussion of what was undoubtedly a fiercely contested game.
I just don't see the second one as gamesmanship at all; you see fairly similar incidents in every game. Niko was barged, and he kept chasing the whole way through in an attempt to get near the ball... Not sure what the issue is with that...
You see your starting point is that Matawalu was barged which automatically puts him in the right and Gilroy in the wrong. I say no that's not how events played out in reality. First contact was Matawalu with his arm on Gilroy and Gilroy reciprocated followed by Matawalu againand Gilroy again. Then Matawalu seemed to decide that he wasn't going to beat Gilroy to the ball so he turned into him, threw his arms all over Gilroy's back and attempting to draw a penalty or better. That is what actually happened so your starting point is wrong. Go have another look if you don't believe me.
The officials looked at it and ruled that there was no barging. If your entire hypothesis is predicated upon Matawalu being barged, you are barking up the wrong tree.
Well this has all escalated rather quickly. Come on Snipe, by telling DH34D, or whatever his name is, that he's barking up the wrong tree, that would suggest there is a right tree for him to bark up, I'd prefer we just left it at he was barking.
I'll reserve judgement until the portfolio of footage, from 300 different angles, including toonie's selfie cam, is brought to us by our Glaswegian friend.
I don't think the second incident was a penalty either way; it was a NOTHING incident which i wouldn't even have reviewed; i think that it's a routine 50-50 ball with both players chasing... But I forgive the official's for making sure in such a high-stakes game. I think we're actually agreed on that; but your desire to vilify Niko is blind you to what I'm actually saying. Let me reiterate once more: no foul either way.
Russ, your trolling is very very poor. As previously stated, the angles used in the citing hearing were displayed during a medical presentation by the Royal College of Sport and Exercise Medicine in Edinburgh to around 100 people... Not sure why you can't get your head round the fact that some people might have seen these?
I don't think the second incident was a penalty either way; it was a NOTHING incident which i wouldn't even have reviewed; i think that it's a routine 50-50 ball with both players chasing... But I forgive the official's for making sure in such a high-stakes game. I think we're actually agreed on that; but your desire to vilify Niko is blind you to what I'm actually saying. Let me reiterate once more: no foul either way.
Russ, your trolling is very very poor. As previously stated, the angles used in the citing hearing were displayed during a medical presentation by the Royal College of Sport and Exercise Medicine in Edinburgh to around 100 people... Not sure why you can't get your head round the fact that some people might have seen these?
Can you come back on my point that Matatootoo performed GBH on Gilroy? In the exact same way BIggar did on Hogg
I don't think the second incident was a penalty either way; it was a NOTHING incident which i wouldn't even have reviewed; i think that it's a routine 50-50 ball with both players chasing... But I forgive the official's for making sure in such a high-stakes game. I think we're actually agreed on that; but your desire to vilify Niko is blind you to what I'm actually saying. Let me reiterate once more: no foul either way.
Russ, your trolling is very very poor. As previously stated, the angles used in the citing hearing were displayed during a medical presentation by the Royal College of Sport and Exercise Medicine in Edinburgh to around 100 people... Not sure why you can't get your head round the fact that some people might have seen these?
Don't pass any remarks on Russ he's tame really.
You are spot on, it was no penalty, just two guys chasing a kick. However one of the two guys threw himself at the other guy in an attempt to con the referee into giving a penalty or better for his side.
I had looked at the first instant a few times and thought Ulster were unlucky with the penalty against them. In the second I thought it was a 50/50 call, from the head on view the defender did move slighlty into the path of Niko and to perhaps block his path, but not enough IMO to warrant a penalty. However, now Niko is being blamed again and threw himself over the other guy to con the ref!!! Come on guys, just look at it!. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPmYzkTeoNE
1hr 11 in
As for the last instant, even players, refs and the great Nige would appear to side with Niko.
Listen to this excellent piece in 5live tonight with Toonie, Matt Dawson, Brian Moore and Tom English.
Some sense talked about the "Niko incident." Dawson in particular defends him.
That has put the nail firmly in the coffin of that argument then.
When you drag Matt Dawson who is by definition the most ungracious, egotistical little shytebag to ever wear a rugby shirt as a case for the defence it is the equivalent of getting Jimmy Saville to represent a sex offender.
Ironic that the girl hosting the show should be the one suggesting for Matalawu to man up.
Brian Moore says what we all know that Lutton was an idiot and it wasn't the play acting that cost the game.
Gregor sounds exactly like Matt Dawson when he was initially asked the question by Sonia.
Once he became Scottish again he plays the role of a seasoned politician by answering a question that wasn't asked to him.
The time in is around 1h 16 minutes and not 1h 6 as whoof said.
That meant an extra 10 unnecessary minutes listening to Dawson.
Cheers for that!
