Page 16 of 19

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 10:29 pm
by Amiga500
BaggyTrousers wrote: If you look again, maybe a few times, you will be convinced that I am right when you accept that a player jumping to contest a kicked ball does so with arms positioned to charge the ball, whereas the Westies yute was positioned for impact, arms in, shoulder dipped towards Charles. If you wish to save yourself from impact you do not jump into a player. It's that simple.

Surely jumping into a player with no arms wrapped, shoulder dipped and high is a penalty in anyone's book? I would not have carded him, I think it was borderline for a card but a cert penalty and he could have had no complaint had he got a yella.
Your eyesight going in your auld age?

The westie jumped, hands out above his head for the block. Then immediately moved to protect himself from the (inevitable) hit as CP wasn't swerving his run. Instinctively this made him turn side on.

If he'd wanted to "Do" Piutau then he'd have straightened the elbow, led with it and knocked CP into December.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:49 pm
by Dave
Can't we all get along. It really doesn't matter.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:38 am
by Bart S
ROG or Humph.....(before the latter deserted us).

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:14 am
by bazzaj
Hump would be preferable as an individual player but I would go with Rog because of his partnership and understanding with Stringer.
Without him he wouldn't have been half the player.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:16 am
by BaggyTrousers
Cap'n Grumpy wrote:
BaggyTrousers wrote:
Tighty wrote:
Amiga500 wrote:
Cap'n Grumpy wrote:Maybe I'm in a minority of three (at least two people with me came to same conclusion) that all the Connacht player did was hold his ground. He's not obliged to get out of Charlie's way, and he didn't change direction. If there was any contact, it was Charlie jumping into him, and he did brace himself for impact, and it did come on his shoulder, but for once I agree with Fitzgibben.

There was no foul play. For all that Charless stayed down and GG was holding his head steady, when he got up, there was no suggestion of a HIA.That to me is proof positive that any contact with the head was minimal. If Ulster wanted to convince the officials that Charless had taken a blow to the head, they should have been prepared to sacrifice him for the duration of an HIA. The fact they didn't suggests to me that they didn't think anything would have come of it.
Me too.

The booing is really starting to fĂșck me off. There was nothing in it, yer man had committed to the jump/block and could hardly be expected not to defend himself.

If it was a card against us, I'd have been raging.



Re. the vitrol from the stands. Nothing compared to Garces vs. Sarac**ts.
I never thought I would say this , but I agree with the Cap'n on this one :lol:

Also as Amiga said, If the situation was reversed and a card had been given to an Ulster player, there rightly would have been a furore on this MB.
Only from the dickheads Tighty.

If you look again, maybe a few times, you will be convinced that I am right when you accept that a player jumping to contest a kicked ball does so with arms positioned to charge the ball, whereas the Westies yute was positioned for impact, arms in, shoulder dipped towards Charles. If you wish to save yourself from impact you do not jump into a player. It's that simple.

Surely jumping into a player with no arms wrapped, shoulder dipped and high is a penalty in anyone's book? I would not have carded him, I think it was borderline for a card but a cert penalty and he could have had no complaint had he got a yella.

Your Honour, the prosecution rests. :D
The prosecution can rest indefinitely

The judiciary (in the form of the match day officials) have already seen the evidence, reviewed it and found the defendent not guilty!
Oh dear Grumps, oh dearie dearie dear. You saw that one go woooooosh right over your head. You appear to believe that a suitable jjjjjjjjjjury can be comprised of a well-known Ulster hater with a large dollop of previous, to-wit Fitzbastard, the yellow-clad omadon Braceyerself, and poor ould Francisco Murphy, not long deceased as a card-carrying Connacht player who was the only one faultless on the night.

No no no sonny, this case is in the hands of the great jjjjjjjjjjjjjjury of public opinion, not the dross of Specsavers, a selection of twisted Ulster hating whistle perverts from the 3 unjustifiably proud provinces of the Irish Republic. What you refer to is a kangaroo court, presided over by a man whose proudest boast is that he has never ever in his long-legged life given Ulster an even break.

Clancy stopped cheating against Ulster because he knew in his own black heart that he could never plumb the depths of bigotry, hatred and loathing that Fitzwankbucket holds for the good men and true of Alster Ragby. This hateful squat & shortarsed little turd has made his life's work one of thwarting Alster's attempts to rise from the ashes of the Fat Controller's wasted years to world domination, just around the corner, for the unprecedentedly Fit Controller's reign. God save the Queen.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:26 am
by BaggyTrousers
Amiga500 wrote:
BaggyTrousers wrote: If you look again, maybe a few times, you will be convinced that I am right when you accept that a player jumping to contest a kicked ball does so with arms positioned to charge the ball, whereas the Westies yute was positioned for impact, arms in, shoulder dipped towards Charles. If you wish to save yourself from impact you do not jump into a player. It's that simple.

Surely jumping into a player with no arms wrapped, shoulder dipped and high is a penalty in anyone's book? I would not have carded him, I think it was borderline for a card but a cert penalty and he could have had no complaint had he got a yella.
Your eyesight going in your auld age?

The westie jumped, hands out above his head for the block. Then immediately moved to protect himself from the (inevitable) hit as CP wasn't swerving his run. Instinctively this made him turn side on.

If he'd wanted to "Do" Piutau then he'd have straightened the elbow, led with it and knocked CP into December.
Puerile hogshit, point out where I suggested that he attempted to "do" Charless.

I made no such suggestion, I actually suggested penalty only was appropriate which would not hold had he deliberately tried to injure the player. It is clear his attempted challenge was illegal, not malicious, but the crowd response was outrageous.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:27 am
by BaggyTrousers
Dave wrote:Can't we all get along. It really doesn't matter.
No, clearly not when idiocy abounds.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 7:29 am
by BaggyTrousers
Bart S wrote:ROG or Humph.....(before the latter deserted us).
ROG all day every day, one of the best players of the pro era, Humph not so much, occasionally masterful, generally good, not great.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:43 am
by Neil F
BaggyTrousers wrote:Puerile hogshit, point out where I suggested that he attempted to "do" Charless.

I made no such suggestion, I actually suggested penalty only was appropriate which would not hold had he deliberately tried to injure the player. It is clear his attempted challenge was illegal, not malicious, but the crowd response was outrageous.
Absolutely this.

Actually, the event this one reminded me most of was CJ Stander getting a red card against South Africa last summer. The whole process is almost identical. What did the damage in both cases was pivoting at the hip. Just as Stander getting a red for that incident was absurd, so was play carrying on after this one. Negligence and dangerous play should always be penalised. At best, this incident was negligent and dangerous. Ergo, a penalty.

The behaviour of the crowd afterwards was fecking embarrassing!

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:26 am
by 222toHounslow
Boogate seems to be deflecting from a pish poor Ulster performance.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:52 am
by BaggyTrousers
222toHounslow wrote:Boogate seems to be deflecting from a pish poor Ulster performance.

Maybe for some, I recall the performance with something equating to horror, the first half was atrocious the second not a vast amount better. They did eventually decide defending matters and it was good for the period of 14 men.

Apart from a majestic piece of interplay from Chaz and Stockcube, we never created a fecking thing close to a try, no overlaps created, with Stockcube the only man to look like breaking the line.

Honourable mention goes to JC the Resurrection for another display of calm efficiency. He is also amongst our best defenders of an admittedly poor lot to date.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:04 pm
by rumncoke
A question for all the geniuses on this board Identify the difference between jumping into a player and a no arms tackle regardless of the players intention, since the outcome is the same ?

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:21 pm
by Cornerfleg
Image

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:51 pm
by Tender
I'll take this...
Jumping into a player, requires removal of his shorts and undergarments, then applying lube, before doing the nasty.
A no arm tackle is whatever the ref thinks it is at any given moment.

Move on FFS.

Re: Ulster V Connacht

Posted: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:00 pm
by BaggyTrousers
rumncoke wrote:A question for all the geniuses on this board Identify the difference between jumping into a player and a no arms tackle regardless of the players intention, since the outcome is the same ?
FFFS Ron'n, I am very tempted to trawl your extensive back catalogue of stupid questions and outrageously dumb conclusions to see if you have ever uttered worse.

Let me give you a free attempt to rephrase your question without including ridiculous assertions such as "since the outcome is the same" when quite obviously the outcome and indeed the action is comprehensively different on almost every occasion.

I would challenge you to find some video footage where action and outcome are identical in all case....................... but don't bother, you won't find any.

The only thing I haven't yet heard in this shitstorm of insanity is some buffoon suggesting that Chaz should have been carded for taking out a player in the air. :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: