Ulster v Munster

Talk about the men in white, and everything Ulster!!

Moderator: Moderators

rumncoke
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 7903
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 3:39 pm

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by rumncoke »

After 10 mins I thought Ulster were in for a hammering dropping at least 4 trys ,because murphy was on a whistle happy mood and giving Munster every advantage eg bring play back for scrum penalties having allowed play from the scrum -- why ? Did the dropped scrum stop Munster playing the ball --- No then why go back to what may or may not have been a foul by Ulster -- ( personal opinion props seldom go to ground for know reason - other than to get a reset or waste time )

McIlroy -- clear penalty -- no attempt at a tackle-- basically a body check -- but not a red because McIlroy was low and had changed direction . Given the distance from the line and Crowley being on the line and McIlroys dip it should have been a penalty try -- personally would have settled for the penalty try and no card. --

Last night showed why Coombes failed to make the Ireland squad without Jack O'D and Peter O'M he fades into the back ground . McCann out played him and most others on the field to be honest -- and has done for most of the season so far ie last night game was not a one of performance long may he remain uninjured.
Within this carapace of skepticism there lives an optimist
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

Evil Kiwi wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:21 pm RIP the rolling maul. It pitch has weakened the efficacy of Ulster's only WMD...discuss:
Not getting the throw and lifters coordinated properly has banjaxed Ulster's only WMD . . . and not just at Ravenspan.

Our lineout has been nothing short of a shambles when we face a team with one or two much taller players.

Either that or we get read too easily.

Or both.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

MightyRearranger wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:13 am I'm not sure how these things work, but does that make Munster the fourth province now? :stir:
Fifth Shirley.

We must still be fourth.

Leinster are probably still 1st and 2nd and possibly even 3rd.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

rumncoke wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:31 pm After 10 mins I thought Ulster were in for a hammering dropping at least 4 trys ,because murphy was on a whistle happy mood and giving Munster every advantage eg bring play back for scrum penalties having allowed play from the scrum -- why ? Did the dropped scrum stop Munster playing the ball --- No
There's a clue in what it's called - "penalty advantage". Just because he allowed them to play from the scrum doesn't mean that should be the end of it. They didn't get said advantage, so he brought it back to the penalty. It's been in the laws a long time now Rumn - have you never heard of it before?
You may disagree that the scrum had been dropped, or who by, but that's a different matter.
rumncoke wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:31 pm McIlroy -- clear penalty -- no attempt at a tackle-- basically a body check -- but not a red because McIlroy was low and had changed direction . Given the distance from the line and Crowley being on the line and McIlroys dip it should have been a penalty try -- personally would have settled for the penalty try and no card. --
Not a body check - he did go for the wrap, but caught him in the face - ie, dangerous and high tackle. As Frank said, "high degree of danger, but there was mitigation", which you have also accepted. Ergo, a penalty and a yellow card is the correct tariff.
As for the penalty try, once it is accepted by the referee that a player has engaged in foul play in such a scenario, he mentally takes that player out of the scenario. He then asks if a try would probably have been scored with that player's actions fremoved. Frank answered that by stating that there was a cover player who could well have prevented the try, Given that McIlroy had appeared to trip himself or slip before contact and appeared to be dropping the ball anyway, I'd say that was a fair call by the ref - no penalty try,
You may have settled for the reverse - a penalty try and no card, but I hate to tell you this, - personal preferences don't come into it. Ref reached the correct verdict, indeed possibly even harsh on the tackler, given, as I have stated, McIlroy had slpped or tripped a few metres sort of the line anyway.

My biggest complaint of how Frank "applied the advantage" was not so much about penalty advantage to Munster, but knock-on advantage to Ulster.
On 2 or 3 occasions, he played advantage to Ulster after a knock-on but called adavntage over with Ulster still in possession but a l o n g way behind the gainline where the knock-on occurred. At least 2 of those were called immediately Ulster kicked, without reference to whether the kick was to our advantage or not, and on one occasion didn't even bring us up to the gain line. If Frank was intent on calling advantage over, it should have been by stopping the game and awarding the scrum at the point of infringement, ie farther forward for Ulster.

My other gripe with the ref, and perhaps someone can enlighten me, as rewatching on TV hasn't, is why the try from the quickly taken lineout was disallowed? At first it seemed he thought it was a Munster lineout, but when that was clearly not the case, there was no reason not to at least look again at the big screen. Gusher suggested the throw didn't go 5m, but replay showed it was taken on the 5m line, so again no reason to disallow. Therre had also been no whistle or instruction indicating a quick lineout could not be taken. Hendo seemed to think he could check with TMO too, but Frank seemed to hasve his mind made up.

Me thinks Frank was taken by surprise and he just couldn't allow that to happen, in which case, as the ball had already been grounded, why not go through it point by point with the TMO and award the try? In one way oit was probably to our advantage that we didn't get it but scored a few minutes later. Had we taken the lead then, we would not have been pushing for that score so urgently anymore, and Munster would no doubt have thrown everything at us for more time than they did, and we just might have buckled.

A few minor disagreements with Frank, but none that altered the result, and again the officials made fewer errors than the players, so all in all I don't understand the flak he/they have taken from a few on here.
Last edited by Cap'n Grumpy on Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
justinr73
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 6064
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 1:14 pm

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by justinr73 »

UlsterNo9 wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:27 pm
Evil Kiwi wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:21 pm RIP the rolling maul. It pitch has weakened the efficacy of Ulster's only WMD...discuss:
Glasgow would disagree it's their biggest weapon at home. Crucified us away last season with it if memory serves me correctly. Open to correction as I'm not 100% sure.
No need.

There’s a degree of variation in the surfaces though and the answer is that it’s too early to tell.
jean valjean
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3204
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2016 10:03 pm

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by jean valjean »

The quick line out try was disallowed because it was taken from within 5m of the try line even though the ball was passed backwards.
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

jean valjean wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 3:19 pm The quick line out try was disallowed because it was taken from within 5m of the try line even though the ball was passed backwards.
:thumleft:
Even less to moan about Frank now.

Not that there was much to start with.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
Evil Kiwi
Novice
Posts: 170
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:43 pm

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Evil Kiwi »

UlsterNo9 wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:27 pm
Evil Kiwi wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:21 pm RIP the rolling maul. It pitch has weakened the efficacy of Ulster's only WMD...discuss:
Glasgow would disagree it's their biggest weapon at home. Crucified us away last season with it if memory serves me correctly. Open to correction as I'm not 100% sure.
Maybe we've just lost the WMD codes?

Anyway, yeah hope so >drinks
User avatar
MightyRearranger
Warrior
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:42 am
Location: Lisburn

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by MightyRearranger »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:49 pm
Evil Kiwi wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:21 pm RIP the rolling maul. It pitch has weakened the efficacy of Ulster's only WMD...discuss:
Not getting the throw and lifters coordinated properly has banjaxed Ulster's only WMD . . . and not just at Ravenspan.

Our lineout has been nothing short of a shambles when we face a team with one or two much taller players.

Either that or we get read too easily.

Or both.
The sort of thing that makes you only appreciate Sam Carter once he's gone. Pretty average at most facets of the game, but think he was our best lineout forward. Would be interesting to see if there were any stats on how effective our rolling maul conversion rate was with and without him last year.
User avatar
MightyRearranger
Warrior
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:42 am
Location: Lisburn

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by MightyRearranger »

With regards to the improvement in the scrum when Scott Wilson came on, one of things I have since been wondering is how much of the difference might be attributed to the extra ballast in the back five and Rob Herring coming on at the same time. Scrummaging ability isn't something hookers ever really seem to be judged on, but having one whose good at it makes a big difference for the props. I remember Rory Best talking about how he felt it was one of the big strengths of his game. I've never heard anyone discuss the relative strengths of Herring and Stewart there, but if Rob has an edge in that department it could be a factor in him still seemingly being higher up the pecking order for Ulster and Ireland.

Still would like to see much more of young Wilson and part of the reason I want it to be sooner rather than later, is I'm not sure how much of a look in he will get if Moore, TOT, French and Warwick are all in the mix.
User avatar
MightyRearranger
Warrior
Posts: 1111
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 2:42 am
Location: Lisburn

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by MightyRearranger »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:18 pm
rumncoke wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:31 pm McIlroy -- clear penalty -- no attempt at a tackle-- basically a body check -- but not a red because McIlroy was low and had changed direction . Given the distance from the line and Crowley being on the line and McIlroys dip it should have been a penalty try -- personally would have settled for the penalty try and no card. --
Not a body check - he did go for the wrap, but caught him in the face - ie, dangerous and high tackle. As Frank said, "high degree of danger, but there was mitigation", which you have also accepted. Ergo, a penalty and a yellow card is the correct tariff.
As for the penalty try, once it is accepted by the referee that a player has engaged in foul play in such a scenario, he mentally takes that player out of the scenario. He then asks if a try would probably have been scored with that player's actions fremoved. Frank answered that by stating that there was a cover player who could well have prevented the try, Given that McIlroy had appeared to trip himself or slip before contact and appeared to be dropping the ball anyway, I'd say that was a fair call by the ref - no penalty try,
I was pretty firmly of the opinion that the Shane Daly incident should have been play on, I don't think there was anything Daly could have done differently. He was trying to wrap McIlroy up and prevent the grounding, which is exactly what he should be trying to do, his technique also looked pretty good. An unfortunate combination of factors, including the tackle from Crowley a split second before Daly got there and McIlroys dip led to a fairly nasty collision, but these things are going to happen when you're playing a contact sport. It doesn't seem fair to penalise a player when they've done everything right. For me, it's similar in many ways to the tackle on Croethers last week, which i was surprised (but happy) to see the referee rule as he did.
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

MightyRearranger wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 5:29 pm
Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:18 pm
rumncoke wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:31 pm McIlroy -- clear penalty -- no attempt at a tackle-- basically a body check -- but not a red because McIlroy was low and had changed direction . Given the distance from the line and Crowley being on the line and McIlroys dip it should have been a penalty try -- personally would have settled for the penalty try and no card. --
Not a body check - he did go for the wrap, but caught him in the face - ie, dangerous and high tackle. As Frank said, "high degree of danger, but there was mitigation", which you have also accepted. Ergo, a penalty and a yellow card is the correct tariff.
As for the penalty try, once it is accepted by the referee that a player has engaged in foul play in such a scenario, he mentally takes that player out of the scenario. He then asks if a try would probably have been scored with that player's actions fremoved. Frank answered that by stating that there was a cover player who could well have prevented the try, Given that McIlroy had appeared to trip himself or slip before contact and appeared to be dropping the ball anyway, I'd say that was a fair call by the ref - no penalty try,
I was pretty firmly of the opinion that the Shane Daly incident should have been play on, I don't think there was anything Daly could have done differently. He was trying to wrap McIlroy up and prevent the grounding, which is exactly what he should be trying to do, his technique also looked pretty good. An unfortunate combination of factors, including the tackle from Crowley a split second before Daly got there and McIlroys dip led to a fairly nasty collision, but these things are going to happen when you're playing a contact sport. It doesn't seem fair to penalise a player when they've done everything right. For me, it's similar in many ways to the tackle on Croethers last week, which i was surprised (but happy) to see the referee rule as he did.
Can't really argue with much of that, tbh. I did concede in my previous that the YC might have been harsh. When reviewing it on the big screen at the match last night, and without the benefit of hearing what the officials were discussing, I too was at a loss initially to see what had attracted the ire of the TMO, although the extent of the injury to McIlroy probably forced them to look very closely.The arm hitting the top of the head looked a bit inoccuous, tbh, and I'm still not sure what exactly caused the cut and the loss of consciousness.

The simple fact though is that Rugby has gone down the road of making all players responsible for their actions, even if they'vd done their best to avoid injury. The other fact is that McIlroy was injured by Daly, which was a pure accident, but wouldn't have happened if he hadn't attempted the tackle (which he was never gonna do of course). By simply following fact 1 with fact 2, Daly has to suffer a sanction of some sort. Harsh? - Probably, but it was possibly the most sympathetic way the officials could have dealt with it. I doubt anyone is blaming Daly for this - I hope not, but sometimes nasty things happen in contact sports.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
User avatar
Yoda
Initiate
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2009 2:58 pm

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Yoda »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 5:45 pm
MightyRearranger wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 5:29 pm
Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 2:18 pm
rumncoke wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:31 pm McIlroy -- clear penalty -- no attempt at a tackle-- basically a body check -- but not a red because McIlroy was low and had changed direction . Given the distance from the line and Crowley being on the line and McIlroys dip it should have been a penalty try -- personally would have settled for the penalty try and no card. --
Not a body check - he did go for the wrap, but caught him in the face - ie, dangerous and high tackle. As Frank said, "high degree of danger, but there was mitigation", which you have also accepted. Ergo, a penalty and a yellow card is the correct tariff.
As for the penalty try, once it is accepted by the referee that a player has engaged in foul play in such a scenario, he mentally takes that player out of the scenario. He then asks if a try would probably have been scored with that player's actions fremoved. Frank answered that by stating that there was a cover player who could well have prevented the try, Given that McIlroy had appeared to trip himself or slip before contact and appeared to be dropping the ball anyway, I'd say that was a fair call by the ref - no penalty try,
I was pretty firmly of the opinion that the Shane Daly incident should have been play on, I don't think there was anything Daly could have done differently. He was trying to wrap McIlroy up and prevent the grounding, which is exactly what he should be trying to do, his technique also looked pretty good. An unfortunate combination of factors, including the tackle from Crowley a split second before Daly got there and McIlroys dip led to a fairly nasty collision, but these things are going to happen when you're playing a contact sport. It doesn't seem fair to penalise a player when they've done everything right. For me, it's similar in many ways to the tackle on Croethers last week, which i was surprised (but happy) to see the referee rule as he did.
Can't really argue with much of that, tbh. I did concede in my previous that the YC might have been harsh. When reviewing it on the big screen at the match last night, and without the benefit of hearing what the officials were discussing, I too was at a loss initially to see what had attracted the ire of the TMO, although the extent of the injury to McIlroy probably forced them to look very closely.The arm hitting the top of the head looked a bit inoccuous, tbh, and I'm still not sure what exactly caused the cut and the loss of consciousness.

The simple fact though is that Rugby has gone down the road of making all players responsible for their actions, even if they'vd done their best to avoid injury. The other fact is that McIlroy was injured by Daly, which was a pure accident, but wouldn't have happened if he hadn't attempted the tackle (which he was never gonna do of course). By simply following fact 1 with fact 2, Daly has to suffer a sanction of some sort. Harsh? - Probably, but it was possibly the most sympathetic way the officials could have dealt with it. I doubt anyone is blaming Daly for this - I hope not, but sometimes nasty things happen in contact sports.
Playing devil's advocate for a bit, yes McIlroy was low/dipping but there's an argument this wasn't a late movement or change of direction, he was at that level for a number of steps as he moved towards the line. Daly comes towards him from the side and tries to wrap round him, but McIlroy was always at the level he was as Daly moved towards him. His attempted wrap also involved him swinging his arm around and while not deliberate, given he was at the level he was, there was always a chance he was going to strike him on the head (which he did).

But the ref suggested the mitigation was McIlroy moving to get low - if this was the case then I could agree it was a rugby incident and play on.

I think on the basis McIlroy was already low as Daly approached then yellow was possibly the right decision (and you could extend that argument to say red but that would have been harsh). With the current emphasis on the tackler being responsible for ensuring he doesn't do anything dangerous I can see why they reached the yellow decision. I think they got to right decision with the wrong explanation!
User avatar
Cap'n Grumpy
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 15704
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:21 pm
Location: second barrier up, at the half-way line ... or is the third?

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by Cap'n Grumpy »

All of that is a good summary of why players when they get close to the line, dive for it, because it is almost impossible to make an effective legal tackle.
I'm not arguing -
I'm just explaining why I'm right
CIMANFOREVER
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4807
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 6:16 pm
Location: The Dufferin

Re: Ulster v Munster

Post by CIMANFOREVER »

Cap'n Grumpy wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 1:49 pm
Evil Kiwi wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2023 12:21 pm RIP the rolling maul. It pitch has weakened the efficacy of Ulster's only WMD...discuss:
Not getting the throw and lifters coordinated properly has banjaxed Ulster's only WMD . . . and not just at Ravenspan.

Our lineout has been nothing short of a shambles when we face a team with one or two much taller players.

Either that or we get read too easily.

Or both.
Indeed Cap'n. Absolute sh*show and even Herring succumbed.Stewarts throwing has been consistently average, but we've coughed at key pressure moments. Same last year so things haven't improved
Exterminate all rational thought
Post Reply