Munster V Scarlets

First topic message reminder :

At Musgrave Park , 5.15pm SUnday 25th November
Referee: Laurent Cardona (FFR, 1st competition game)
Assistant Referees: M Patton, Eanna O'Dowd (both IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: John West (IRFU)
TMO: Seamus Flannery (IRFU)

Munster:

F Jones;
D Howlett capt,
C Laulala,
J Downey,
L O’Dea;
I Keatley,
D Williams;

W du Preez,
M Sherry,
S Archer;
I Nagle,
B Holland;
Dave O’Callaghan,
N Ronan,
P Butler.

Replacements:
D Varley,
M Horan,
BJ Botha,
D Foley,
CJ Stander,
P Stringer,
JJ Hanrahan,
D Hurley.

Scarlets

M Stoddart
N Reynolds
G Maule
G Owen
A Fenby
A Thomas
G Davies

P John
E Phillips
J Adriaanse
J Ball
R Kelly
G Earle
J Edwards capt
C Price

Replacements:
K Myhill
S Hopkins
S Lee
J Snyman
D Thomas
R Williams
D Newton
A Warren



Munster have won their last three games in all competitions. The Munstermen's only home defeat in the PRO12 since October 2011 was 18-9 to Leinster at Thomond Park on 31 March.

Munster have won their last 15 games at Musgrave Park since Glasgow won there 21-18 on 10 May 2008.

Scarlets have won their last three matches in the RaboDirect PRO12 and are unbeaten in their last four encounters with Irish provinces in the competition.

Munster are unbeaten in their last 15 clashes with Scarlets in all competitions since the European Cup quarter-final in March 2007. Scarlets have lost on all their seven previous visits to Musgrave Park.

Head to head

Munster - Scarlets
27 Played 27
20 Wins 6
6 Losses 20
1 Draws 1
57 Tries 43
36 Conversions 30
66 Penalties 62
2 Drop Goals 1
561 Points 464
27 Avg. Age 23
5 Champions 1

Live on TG4 and S4C

Secretfly.

The two things I've learned over the years of playing and watching sport being played in the kind of conditions that match was played in last night is that:

1) it's a complete lottery.

2) One side always copes better on the day and it's not always the one you would think should cope better.

One day you go out and you barely notice the weather is sh1*e and play well, the next nothing goes right.

I'm not happy with the performance or result last night but I'm not going to get too carried away.

I agree about Snyman - he is definately nailed on at 5, and has been a great addition and is a monster - we then have Ball, Earle, Vallejos and Kelly to choose from for the other place, and Ball really impressed me against Munster and may very well take that 4 position - him and Snyman together could be a monstrous pairing.

I just can't wait for Rhodri Jones and Rob Evans to get back to fitness at LH - and then we should have a very good scrum (as long as McCusker can learn to control it at the back) - Phil John has done a good job but we've missed Rhodri I feel.

pioden gorllewin wrote:Joe snyman has been the most impressive of locks so far in my opinion Having locks that actually push scrum time has also made a big difference to our front row. Also emyr Phillips should have a mention. Thought he was outstanding Sunday. I personally would have him ahead of ken in the pecking order of hookers. Slowly building a decent pack.

He looks like he could be your biggest hooker? Yes he was good. If Rees isn't retiring soon he should move to one of the other 3 as they could do with a decent hooker and it would be a step in improving the strength of that team.

Don't forget you have Timani. The back 5 has plenty of depth now.

We need Dan Thomas to come along and have lots of chances at 7 before we can say out back 5 strength looks complete - also we need a proper ball carrying 8 (can anyone say Morgan or Lyons?) as McGog is a 6, though Murphy is ok.

This is def our strongest front 3 for awhile - Adriaanse looks a good signing, and we've got Samson Lee chomping at the bit as well, and behind them 2 Manu is a good third choice TH (considering Ospreys have a green Rees, the Blues have Andrews and the Dragons well...) and I see Rhodri and Rob Evans really improving when they recover from injuries

I don't think there is anything special about Rhodri, certainly not enough to merit a Wales call-up but the management often do it to try and improve certain players. Gotta be honest, I think Turnbull, Edwards and McGog may hold back the potential of the Scarlets back row. They add some muscle, but are they really better than Shingler and Murphy? And yes Dan Thomas is the only fetcher and looks like a good prospect. As did Rob Evans the LH. Phil John is a good LH aswell.

I think it was a bit soon for Rhodri to be called up, but what really held him back was Wales messing him around and trying to turn him into a TH (damn them) he's been good for the Scarlets (not amazing) but much, much better than Phil John (though Phil has been playing well recently) and is young and improving.

Turnbull is a good 6, and if he can get back to his pre-injuries form then he'll do a very good job at 6 - McGog ain't an 8, but for 6 and 7 if we have Turnbull, Shingler, D Thomas, Price (who looks quite good) and McGog to choose from and Vallejos then I'll be happy

Morgannwg: think emyr is our most complete hooker. Rees properly better at srummaging and mentoring the young front row. Bit disappointed in ken this season, thought it would be his year to kick on. But his lineout work hasn't improved, and he seems to be losing ball in contact a lot more this season.

To be fair to Rhodri he has been carrying a shoulder injury for a while, which might explain why he's struggled in the scrum this season.

True haven't got the balance right in the backrow with 3 6s. With Jon eds, timani and smilers contracts up this summer, I won't be surprised if one or two of them move on. Know easterby is already looking at next seasons recruitment. Especially a number 8, but no decisions have been made yet.

Do we take that as an admission that McCusker has failed at 8, and possibly captain too?

Mccusker is well liked within the squad, and carries out his duties well as captain. He's improving as an eight, but probably will always be a better six.

Really? You think he's been a good captain, and will continue to be captain for the next few seasons?

Don't think management expected him to be called into the welsh squad, and thought he'd be available all season. Being in the welsh squad will probably influence their decision for next season captaincy.

Yeah i dont think hes been a good on field captain but is apparently good in the dressing room. I can c why they chose him tho (even tho he wasnt my choice and its hard on him having to deal with captaincy and a change in position) BUT Mccusker was expectd to b there the whole year (less likely to b calld up/injurd) while any of the backline could have been calld up as could our hookers, our locks and th are new to the squad while none of our flankers/lh are guarenteed starters

Any word on how Niall Ronan is?

MrsP wrote:Any word on how Niall Ronan is?

Not as bad as they first thought, should be back for the Sarries game.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/munsters-ronan-gets-all-clear-as-scarlets-forward-ball-cited-for-challenge-215231.html

Thanks Bikkies.

So Ronan went to hospital and will miss a match. I wonder if there will be a 6 page thread about it?



Glad to hear he should recover.

Scarlets' Ball cited over Ronan incident

GAVIN CUMMISKEY

Scarlets lock Jake Ball has been cited for the incident that hospitalised Munster flanker Niall Ronan during Sunday’s game at Musgrave Park.

Match day citing commissioner John West deemed the act contrary to IRB regulation 10.4 (k), which states: “Dangerous play in a scrum, ruck or maul. Players must not charge into a ruck or maul without binding onto a player in the ruck or maul.”

A disciplinary hearing for the Australian-born, but Welsh-qualified, 21-year-old will take place this week.

Ronan was removed from his position over the ruck by Ball’s frontal charge in the 34th minute of Munster’s 6-13 defeat. The Meath openside required prolonged attention on the field before being held overnight in Cork University Hospital.

Initial scans revealed no serious damage to his neck, head or shoulder with a Munster spokesman confirming the injury as bruising.

He will not be available for Glasgow’s visit to Thomond Park on Saturday. It is another setback for a player who had just returned to full fitness after a frustrating 2012 that saw him plagued by knee, hip and a recent groin problem.

To be honest it is not overly suprising he was cited, however I think it is a wrong decision. Especially given that a worse incident (bar the outcome) happened in the Wales Samoa game, and nothing was done.

Glad to hear Ronan is recovering, but I am not too sure that Ball did anything that is technically against the rules, as he came in from the correct side, throught eh gat, and stayed on his feet. Personally it appeared as if he was binding with his left arm, nothing on the right to bind to. Apparently Dr Gwyn Jones thinks the same, and given he was seriousl injured and told he would never walk again, I take his word that if he says it was legal and unfortunate.

Yet another example of the gross inconcistencies in the game, the IRB really need to give some clarty to the rules as its own officials obviously dont even understand them at the moment.
This was right in front of the referee and he said it was fine, yet the citing commisioner disagrees.
although the ref was French and the citing commisioner I believe was Irish which may be having some bearing on the decision to report this as a citing.

2ndtimeround wrote:Yet another example of the gross inconcistencies in the game, the IRB really need to give some clarty to the rules as its own officials obviously dont even understand them at the moment.
This was right in front of the referee and he said it was fine, yet the citing commisioner disagrees.
although the ref was French and the citing commisioner I believe was Irish which may be having some bearing on the decision to report this as a citing.

Let's wait and see the outcome of the citing first. I remember a few years ago Matthew Rees got cited for the same thing against Ryan Jones when we played the Ospreys, Smiler had just basicaly shoved Jones out out the way, there was a heap of why is he cited, the Ospreys are just jerks for citing him etc, and in the end there was no ban. That could well happen to Ball, although I have a feeling that we will end up losing him for a hell of a long time just because Ronan was injured and not because of any real breach of the rules.

I'm not surprised that he's been cited to be honest (though I am surprised that more players haven't been cited in the recent internationals) as Rees and Manu (I think???) were cited last season against the Ospreys for merely clearing out a ruck by pushing the O's player backwards - nothing wrong with it, happens every game, no-one (players, ref, coaches, fans) saw anything wrong - yet they got cited and then cleared straight afterwards. Happened quite a few times in the Pro12 last season for nothing offences.

So I'm not surprised, but not sure he'll get a sanction - though he may if the citing board don't think he's bound into the ruck, but just deliberately aimed at Ronan.

Exactly SS! (got there 1st)

2ndtimeround wrote:Yet another example of the gross inconcistencies in the game, the IRB really need to give some clarty to the rules as its own officials obviously dont even understand them at the moment.
This was right in front of the referee and he said it was fine, yet the citing commisioner disagrees.
although the ref was French and the citing commisioner I believe was Irish which may be having some bearing on the decision to report this as a citing.

Totally agree, I think the Dan Biggar incident was much worse in the Wales game a swinging arm to the face and smashed his shoulder and no citing. When I saw this clash in the Scarlets game on the TV I thought this would happen and so it should, players need to be protected it is their career. The Wales V Samoa was a disgrace there should have been at least 3 citings and Wayne Barnes had a good view of two of the incidents not even any yellows.

I think there will be no action but something needs to be done to prevent injuries like this, Adam Jones and Dan Biggar.

2ndtimeround wrote:Yet another example of the gross inconcistencies in the game, the IRB really need to give some clarty to the rules as its own officials obviously dont even understand them at the moment.
This was right in front of the referee and he said it was fine, yet the citing commisioner disagrees.
although the ref was French and the citing commisioner I believe was Irish which may be having some bearing on the decision to report this as a citing.

This is the "one eyed Irish ref" one of your fellow supporters was referring to the other day I presume.



A player was significantly injured because of an action which the citing commisioner, and I have to say even the commentators on S4C amongst others, thought was not legal.
I have seen a short clip and I didn't think Ball bound to anyone.
Surely this is worth looking at if only to protect all our players, no? The citing should also allow for some further clarification of what is and isn't acceptable at a ruck. I personally would rather this sort of challenge was outlawed to try to reduce the chance of serious head and neck injury. I hope everyone is aware of the terrible consequences of repeated head injury and anything we can sensibly do to reduce that should be welcomed.

MrsP wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:Yet another example of the gross inconcistencies in the game, the IRB really need to give some clarty to the rules as its own officials obviously dont even understand them at the moment.
This was right in front of the referee and he said it was fine, yet the citing commisioner disagrees.
although the ref was French and the citing commisioner I believe was Irish which may be having some bearing on the decision to report this as a citing.

This is the "one eyed Irish ref" one of your fellow supporters was referring to the other day I presume.



A player was significantly injured because of an action which the citing commisioner, and I have to say even the commentators on S4C amongst others, thought was not legal.
I have seen a short clip and I didn't think Ball bound to anyone.
Surely this is worth looking at if only to protect all our players, no? The citing should also allow for some further clarification of what is and isn't acceptable at a ruck. I personally would rather this sort of challenge was outlawed to try to reduce the chance of serious head and neck injury. I hope everyone is aware of the terrible consequences of repeated head injury and anything we can sensibly do to reduce that should be welcomed.

Mrs P

If you bother to read the whole post you will clearly see my point was the rules need looking at, if a French official standing 2 meters away thinks it is fine but an Irish official thinks its not then as I said the IRB's own officials dont even understand the rules.
Would it have been a citing had the citing official also been French ? I doubt it.

Incidently I dont believe it should be allowed within the rules but I also believe the way Ronan was lying all over the ruck deliberately slowing play down should be penalised far quicker to stop it ruining the flow of the game.

Or maybe the official, no matter what his nationality, didn't get a good look at the incident?

I've watched it on the replay and it is right in front of him, he could not have failed to see it unless his eyes were shut.

The clear out was nowhere near as bad as the one on Biggar in the Samoan game and he wasnt even lying on the ruck he was trying to pick up a visible ball. No Citing
It will be intresting to hear what the panel have to say but it does not change the fact that the rules are4 to open to interpretation or misinterpretation as the case may be.

To ban Ball for something that is deemed legal at international level less than 2 weeks ago would be a prime example that the powers that be have no idea what they are doing.

But we have all seen other examples of incidents occuring right in front of officials and they making the wrong call.

I am not defending the IRB in any way shape or form an the disciplinary process is a mess of inconsistancies but I don't think the response should be to throw our hands up and declare that 2 wrongs make a right. If this tackle/clearout was illegal then it should be dealt with accordingly regardless of whether another incident was mishandled, no?

Citing an offence can be a way of seeking clarification too and so can be a good thing in the long run whether it is up held or not.

2ndtimeround wrote:I've watched it on the replay and it is right in front of him, he could not have failed to see it unless his eyes were shut.

The clear out was nowhere near as bad as the one on Biggar in the Samoan game and he wasnt even lying on the ruck he was trying to pick up a visible ball. No Citing
It will be intresting to hear what the panel have to say but it does not change the fact that the rules are4 to open to interpretation or misinterpretation as the case may be.

To ban Ball for something that is deemed legal at international level less than 2 weeks ago would be a prime example that the powers that be have no idea what they are doing.

Or merely that there are inconsistencies in officiating the game, and this is a particularly 'grey area' in a game whose laws are full of 'grey areas'.

I don't think Ball will get a ban.

Mrs P

My point is not that 2 wrongs make a right, it is that most popular opinion seems to be that it was legal or at least it certainly was the previous week when Biggar was cleared out.
Do I agree it was legal ? I could not say as I'm no expert on the rules.
Do I believe it should be legal ? No deffinately not

What I do believe is the laws of the game are far to complicated and if the officials cant interperate them without vast differences of opinion then us ordinary fans have no chance.

Miaow.

I really hope your right as a ban on Ball just as he is breaking in to the team would be very harsh.

you will have to excuse me if this was brought up already.

How did nagle play

So a Welsh team wins against an Irish team, Welsh can't blame the ref as they won.
Welsh player is cited, Welsh blame 4th official.

I see how it works, If something bad happens a Welsh team
Lose = ref's fault, and then work down the hierarchy dependant on what the problem is.

This must be a 3rd level incident to be 4th officials fault, 2nd level problem is lineman issues.

4th level fault - (Substitution controller)reserve assistant referee

Kingshu wrote:So a Welsh team wins against an Irish team, Welsh can't blame the ref as they won.
Welsh player is cited, Welsh blame 4th official.

I see how it works, If something bad happens a Welsh team
Lose = ref's fault, and then work down the hierarchy dependant on what the problem is.

This must be a 3rd level incident to be 4th officials fault, 2nd level problem is lineman issues.

4th level fault - (Substitution controller)reserve assistant referee

To be honest I was hoping Staggy was still on the boards, as he told me once that the Scarlets are never going to win anything until they and their fans cut the victim mentality out. Glad to see you've taken the mantle over.

Kingshu wrote:So a Welsh team wins against an Irish team, Welsh can't blame the ref as they won.
Welsh player is cited, Welsh blame 4th official.

I see how it works, If something bad happens a Welsh team
Lose = ref's fault, and then work down the hierarchy dependant on what the problem is.

This must be a 3rd level incident to be 4th officials fault, 2nd level problem is lineman issues.

4th level fault - (Substitution controller)reserve assistant referee

Another one who doesn't actually read the thread I guess.
If you had you would see the point I was making is that the laws are to complicated and are wide open to misinterpretation.
But why leave facts get in the way of trying to have a pointless dig eh !!