Dragons v Ulster Sunday February 20th 2pm Premier Sports 1

[StandUp]

Izzy is HUGE, they've put some timber on him

Izzy is a specimen alright. He was throwing himself around and didn’t seem to be nursing the knee thankfully.
Well done Nathan and Lyttle.
Davies kicking game was pretty good and managed the conditions better than Burns. Kept the back three guessing.
Timoney and Marcus are very composed for their age. Marcus did give away a couple of penalties but I think the wind had a large part in that.
I took my dog for a walk earlier and the wind nearly dumped me on my hoop, so to play a game of rugby in that must have been a nightmare.
Well done lads.

[WestDr]

I know it was done to the letter of the law, but I don't really like that yellow card decision, I'd far rather see things refereed based on intent rather than outcome. What their player tried to do to Moore isn't any better because a good tackle by a team mate took Moore's head out of the way of a flying shoulder.

100% agree.

An accidental one can get you red, but muck up an intentional shoulder to the head, and you get away with yellow.

In terms of the match, it makes no difference being in the last 10 minutes, but it still sticks in the craw somewhat.

Referee said he was very lucky - I wonder will he be cited yet?

Absolute minefield. Wayne Barnes' interpretation of intent vs Jerome Garces' or Nic Berry's ? Save me. And if implemented, then DV''s thrown punch in the Connacht match that landed on no one would have earned a red card..... plenty of intent there to harm. Fortunately, reffed on the outcome, which was that no one was harmed.

Whilst clearly not ideal, (a) we aren't out there on the pitch and have only the benefit of the TV angles and (b) isn't that what the citing system is for ? I'd prefer to know what are the criteria for being cited. Perhaps yellow + intent leads to a citing ? Any answers as opposed to speculation.

As for the match, well done to all 46+refs etc for braving it and making it as much of a spectacle as it was. Great awareness by Hume to spot the hole/dog-leg and good play to re-cycle so rapidly with a simple pass to Marcus Rea.

[Bobbievee]

If there was a forecast of 60 mph winds in Newport, the match would be off already.

Still blowy enough with a Force 7 blowing in the open part of the ground.

BBC weather currently forecasting winds up to 59mph and 98% chance of heavy rain between 2pm and 4 pm in Newport

By 'winds up to' do they mean gusts?

59mph sustained wind is over 50 knots which is a proper storm, which on land wouldd be a red warning like Friday in SW england.

This is the yellow warning currently in place for Newport:

Yellow warning of wind
Starts: 12:00 GMT on Sun 20 FebruaryEnds: 13:00 GMT on Mon 21 February
Further periods of very strong winds on Sunday and Monday, with possible disruption.

- Some damage to buildings, such as tiles blown from roofs, could happen, along with trees/branches being brought down
- Road, rail, air and ferry services may be affected, with longer journey times and cancellations possible
- Some roads and bridges may close
- Power cuts may occur, with the potential to affect other services, such as mobile phone coverage
- Injuries and danger to life could occur from large waves and beach material being thrown onto sea fronts, coastal roads and properties

Massive diference between a yelow and red warnning. Not saying they wouldn't call a match off for a yelllow, but it would be off already for a red.

The difference between near gale and storm is huge, in terms of potential damage.

Anything more boring than a bunch of pendants discussing weather warnings?..........
Oh yes, maybe discussing mileage of Fiat 500s. Wttf,

Well done Ulster today. Hard earned 4 points.

[big mervyn]

BBC weather currently forecasting winds up to 59mph and 98% chance of heavy rain between 2pm and 4 pm in Newport

By 'winds up to' do they mean gusts?

59mph sustained wind is over 50 knots which is a proper storm, which on land wouldd be a red warning like Friday in SW england.

This is the yellow warning currently in place for Newport:

Yellow warning of wind
Starts: 12:00 GMT on Sun 20 FebruaryEnds: 13:00 GMT on Mon 21 February
Further periods of very strong winds on Sunday and Monday, with possible disruption.

- Some damage to buildings, such as tiles blown from roofs, could happen, along with trees/branches being brought down
- Road, rail, air and ferry services may be affected, with longer journey times and cancellations possible
- Some roads and bridges may close
- Power cuts may occur, with the potential to affect other services, such as mobile phone coverage
- Injuries and danger to life could occur from large waves and beach material being thrown onto sea fronts, coastal roads and properties

Massive diference between a yelow and red warnning. Not saying they wouldn't call a match off for a yelllow, but it would be off already for a red.

The difference between near gale and storm is huge, in terms of potential damage.

Anything more boring than a bunch of pendants discussing weather warnings?..........
Oh yes, maybe discussing mileage of Fiat 500s. Wttf!

There's a quare stretch in the evenings now ...

[Dave]

It's a case of job done. Next....

[Setanta]

The discipline of the squad in those conditions and against a Welsh side was nothing short of tremendous!

[allezlesverres]

You have to take the win and be happy with it after a day like that. The conditions were so bad, there must have been consideration to calling the game off. I think Ulster will be disappointed not to have picked up the bonus point as Dragons would be a team you would be hoping to pick up a bonus point against, but the conditions played a huge part in that.

The worrying thing that Ulster still don't seem to have got under control is the third quarter lull in intensity. Dragons had their best purple patch during the third quarter when they were playing directly into the hurricane. I couldn't understand why, with the wind the way it was, we weren't kicking long to the corners and just pinning them in their own 22. We reverted to the box kicking game which was impossible with that wind - you'd have had to kick it backwards to have had any chance of making it contestable. Every box kick in the second half went 20 or more metres too long which meant they were easily fielded by the Dragons.

Timoney, Rea, Hume and Burns had good games. Doak also did well although his arm flapping at every ruck is going to get tiresome. I'd far rather he sped up the pass away from the ruck rather than flapping about looking for a penalty. Didn't see enough of Izzy to know how he is doing but he is an impressive unit - I don't think we've seen as large a player as that in a long time.

[jean valjean]

Let's not forget leinster barely won away to the dragons this season, 6-7 the score. The weather was a leveller and made expansive rugby a non starter, but as others have mentioned the discipline in the 1st half was emmense and essentially was the winning of the game. Kicking was difficult. At one stage burns barely dinked the ball down the middle as it would have gone dead otherwise. 50/22s were a lottery also with the swirling wind and 3 players in the backfield at all times. No injuries, take the points and move on.

[SparkyClarky]

I couldn't understand why, with the wind the way it was, we weren't kicking long to the corners and just pinning them in their own 22. We reverted to the box kicking game which was impossible with that wind - you'd have had to kick it backwards to have had any chance of making it contestable. Every box kick in the second half went 20 or more metres too long which meant they were easily fielded by the dragons.

Agree totally, especially with line outs being a lottery. A few crooked throws and 3/4 scrums 5/10mtre out and we might have squeezed out a few more points.

Missing the bonus point in these conditions isn’t the end of the world, another away win I’ll take it. It’s more the Osprey’s and especially losing to Munster against 14 men will cost us.

On the up gotta be happy campers.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

I'd prefer to know what are the criteria for being cited. Perhaps yellow + intent leads to a citing ? Any answers as opposed to speculation.

Am pretty sure this is an answer, rather than speculation, but citing, I believe is simply for anything which the citing official believes deserved a red card but didn't get one.

If only worthy of yellow, irrespective of intent, then the citing officer ain't interested.

And of course, just because someone gets cited, doesn't mean they're guilty - that's for the hearing to determine.

[BR]

I didn't pick up on the radio how much better Ulster's first half performance was than their second. Understandable that people will tire in those conditions, but it seemed like there was a well executed plan for playing into the wind; not so much for plaing with it. The wind allowed territorial dominance, but there had to be more of a plan that that. As others have suggested, kicking numerous penalties to touch from within the 22, when your lineeoout is shakey is questionable, especially when the 3/4s had shown some great penetration on the few occassions they had got a run. Either we need beþer decision makers on the pitch or better communication from the coaches to overrule the poor decisions.

[rumncoke]

Wind wise ( and being older than most and having had Radiation Therapy I know a lot about wind )

as the great Billy Connelly said after 70 never trust a -art

Ulster playing with the wind in the first half had difficulty kick into the wind most kicks were box kicks without distance and few clearances to touch -- ulster with the ball mostly played a running game in possession trying to run the clock to half time .

In the second half The dragons kicked with more effect into the space behind the centres and in front of the full back frequently retaining possession after kicking .

The problem for Ulster was the wind seemed stronger in the second half and clearance kick down field had a probability of going dead with a scrum back in the Ulster half -- the behaviour of the wind being such there was little opportunity to kick accurately for the corners .

The fact is the Dragons in the second half played the wind better than Ulster did and were more fortunate with the bounce of the ball.

[WestDr]

Am pretty sure this is an answer, rather than speculation, but citing, I believe is simply for anything which the citing official believes deserved a red card but didn't get one.

If only worthy of yellow, irrespective of intent, then the citing officer ain't interested.

And of course, just because someone gets cited, doesn't mean they're guilty - that's for the hearing to determine.

Thanks for the insight. It does sound much like what happens. Although it does again beg the questions of how does a citing official come to a conclusion around what they 'believe deserves a red card that didn't get one' and is the 'if only worthy of a yellow, irrespective of intent, then not interested' related solely to yellows that are given or does it include those offences that are bad but nothing was done on the pitch ?

If either of these, then it would seem that the process goes something like:

• the CO looks at the whole match

• firstly decides on anything that didn't get anything but should have done, whether yellow or red. If yellow (and not given as yellow), ignore. If red go to citing process

• secondly, looks at yellows given and if that isn't harsh enough, then go to citing process and adjust upwards

• thirdly, looks at reds given, and if for Munster, (a) chalks it off and (b) does not return to first point to include others who might equally have done something worthy of a card.

I put the second point in as it seems to me that's the only way Craig Gilroy's yellow could have got into the citing process. Point 3 is, honestly, probably just plain anti-turnipism.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Am pretty sure this is an answer, rather than speculation, but citing, I believe is simply for anything which the citing official believes deserved a red card but didn't get one.

If only worthy of yellow, irrespective of intent, then the citing officer ain't interested.

And of course, just because someone gets cited, doesn't mean they're guilty - that's for the hearing to determine.

Thanks for the insight. It does sound much like what happens. Although it does again beg the questions of how does a citing official come to a conclusion around what they 'believe deserves a red card that didn't get one' and is the 'if only worthy of a yellow, irrespective of intent, then not interested' related solely to yellows that are given or does it include those offences that are bad but nothing was done on the pitch ?

If either of these, then it would seem that the process goes something like:

• the CO looks at the whole match

• firstly decides on anything that didn't get anything but should have done, whether yellow or red. If yellow (and not given as yellow), ignore. If red go to citing process

• secondly, looks at yellows given and if that isn't harsh enough, then go to citing process and adjust upwards

• thirdly, looks at reds given, and if for Munster, (a) chalks it off and (b) does not return to first point to include others who might equally have done something worthy of a card.

I put the second point in as it seems to me that's the only way Craig Gilroy's yellow could have got into the citing process. Point 3 is, honestly, probably just plain anti-turnipism.

The citing officer will have watched the match in real time, and will watch again after.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't specifically look to upgrade yellows, unless he thought at the time the ref was wrong to only give yellow. Unlike football (soccer) where if the ref says he saw the incident and decided the offence deserved only yellow, or perhaps even only a foul, the incident cannot be judged again by someone else. If the ref in football says he didn't see the incident, or he missed part of the incident that is subsequently drawn to his attention, that can be looked at again.

In rugby, any incident can be looked at again whether the ref saw it and dealt with it at the time or not.

Teams can also draw the citing officer's attention to perceived acts of foul play which they deemed worthy of a red card, but it is the citing officer who decides whether to proceed.

If you are referring to the Zebo red card being dismissed, that had nothing to do with the citing officer. All red cards will result in a disciplinary hearing, and it was that hearing that chose to dismiss the red card.

Citing Officers play no part in anything where the ref has already shown the red card. They merely reconsider possible breaches after the game and if they think any were worthy of a red card, they will cite the player/incident and that will also be dealt with by a disciplinary panel.

It is unusual for a citing to be dismissed by a disciplinary panel, but it does happen sometimes, so they are not considered to be infallible.

[WestDr]

Even clearer - thank you. Especially the bit about 'reviewing' yellows.

So in essence, the citing officer can only upgrade what was or was not decided on the field.

Apologies, didn't seek to give the impression that a citing officer could affect a disciplinary panel and its process. Although I would hope/expect that as part of their process/before the hearing, the disciplinary panel might well ask the citing officer for their views, given that they will have watched the match twice by that stage.