Positives and Negatives - Ulster v Scarlets

[Starsky]

Positives
+we won
+Scrum looked solid, especially with BJ on the park.
+kept trying to play positive rugby
+breakdown improved in second half. Ref seemed happy with a free for all and the boys caught on

Negatives
-First up tackling, especially by Humphreys but not the only guilty party
-lost the battle at the breakdown early doors
-really could have lost; at least 3 players in front of the kicker at the last restart

[tommya]

+ another 4 points
some good running from the backs
- first up tackling was atrocious.
2 easy tries for them
allowing Rees to try the quick lineout again.
terrible officiating for all officials (man do they need specsavers).

[Starsky]

Northampton won't be too worried having seen that, but that might do us a favour.

[29xThePain]

Positives:
- a win
- BJ played well
- iHumph got 2 tries which shows what he can do when he's attacking
- Muller
- Scrum was excellent

Negatives:
- the other side of iHumph
- Si Dazzle really isn't dazzling this season. I thought he took a knock, but last season he would've left everyone for dead and scored that try himself. Something seriously is wrong with the guy and I hope it can be rectified as I love him as a player.
- Handling errors. Was absolutely horrible. I think handling errors were in double figures.
- Our backrow didn't play excellently tonight IMO

Overall, it's a win and Scarlets made me work hard for it. Felt that Pienaar was relatively quiet tonight, and P3 didn't appear to make as many yards as he usually does. Our defending by our line was decent, and some big hits went in.
I have faith in iHumph as an attacking footballer, but he needs to really up his game when he's defending. The tackles were shambolic. I think we let the Scarlets play with a bit too much freedom tonight, but I suppose that's a credit to Scarlets rather than a criticism of Ulster.
Northampton will have cause for concern over our attack. After all, Trimble would've scored if it wasn't for an excellent tackle by a Scarlets player. Once BJ, Tuohy, Muller, P3 and Diack start making those yards up the pitch we'll look a lot better. However, Saints will find comfort in some of our weak tacklers and the fact that one of our wingers is struggling to get up to the speed we all know he is very capable of. Our defence round the fringes of rucks when we're outside of our own 5 metre line is a bit of a concern though

[ulstermad]

Pos -We won
-Pienaar's passing was class.You can see why he has started in every back position for SA.
Neg -Poor performance
-We've learnt that neither iHump or D'arcy can tackle. D'arcy isn't a starting full back for a good team like ulster. His lines are good but his defence is shocking. Ihump's tackling has to be put into question for the Northampton game. Northampton will murder him.

[HighlandRed]

The Welsh are moaning about the TMO decision on BBC, I thought it was the right call, anyone had a second look at it?

A few cracking turnovers- one from Wannenburg near our own try line was a beauty despite 2 scarlets players trying to clear him out he got his hands on the ball and passed it out of the ruck.

[29xThePain]

By letter of the law, TMO was incorrect to not award the try. He should have awarded try as there was no issue with the grounding of the try.

[UlsterBok]

Overall a disappointing performance from Ulster. There were glimpses of some good touches and some nice continuity but im afraid it was all too few and far between. Both teams failed to really take the game by the scruff of the neck. That said the points will do nicely at this stag

+ Positives

+ The Scrum - my goodness BJ was powerful in the scrum. The Ulster pack just shoved the Scarlets back constantly. They really should have used that platform more effectively
+ I Hump and Pienaar Combination - It wasnt as it has been, but there signs of fluidity and some positive glimpses of the partnership that has worked well together.
+ Defence - This was also a negative, but at times the defence was good with some big hits and some good scrambling when it was needed most. Worrying how many times the Scarlets cut through Ulster, really need to tighten up in that 10-12 channel!
+ LIneout - good lineout with Muller working away and some good variation with Tuohy also getting involved. Also glad to see a bit more challenging at the lineouts on the opposition throw.
+ Muller and Best - great leadership from the two, they were all over the park making tackles, running around and most important leading from the front.
+ Humph's Spark - Ulster have missed him at 10. His defence was abysmal at times, maybe he was scared about getting injured further, but his creative spark can be fantastic at times.
+ If results go Ulster' s way might be in with a shout even for a Home Semi??? Or maybe too much wishful thinking

- Negatives

- Too many errors from most players, either out of position or knocking on the ball.
- Having to listen to Jonathan Davies for the first 10 minutes of the game as the TV signal went down!!!
- Defence - too many tackles missed out there, they need to front up next week.
- Breakdown - thought Diack, Wannenburg and Faloon tried hard but a real lack of Synergy at times, and a lack of numbers. The amount of times the Scarlets turned Ulster over or counterrucked was worrying. It has to be said this was a lot better in the second half.

[UlsterBok]

By letter of the law, TMO was incorrect to not award the try. He should have awarded try as there was no issue with the grounding of the try.

You may be right there 29X the Pain but at the end of the day there was a clear knock on. Pienaar kicked the ball and the Scarlets guy wasnt expecting it and it brushed his hand and went forward. At the end of the day, there was a reason he couldnt award the try, the ball went forward off a Scarlets player and was clearly a knock on. That is more against the "letter of the rugby laws" than worrying about whether the ref said "any reason why i cannot award the try."

[29xThePain]

Was it a "clear knock on" though? In real time, without replay, at the pace in which the incident happened, I would question whether it was a clear knock on.
I have seen the replay in real time 2 or 3 times, and seen it in slow motion several times from several angles. At real time, I think it would be very easy to miss the knock on

[Starsky]

But it was a knock on.

[bootlaced]

Was it a "clear knock on" though? In real time, without replay, at the pace in which the incident happened, I would question whether it was a clear knock on.
I have seen the replay in real time 2 or 3 times, and seen it in slow motion several times from several angles. At real time, I think it would be very easy to miss the knock on

Question all you want,it was a knock on.Now you have introduced the term "clear knock on" what the feck is that term??.What would be the difference between a clear knock on and an unclear knock on.

Maybe you could quote from the laws, ha ha ha

[UlsterBok]

Definitely it was a knock on. It doesnt matter if the ref never saw it in real time, if Kaplan had actually gone to the touch judge for the Wales v Ireland game there probably might have been a different reason. The TMO has to overrule the ref if there is clear evidence that there should not have been a try. I'm not sure about this, but it also looked like when he grounded the ball it may have simultaneously been touching the touchline as he grounded it, cant be 100% sure of that though.

[29xThePain]

I agree that it was a knock on, however, it should have been irrelevant because it appears that the ref never picked it up at the time.
I never introduced the term "clear knock on", it was part of UlsterBok's previous post, in the first line.

I partially feel for the Scarlets because of the decision. The law says the TMO can not rule on things such as knock ons, as another poster in another thread has pointed out. If it had've been the other way round we'd be up in arms too. Again, as another poster pointed out, it was the case in 2005.

[bootlaced]

I agree that it was a knock on, however, it should have been irrelevant because it appears that the ref never picked it up at the time.
I never introduced the term "clear knock on", it was part of UlsterBok's previous post, in the first line.

I partially feel for the Scarlets because of the decision. The law says the TMO can not rule on things such as knock ons, as another poster in another thread has pointed out. If it had've been the other way round we'd be up in arms too. Again, as another poster pointed out, it was the case in 2005.

Yeah but you used it,at least stand by your post and don't blame others.