Ulster v Zebre Friday November 25th 7.35pm UK Time BBC NI

[jean valjean]

On the doak tackle I thought the player was attempting barrel roll over but because doak was holding his legs still he only got half way there. Yellow the correct call as he had a hand down and no force used.
Have we ever came away from a zebre game completely satisfied? They are always on a hiding to nothing but it worked as a decent run out. Reid, Stewart x2 and rea junior all looked good, the rest were average at best. If stockdale wants to work his way back into the ireland set up he needs to be standing out in these games, I thought he was poor and very sluggish but hoping there was a reason for it. Thought Jeff did well off the bench and I almost came round to him being of use this season until the end. Has the guy finished a game yet?
Massive step up for the next 5 games, play like that again and we lose them all.

[flatpass]

A frustrating watch. Result never in doubt but they made heavy weather of it. Crowd not engaged at all. Perhaps after the second try they lost a bit of concentration, which will be disastrous against better opposition. Tom Stewart was excellent, puts himself about to good effect, makes a tackle, gets up immediately and makes another one, chases down the loose ball and opposition in possession. His namesake was also good, not perfect but quick and elusive elusive with an eye for the gap. Stockdale probably not best pleased when he didn’t give him a walk-in score just before half-time but dummied and scored himself - nice footwork and movement. Good to see Henderson back.

[Dave]

He is making mistakes but I don't believe he is poor at all. I believe he is both overly hyped and overly criticised. He was criticised for missing difficult kicks against Munster where you could literally see the wind push the kick wide. He also messed up a try. He will make mistakes, so much of our game goes through the 9 including the goal kicking. It's difficult to find balance but I believe that he has a consistent delivery, something previous back up 9s have struggled with. He is getting more involved in support play, great offload off the deck for Matty Rea's try. The problem now is if Cooney doesn't re-sign Doak is forced into a starting position perhaps too soon.

[rumncoke]

Doak had a very reasonable game his touch kicking out of defence was sound taking the pressure off the forwards the weakness in the Ulster game last night was the fact that Zebra --what many might consider a weak pack were able to get over the gain line .

This may of course have been the product of a Referee guarding the weaker team by penalising the stronger

Capt Luke Marshall was on the end of a couple of early calls when the decision could easily have been the other way for not releasing.

Such calls frequently result in teams failing to contest the ruck when the opportunity exists and to prove a point I don't think Zebra were penalised once for none release after the tackle

As a form of refereeing ( inhibition ) of a contested breakdown does keep the ball in play but means that change of possession requires the team in possession to either knock on or kick .

[BR]

I'd have judged the lift as horizontal; rather than beyond horizontal.

Seeing it live my reaction was that Doak was in trouble, but I wasn't convince he raised the opponent beyond the horizontal. On watching replays though it looked apparent to me that he had done so - the guy's feet were higher than his head. Again, not particularly high, but by the letter of the law, he was lifted beyond horizontal.
A definite yellow card, no more, as he wasn't dropped or driven in a dangerous manner.

Is Doak overrated?? Early days obviously but not sure all the talk is warranted.

Not one of his better performances last night, far from it, but I don't think he's over - rated.

Every player has an off night every so often - the fact that he had a relatively poor one last night just indicates how high the bar is for him. But he's the one who has set that height, so again, no he's not over- rated.

If we define beyond horizontal as feet above head, then yes - he was beyond horizontal. However did Doak lift him to that point? I don't think he did. Plenty of players end up tackled with their heads below their feet, doesn't make it a dangerous tackle (under the rules)

[big mervyn]

I think there should be a differentiation between a tackler actively lifting the player above the horizontal and the tackled player ending up in that position because of the impact and his own momentum.

[BR]

I think there should be a differentiation between a tackler actively lifting the player above the horizontal and the tackled player ending up in that position because of the impact and his own momentum.

There sort of is.

Player lifts and drops or drives the player down - that's dangerous play. Player lifts a player and sets him down, but his head reaches the ground first - that's not.

On rewatching, Doak does not drop and (IMHO) does not drive the player.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

I think there should be a differentiation between a tackler actively lifting the player above the horizontal and the tackled player ending up in that position because of the impact and his own momentum.

There sort of is.

Player lifts and drops or drives the player down - that's dangerous play. Player lifts a player and sets him down, but his head reaches the ground first - that's not.

On rewatching, Doak does not drop and (IMHO) does not drive the player.

Agreed - mostly, (and have already stated) that Doak neither drops nor drives his opponent, but on rewatching several times on the big screen on the night, I find it hard to say that he didn't lift him beyond the horizontal. He tackled him low and lifted - simples - that resulted in him lifting his legs above his head and shoulders, ie, beyond the horizontal. It was Doak straightening his legs and body that resulted in that, nothing to do with the impact or the BC's momentum. Doak made the tackle - the responsibility for making it a safe one rested with him.

I have already agreed also that he didn't lift him particularly high, didn't drop nor drive, but he brought him back to earth head first, albeit importantly, the player's hand/arm preceded his head.

It wasn't a particularly dangerous tackle for all the reasons stated, but under the laws as they are written and more importantly these days, how they are interpreted, it was (for me) a very obvious yellow card.

I find it hard to accept that a rugby player in a situation like this can actually "set the player down". You set a baby down, you set a small child down, usually when you are well balanced, but it is a different matter to set a 15 stone (plus) opponent who was charging at you a split second previously. In 99.9% of cases (possibly 100%), you have neither the physical strength in that moment nor the balance due to the momentum of both players to "set" them down, but you can slow their descent and minimise the force with which they hit the floor. Doak did that and most importantly, as already stated several times, Doak neither dropped nor drove the BC but brought him to ground as safely as possible in the circumstances. To say he "set him down" though, is a stretch too far.

Semantics? Possibly, but for me, setting a player on the ground and bringing them to ground are not the same - each has different forces involved, particularly the force of the tackled player getting acquainted with the turf. Not the same forces as when dropped or driven, but different all the same.

I still haven't re-watched the match since coming home, so am still unaware of what was discussed by the officials, but they took an awfully long time to get to an obvious (imo) decision.

[paddybrown]

On Doak's yellow card, I agree with the referee's decision. Tip tackles are inherently dangerous, and while I think Doak did it carelessly rather than intentionally, that applies to a lot of high tackles that are penalised harshly to encourage players to be more careful about tackling in a potentially dangerous manner.

On the "Doak is overrated" question, I think people are judging his performance based only on missing some (difficult) conversions. If Flannery had the kicking duties, would you still think Doak had a bad game? Judge him by how well he plays scrum half. Having said that, I think the fact that we're talking about this shows that John Cooney is being taken for granted. For the last five years we've had one of the world's best scrum halves pulling the strings - a scrum half who completely filled the shoes of a player as exceptional as Ruan Pienaar, and who carried us as we rebuilt after the basket case season. We now have a stronger all-round team that isn't going to fall apart if it loses a couple of key players, like we did two seasons ago when we lost Cooney and Coetzee. If Cooney isn't available, we now have Doak, who has played exceptionally well, including at Heineken Cup level, and we shouldn't underrate that. But if you think he's as good as Cooney yet, then yes, you're overrating him.

Continue to be impressed by Stewart Moore's versatility, covering scrum-half during Doak's yellow card. Callum Reid looked good at loosehead. Flannery may have missed touch a couple of times, but he ran the backline well and made some strong tackles, so a promising showing from him.

[BR]

I think there should be a differentiation between a tackler actively lifting the player above the horizontal and the tackled player ending up in that position because of the impact and his own momentum.

There sort of is.

Player lifts and drops or drives the player down - that's dangerous play. Player lifts a player and sets him down, but his head reaches the ground first - that's not.

On rewatching, Doak does not drop and (IMHO) does not drive the player.

Agreed - mostly, (and have already stated) that Doak neither drops nor drives his opponent, but on rewatching several times on the big screen on the night, I find it hard to say that he didn't lift him beyond the horizontal. He tackled him low and lifted - simples - that resulted in him lifting his legs above his head and shoulders, ie, beyond the horizontal. It was Doak straightening his legs and body that resulted in that, nothing to do with the impact or the BC's momentum. Doak made the tackle - the responsibility for making it a safe one rested with him.

I have already agreed also that he didn't lift him particularly high, didn't drop nor drive, but he brought him back to earth head first, albeit importantly, the player's hand/arm preceded his head.

It wasn't a particularly dangerous tackle for all the reasons stated, but under the laws as they are written and more importantly these days, how they are interpreted, it was (for me) a very obvious yellow card.

I find it hard to accept that a rugby player in a situation like this can actually "set the player down". You set a baby down, you set a small child down, usually when you are well balanced, but it is a different matter to set a 15 stone (plus) opponent who was charging at you a split second previously. In 99.9% of cases (possibly 100%), you have neither the physical strength in that moment nor the balance due to the momentum of both players to "set" them down, but you can slow their descent and minimise the force with which they hit the floor. Doak did that and most importantly, as already stated several times, Doak neither dropped nor drove the BC but brought him to ground as safely as possible in the circumstances. To say he "set him down" though, is a stretch too far.

Semantics? Possibly, but for me, setting a player on the ground and bringing them to ground are not the same - each has different forces involved, particularly the force of the tackled player getting acquainted with the turf. Not the same forces as when dropped or driven, but different all the same.

I still haven't re-watched the match since coming home, so am still unaware of what was discussed by the officials, but they took an awfully long time to get to an obvious (imo) decision.

You should also include that the ball carrier is strugling not to be put down, much like a cat.

But from what you have said, what Doak did was not dangerous play and did not need to be sanctioned. We wuz robbed!

[allezlesverres]

Awful game of rugby. Little wonder the crowd were flat. Ulster's ill discipline is a concern as was the optional tackling. I lost count of the amount of tackles we missed which is pretty unforgiveable against such poor opposition. On the plus side Ulster didn't beat Zebre by 30 points so I won my bet.

[Dave]

I have to say it was one of the worst atmospheres I've ever experienced. Not the familiar faces I usually see around me. Lads there to just talk and drink pints. Zero singing/chanting. The ref barely got a comment all night.

Sad times.

[Kanbei]

Everyone has to remember Doak is only 20. Alot of learning and experience to come.

Would love for Cooney to stay another year at least. Would feel far more comfortable at SH if he and Doak are about for a couple of years more. Though no idea what his plans are.

[jean valjean]

The atmosphere at ulster games is always driven by the importance of the game and how good the opposition are. Fridays game was a forgone conclusion and the atmosphere followed. Expect 2-3k less at the la rochelle game but a much better and louder experience.

[Dave]

Agree Jean, the regulars always come out for Heiny cups.

Stats from the game:

SUFTUMs: 2
Ulsterrr Ulsterrrrs: 0
UTIDs: 1
Everywhere we gos: 0.5
Are you Clancy in disguises: 1
Excuse me can I get past yous (to and from bar/traps): 73