Ulster vs Glasgow

First topic message reminder :

                      
Ulster Rugby v Glasgow Warriors
Saturday 11 October 2014
KO 17:05
Kingspan Stadium

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Nigel Owens(WRU, 114th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Nigel Correll, Paul Haycock (IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Murray White (IRFU)
TMO: Simon McDowell (IRFU)

A. Teams:

Ulster Rugby

15 Louis Ludik
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Jared Payne
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Tommy Bowe
10 Ian Humphreys
9 Paul Marshall

1 Andrew Warwick
2 Rory Best (Captain)
3 Wiehahn Herbst
4 Alan O’Connor
5 Franco van der Merwe
6 Robbie Diack
7 Chris Henry
8 Nick Williams

16 Rob Herring
17 Callum Black
18 Bronson Ross
19 Lewis Stevenson
20 Roger Wilson
21 Michael Heaney
22 Stuart Olding
23 Craig Gilroy

Glasgow Warriors

15. Peter Murchie
14. Sean Maitland
13. Mark Bennett
12. Peter Horne
11. Tommy Seymour
10. Finn Russell
9. Henry Pyrgos

1. Gordon Reid
2. Fraser Brown
3. Euan Murray
4. Tim Swinson
5. Leone Nakarawa
6. Rob Harley
7. Chris Fusaro
8. Josh Strauss (Captain)

16. Dougie Hall
17. Jerry Yanuyanutawa
18. Zander Fagerson
19. Jonny Gray
20. Adam Ashe
21. Niko Matawalu
22. James Downey
23. Sean Lamont

B. Form - head to head:

29 Played 29
15 Wins 13
13 Losses 15
1 Draws 1
49 Tries 47
31 Conversions 33
78 Penalties 68
2 Drop Goals 7
547 Points 526
26 Avg. Age 26

C. Form - last season:

Friday 13 September 2013  
Ulster Rugby 12 - 13 Glasgow Warriors
Ravenhill Stadium

Friday 18 April 2014
Glasgow Warriors 27 - 9 Ulster Rugby
Scotstoun Stadium

Pete330v2 wrote:Glasgow are going to be a force on the domestic and european fronts this season so you guys have so much to be positive about plus you'll most likely get revenge when we come visiting.

You don't have to be so nice to them, Pete.  It ain't a sin beating them.  Just say: "We smashed yis!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" and have done with it

I do not want to be gettin smug Fly, karma would kick my arse for that.

I hear there has been a citing called re: the Bennett incident. Apparently he was properly choked in the choke tackle to the point that he lost consiousness.

Sean Maitland said it was a choke tackle:

GLASGOW full-back Sean Maitland admitted that the shock of seeing their team-mate Mark Bennett stretchered off the field had a major effect on their side’s 29-9 defeat to Ulster on Saturday.

Ulster 29-9 Glasgow

Scorers: Ulster – Tries: Gilroy, Bowe. Cons: Humphreys (2). Pens: Humphreys (5). Glasgow – Pens: Russell (3).

Following an Achilles problem in pre-season, Maitland took his seasonal bow in the physical encounter at Kingspan Stadium and reckons Glasgow were well in the battle before their centre lost consciousness following a choke tackle.

Ian Humphreys had given Ulster a commanding half-time lead with five penalties, while Finn Russell kept Glasgow in touch with three of his own. But Craig Gilroy and Tommy Bowe dotted down in a three-minute period shortly after the incident with Bennett as Glasgow were made to pay for some uncharacteristic sloppy missed tackles and handling errors in the closing stages.

“When you see the stretcher coming on for one of the boys it is tough and you do feel for him, but he’s all good. He just got choked out in a wrestling move. The good thing is he’s okay and he’s up and walking around and got a smile on his face, which is the main thing,” Maitland said after he logged an 80-minute return to Gregor Townsend’s side.

“That was sort of the turning point, really. We had the ball and then Gilroy scored a good try and we slipped off a few tackles.

“But that was a turning point and momentum shifted and it all went downhill from there.”

Just to be clear - Toonie has no problem with conventional 'choke' tackles as a tactic, if executed lawfully - the problem here came from the fact that the ball carrier was taken above the shoulders, which is clearly not what the law says is permissible.

Nobody is saying it was anything other than accidental, but the club are still a bit urined off about it:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11157555/Glasgow-Warriors-call-for-action-after-Mark-Bennett-is-knocked-out-by-choke-tackle-in-Pro12-defeat-by-Ulster.html

Sounds like sour grapes, and is very disappointing to read following the support of the Ulster paramedics and medics and the sportsmanship shown by Ulster players immediately calling for the game to be stopped.

I cannot believe that Glasgow are going to pursue this avenue given the above and the previously good relationship between the clubs. I had more respect for them than that. If there was an accident, there was an accident but it's very clear that there were a lot of Ulster playing and medical staff involved in making sure Bennett received quality treatment as quickly as possible and that could have been decisive for him. In the light of that, for Glasgow to turn around and go to the media and the citing commissioner is just... so disappointing. This could be settled behind closed doors. Glasgow have obviously chosen a different path.

While saying the injury may have broken their momentum is a convenient excuse for them in terms of talking about a game in which they were second best from the first whistle to the last, they did not need that excuse for the media.

Notch - I don't think it's sour grapes to raise something that wouldn't otherwise be recognised as foul play. That's what a citing officer is for.

The club was asked about it in interviews so it had to say something. I don't think anyone's making a song and dance about it or suggesting it was anything other than unfortunate. Maitland didn't talk about citings or anything like that, he just said it was a shock to see a teammate carried off. Toonie's comments in the Telegraph were discursive and pretty moderate, I think.

I think that the club has also been clear how grateful it was to the Ulster medical staff - the tweet below being one of many sent that night:

11 October
@GlasgowWarriors
Mark Bennett was stretchered off as a precaution but he's up and about & we'd like to thank @UlsterRugby medics & paramedics for their help.

These things happen in a game though GC. Say if Ludik was stretchered off from falling on his neck and Ulster went after Tommy Seymour because of that, that would also be pretty ungentlemanly given the innocuous nature of the incident. If he was cited he could be suspended for a week or two as well under the current laws.

I'm annoyed because Glasgow are pursuing a matter that should really be settled with a handshake. It's fairly petty stuff.

While the headline is predictably dramatic, what GT says in the article is :

“He was choke-tackled and he lost consciousness for a bit,” the Glasgow coach said. “He has fully recovered now. The game lost momentum because I thought we were playing well until then. It’s not good to lose a player but we’re really glad he has recovered."

and

“If it is a [neck] choke then that is obviously something that is not legal. The tackle has to be under the shoulders. If you are trying to hold players up from under the shoulders then that is legal; if you’re above the shoulders it is not. There are people who look at these incidents to find out what can be seen on video. We have to make sure that the laws are applied and that tackles are below the shoulders.”

So it doesn't really warrant the headline. If he was actually being choked during a tackle, you would expect the coaches to report it. GT doesn't say that is definitely what happened so they must not be sure.

Apart from that, I thought it was a really good game. A few errors in selection from Glasgow in the pack which Ulster showed everyone else how to exploit. I see what you all mean by the new look Ulster front row. Impressive

Notch -  does not sound like sour grapes - more just wanting to assess the incident  and seeing if it was dangerous

I personally believe the whole idea of the choke tackle should be looked at, as the amount of times it is neck high, I am surprised there are not more injuries. I also think it is such a negative aspect of rugby - at least change it so that if it does collapse, it is the team going forward, rather than just flop on the ball

While I am at it, I also think clearing people out of rucks by grabbing their necks and twisting sideways looks incredible dangerous - and is happening more and more in every game

Notch wrote:These things happen in a game though GC. Say if Ludik was stretchered off from falling on his neck and Ulster went after Tommy Seymour because of that, that would also be pretty ungentlemanly given the innocuous nature of the incident. If he was cited he could be suspended for a week or two as well under the current laws.

I'm annoyed because Glasgow are pursuing a matter that should really be settled with a handshake. It's fairly petty stuff.

Fair enough - I didn't see it and I don't know how it was dealt with at the time - that's probably quite an important factor in terms of whether you would feel as a team coach that it deserves a citing. I think that a head coach is in a difficult position as if they make a citing they risk being accused of sour grapes, if they don't, however, it might send a message to your own players that you aren't willing to make their case for them for political/PR reasons.

I think that it's one of those things where if it happens to one of your club's own players, you'd probably feel differently about it.

I'm just glad that the player is all right because he's had enough problems with injuries at his age.

Pretty sure laying a finger on the Messiah is a separate offence under the laws of the game as far as Glasgow fans are concerned.

His ability to turn water into White Lightening and feed the weegies with 2 fish suppers and 5 chip butties lends him a certain cult status. They are also relying on him to redeem the sins of weegies, and that's an awful lot of redeeming to do......

The difference between Bennett and the average Edinburgh player is that Edinburgh players seem to lose consciousness in the middle of games without anyone having touched them.

Certainly, the difference in ability between an unconscious and a conscious Ross Ford is so marginal as to be difficult to describe in real terms.

There is nothing negative about a move in rugby designed to regain the possession and momentum.  If there is little chance of doing so (if attacking players are protected by absolute attacking-preference rules) then the game is dead and it becomes more rugby League - first your turn to try to score, then ours.  All far too orderly and "please sir" for my liking in rugby union.

But yes, the high neck aspect of the 'held up' function needs to be stamped out.  One player is in a very vulnerable position and yet all too often play is allowed continue under those conditions.  Don't like it...and needs changing.

But there must always be an avenue through which a defending team can access the ball - legally -.................. driving mauls too need alteration on this point

As I thought from just viewing the footage again it's Alan O'Connor who's being cited for the incident. It certainly seems to be him who has a hold of Bennett but it's unclear if he's got him around the neck. Bennett was bent over backwards when the maul collapses and thrown from the pile of bodies like a ragdoll, obviously unconscious. I think it's obviously O'Connor that effected the actual choke but to prove it is a different story.

It's been talked about before, but there is another technique that seems to be increasingly prominant in the Jeff and Pro 12 when clearing players out of rucks - that of grabbing the opponent's shoulders/trunk/neck and twisting them out of the pile. I wince every time I see that as it's going to lead to a bad injury at some point.

George Carlin wrote:It's been talked about before, but there is another technique that seems to be increasingly prominant in the Jeff and Pro 12 when clearing players out of rucks - that of grabbing the opponent's shoulders/trunk/neck and twisting them out of the pile. I wince every time I see that as it's going to lead to a bad injury at some point.

Did you see the Bath number 8 (Leroy Houston) against Wasps at the weekend hauling Joe Simpson out of the ruck? He was spotted and carded but as you say it's becoming increasingly commonplace to use "unorthodox" methods of extracting opposition players from the ruck.

I suspect part of the citing is to do with O'Connor unceremoniously dumping Bennett off him but I would be surprised if he knew anything other than a Glasgow player was on top of him. From the replays I have seen you cant see where the tackle starts.

If there are no other angles its hard to get a citing unless Bennett actually accuses him. If they show the tackle starting off high he will cop a ban. We need to look at these situations anyway. Even if a tackle starts low the action of the tackled player, trying to get to ground whilst the other trys to keep him up will lead to more situations like this.

It reminds me of the Eddie O'Sullivan accusations against Hines (I think) years ago

George Carlin wrote:It's been talked about before, but there is another technique that seems to be increasingly prominant in the Jeff and Pro 12 when clearing players out of rucks - that of grabbing the opponent's shoulders/trunk/neck and twisting them out of the pile. I wince every time I see that as it's going to lead to a bad injury at some point.

I have no problem with that grappling/judo move on the shoulders or torso but you are quite right that players are also twisting the heads and necks of opponents in the ruck.
It reminds me of every Stephen Segal movie that I have ever seen where he resorts to twisting bad guys heads to break their necks when his gun falls down the stairs/lift shaft/out the window/from a helicopter/runs out of bullets. It’s so obvious I find myself shouting at the ref on the tele. Will result in a bad injury before long.

Submachine wrote:

George Carlin wrote:It's been talked about before, but there is another technique that seems to be increasingly prominant in the Jeff and Pro 12 when clearing players out of rucks - that of grabbing the opponent's shoulders/trunk/neck and twisting them out of the pile. I wince every time I see that as it's going to lead to a bad injury at some point.

I have no problem with that grappling/judo move on the shoulders or torso but you are quite right that players are also twisting the heads and necks of opponents in the ruck.
It reminds me of every Stephen Segal movie that I have ever seen where he resorts to twisting bad guys heads to break their necks when his gun falls down the stairs/lift shaft/out the window/from a helicopter/runs out of bullets. It’s so obvious I find myself shouting at the ref on the tele. Will result in a bad injury before long.

Great films. Great actor. Great man.

If you see it, they see it, he sees it, she sees it, that fella sees it and the coach sees it....why oh why can't the refs see it?

Oh right - they have to be blind on the CV to get the job in the first place.

The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed. I don't for a second want to believe O'Connor would have willfully rendered an opponent unconscious.
The clearing of rucks definately needs looking at. I too have winced on many occasions when seeing the players' heads being wrenched around. Refs need to be brought to task on this so it's removed from the game before that particular horse bolts.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that some people on another forum had said Bennett's injury was a result of foul play. I never seen it so can't comment.

However someone feels there is a case to answer, so we will see what the outcome is.

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True. When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True.  When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

Absolutely, in the same way if another player was to run blindly into someone jumping for the ball, and that person was to land on his head/neck then they would both be to blame.......oh wait

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True.  When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

Nah man, I have often started a tackle at chest level and the player stays on their feet, scooches down and as a result you get a hold of his neck. I would automatically try to readjust my grip to a safe area or just release if thats not possible.

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True.  When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

That's true Fly. It's a physical, hard-as-feck sport and things like this will happen but it's not reason enough to change laws etc.
I think it's just a very unfortunate incident that could have been an awful lot worse.
I do hope it's not the end of the choke tackle as it's a potent weapon to regain possession where otherwise, as said before, it'd be simply taking turns at running at defences.

I mean the Ludik upending, on another day with another ref it's a red card. There was as much intent from Lamont (it was Lamont wasn't it?) as there was from Payne last season, i.e. none what so ever. Accidents happen and players get hurt but we can't be attributing blame to every single incident. Next it'll be rugbyclaims 4 U being advertised.

For others to judge it as foul play they must have access to video footage that doesn't appear available elsewhere. I've looked at the incident a few times on YouTube, and can't figure out exactly what happened. Hopefully there will be other camera angles the citing commission can view, and fully inform them as to exactly what happened.
It looked serious at the time, and it's just a relief that Bennett seems to have fully recovered. Personally I believe there was no malice involved. An unfortunate incident, but understand why the citing commission has been called to look into it as the player was rendered unconscious.
Hopefully O'Conner is cleared, and hopefully the manner in which O'Conner shoved Bennett off isn't a factor. There was nothing in that.

Submachine wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True.  When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

Nah man, I have often started a tackle at chest level and the player stays on their feet, scooches down and as a result you get a hold of his neck.  I would automatically try to readjust my grip to a safe area or just release if thats not possible.

Two things on that then:

One - you consider yourself morally obligated to change your grip?  If so (and it seems a natural reaction) but if so, then the player trying to get to ground knows this weakness too.  So again, the charge could be that he is placing himself in danger in order to effect a end result to his advantage.
Two - or you'd release.  Antother thing the players attempting to lower himself might then reasonably expect - and thus back again to deciding whether the held player places himself in a dangerous situation believing the mental pressure on the holder will release the hold?

The problem of course arrives when the plans don't work out like either player intended and accidents happen.

I doubt any player would ever maliciously cause a player to loose consciousness and then toss him to one side like a ragdoll. All this in full view of officials and cameras and with the knowledge that citings will look at this from every angle and attempt to judge your intent in the matter. There's no player that stupid or that callous

If different camera angles show otherwise then throw the book at him, ban him for life. If not then he has nothing to worry about only that Bennett makes a full recovery.

I don't think he has anything to worry about.
He's on hell of a player and still a cub.

Just a minute. How come we're getting more banter after a game than during/before a game?
Sure, you Ulstermen are a strange sort.

SecretFly wrote:

Submachine wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:The TV footage doesn't seem to have picked up the start of the tackle. The tackle could be legal but when you have one player trying to go to ground and a strong player heaving upwards for all he's worth there's always the chance the player could be choked out like this without blame being attributed.

True.  When the heat is up and passions are alive and each team is trying to catch every bonus or stifle one, the player in the hold can be as 'blamable' as the holder when trying to force himself down, thus lowering his head and neck into the danger territory gripwise.

Nah man, I have often started a tackle at chest level and the player stays on their feet, scooches down and as a result you get a hold of his neck.  I would automatically try to readjust my grip to a safe area or just release if thats not possible.

Two things on that then:

One - you consider yourself morally obligated to change your grip?  If so (and it seems a natural reaction) but if so, then the player trying to get to ground knows this weakness too.  So again, the charge could be that he is placing himself in danger in order to effect a end result to his advantage.
Two - or you'd release.  Antother thing the players attempting to lower himself might then reasonably expect - and thus back again to deciding whether the held player places himself in a dangerous situation believing the mental pressure on the holder will release the hold?

The problem of course arrives when the plans don't work out like either player intended and accidents happen.

One - absolutely in the same way that if a pedestrian walked in front of my car I'd feel bad if I didn't try to avoid him or at least slow down. If you're not strong enough to keep him off the ground then you're not. Keeping a hold of his head risks giving away a penalty anyway so fight the next battle.

Two - Again for the same reasons - As another example, if I could avoid walking on a players head if he's at the bottom of a ruck I would. Even if I could plausibly pass it off as accidental.

Having said that, these guys are playing at the highest level for the highest stakes but I think that increases their responsibility to each other rather than diminishes it.

There are players that are stupid or callous, but a young guy making only his second professional start and trying a bit too hard to impress is not one of them. I don't think O'Connor was being stupid or callous, I didn't think Lamont was being stupid or callous and I didn't think Payne was being stupid or callous.

And I don't see the need to go down this road or we will have citings every game.

I just looked at the incident.

Thank goodness that maul ended when it did!

I think O'Connor had no idea that Bennett was unconscious but that does not absolve him from blame or make the manoeuvre legal....or safe.

I would rather this was looked at to ensure it has less chance of happening again.
If that maul had continued it could have had a pretty terrible outcome since noone was aware that Bennett had lost consciousness.

I think Glasgow have acted correctly and that is to their credit. Much better to get this situation resolved and there has been no hyperbole about it.

Its as I said. From the maul is formed we cannot tell where O'Connors arms are. If he starts high its fair to assume its a citing. If not its hard to prove.

In honestly I don't think Townsends comments were as inflammatory as the journalistic license in the article. But I tend to agree with Notch in that it seems something bad happened by accident. If video proves otherwise then fair enough

Yes, the journalist looks like he has written a head line without reading the actual article

Standulstermen wrote:Its as I said. From the maul is formed we cannot tell where O'Connors arms are. If he starts high its fair to assume its a citing. If not its hard to prove.

In honestly I don't think Townsends comments were as inflammatory as the journalistic license in the article. But I tend to agree with Notch in that it seems something bad happened by accident. If video proves otherwise then fair enough

Surely if something bad happened then a citing and ban follows. We learned from the Payne/Goode incident it is irrelevant whether it was by accident.

Notch wrote:Sounds like sour grapes, and is very disappointing to read following the support of the Ulster paramedics and medics and the sportsmanship shown by Ulster players immediately calling for the game to be stopped.

I cannot believe that Glasgow are going to pursue this avenue given the above and the previously good relationship between the clubs. I had more respect for them than that. If there was an accident, there was an accident but it's very clear that there were a lot of Ulster playing and medical staff involved in making sure Bennett received quality treatment as quickly as possible and that could have been decisive for him. In the light of that, for Glasgow to turn around and go to the media and the citing commissioner is just... so disappointing. This could be settled behind closed doors. Glasgow have obviously chosen a different path.

While saying the injury may have broken their momentum is a convenient excuse for them in terms of talking about a game in which they were second best from the first whistle to the last, they did not need that excuse for the media.

1) Is there not an independent citing commissioner
2) this is a potentially fatal incident. People can and do die in these circumstances - its only right it is looked at for 2 reasons - to see what happened so we can avoid it again and to see if there is any foul play contributing to it.

Its no slur on Ulster, its the right thing to do and I would expect any team to do it - even I would say they have a duty to report possible fould play.

I don't wish to pour petrol on the flames BUT...
thrown from the pile of bodies like a ragdoll, obviously unconscious
Thanks for that phrase Pete.
Every First Aid course I've ever been on has stressed that if someone is unconscious and there is the possibility of a head or spinal injury do not move them. If you have to move them then do so with the minimum of movement possible. Yes, rugby is a tough, physical game but we all have a duty of care to everyone on the pitch. Anyone who treats an unconscious player in such a manner (cavalier at best, vicious at worst) should be cited.
As for the choking: you know if you've got someone round the neck. You know where your arms are. I find it hard to believe that was an accident.
What is getting me really angry as I type this is it was a hell of a contest. which Ulster would probably have won(although at that point there was nothing in it, but probably 6/4 an Ulster win) and I was genuinely impressed, again, by the Red Hand Headcases on here, but now we'll degenerate into arguing about foul play, citings and whinging.
It leaves a bad taste that in a very evenly balanced contest one side lost their 13 in an unpleasant way and the other team immediately score by attacking his channel. Glasgow then had to adopt a high risk all or nothing attacking mentality and Tommy Bowe's try made the scoreline more lopsided than it should have been.
And I hate the fact that I sound as if I'm whinging: if I wanted to do that I'd buy grooming products, exfoliate and support the MFL.

jimbopip wrote:
It leaves a bad taste that in a very evenly balanced contest one side lost their 13 in an unpleasant way and the other team immediately score by attacking his channel. Glasgow then had to adopt a high risk all or nothing attacking mentality and Tommy Bowe's try made the scoreline more lopsided than it should have been.

I'm sorry there was an injury and I'm very relieved the player is alright. But adapting to injuries is part of the game. You might think there was foul play but to claim it had a bearing on the result is unfair.

You didn't adapt to the hand you were dealt. I might also say that the player who scored the try was only on the pitch due to an injury to arguably our best player and certainly our most potent attacking threat, Andrew Trimble. We adapted to his absence which was a major blow for us. If you didn't adapt to Bennetts absence then it's not our fault. It may leave a bad taste in your mouth but it is ultimately Glasgows failure.

This is a game in which Glasgow correctly didn't get a player sent off but under many referees would have seen a red card. You would have had a right to be annoyed about that and claim it influenced the game, but instead you dodged a massive bullet. I haven't seen much mention of that.

Come on Notch, I have a higher regard for you than that. Don't take that sentence in isolation. I'm not arguing that Glasgow would have won, or should have won, I'm complaining about two things;
the injury has sent us all down a path we would rather not be on
the outside break for the try was lovely, but no-one did that to Bennett all night and probably wouldn't have if he had been on the pitch.
Also no-one has mentioned that Ulster got possession in such a good attacking position because they got the scrum because Bennett didn't get the ball to ground, well when you're being choked to unconsciousness that tends to happen.

In claiming that O'Conner should be cited for pushing off Bennett in the manner he did, you are presuming O'Conners guilt in knowing that Bennett was unconscious at the time. That is not at all clear.

Ulster out-thought, and out played Glasgow on the night. Glasgow didn't look close to scoring a Try all evening, whereas Ulster did before the first Try through Gilroy.

Sure you still have an opportunity to even the score come Ulsters visit to Glasgow

You're making a lot of assumptions about what happened that I don't accept. This is much more likely to be an unfortunate accident and to throw around that foul play canard and infer that O'Connor knew Bennett was out cold is, at best, a slur with little to support it. So if you're starting with a slur thats not a great start. He might have him high but there's no evidence that that has happened because he is trying to do anything other than stop the player. The TV replay does not show whether Bennett ducks into it or not, no amount of replays will show that because Sky didn't. The citing commission may be able to make an informed decision based on TV footage that is not in the public domain. But I've watched it again and again and there is no evidence of foul play in that clip. And there is no evidence he knew the player was unconscious when he pushed him off- none whatsoever. That is a pure inference on your part and I don't see how he could be aware Bennett was unconscious.

My suspicion is we have what happens all the time when a very tall player tackles a shorter player who is ducking into a tackle but there is no more evidence to support that on the broadcasted footage than there is to support allegations of foul play.

You could pick any incident in the game and say this wouldn't have happened if such and such had been there and infer cause and effect to support your argument, but the truth is both teams can do it. It's cherry picking incidents to make a case. And we could do it as easily, if we didn't have an academy lock on the pitch we might have held him up a lot better! If we had Jackson or Pienaar, etc. etc. It's not about who's missing, it's about the 15 players on the field. You have to be able to adapt to losing any one of those players.

Young guys make mistakes, I would have thought us being forced to put in a young lock would have been to your advantage etc. etc. and we could go on forever. It's nonsense. Things happen in a game. You adapt or you lose. We had to adapt to losing key players to injury both during the game and before it. It's not an excuse.

jimbopip wrote:I don't wish to pour petrol on the flames BUT...
thrown from the pile of bodies like a ragdoll, obviously unconscious
Thanks for that phrase Pete.
Every First Aid course I've ever been on has stressed that if someone is unconscious and there is the possibility of a head or spinal injury do not move them. If you have to move them then do so with the minimum of movement possible. Yes, rugby is a tough, physical game but we all have a duty of care to everyone on the pitch. Anyone who treats an unconscious player in such a manner (cavalier at best, vicious at worst) should be cited.
As for the choking: you know if you've got someone round the neck. You know where your arms are. I find it hard to believe that was an accident.
What is getting me really angry as I type this is it was a hell of a contest. which Ulster would probably have won(although at that point there was nothing in it, but probably 6/4 an Ulster win) and I was genuinely impressed, again, by the Red Hand Headcases on here, but now we'll degenerate into arguing about foul play, citings and whinging.

And I hate the fact that I sound as if I'm whinging: if I wanted to do that I'd buy grooming products, exfoliate and support the MFL.

OK Ulstermen, because 've always enjoyed the banter with you guys I have excised the only thing I think might be contentious.
You don't hold someone round the neck until they pass out and not know you're doing it.
Throwing someone "like a ragdoll" takes a conscious effort, that was no accident.
And we have degenerated into arguing about the wrong things.
Let's agree to disagree for the time being.

This is indeed a young player and I hope that is taken into account if they decide he has a case to answer but an incident that may have involved foul play, even accidental foul play, that leads to such serious consequences must be examined.

I do not see that as slur on either O'Connor or Ulster, just responsible management.

As for the way O'Connor pushed Bennett off him after the whistle, it was terrible but only if you believe that O'Connor realised that Bennett was unconscious and is both callous and incredibly stupid as it happened right in front of both the ref and the TJ. I prefer to think he had no idea that Bennett was unconscious and just pushed him away as he would any player laying on top of him.

MrsP wrote:This is indeed a young player and I hope that is taken into account if they decide he has a case to answer but an incident that may have involved foul play, even accidental foul play, that leads to such serious consequences must be examined.

I do not see that as slur on either O'Connor or Ulster, just responable management.

As for the way O'Connor pushed Bennett off him after the whistle, it was terrible but only if you believe that O'Connor realised that Bennett was unconscious and is both calous and incredibly stupid as it happened right in front of both the ref and the TJ. I prefer to think he had no idea that Bennett was unconscious and just pushed him away as he would any player laying on top of him.

Sure but let's get proof. Lets not infer things that can't possibly be proven based on the footage we have because it suits our agenda. I sincerely doubt that he could have known Bennett was unconscious- there's no evidence to support that, there's no evidence that can prove that one way or the other so that will basically come down to O'Connors word... or to what extent the citing commission wants to justify their own existence

REmember guys this could be reckless rather than malicious - ie over zealous with no thought for the consequences in the heat of the moment rather than deliberate.

TJ wrote:REmember guys  this could be reckless rather than malicious - ie over zealous with no thought for the consequences in the heat of the moment rather than deliberate.

It's extremely likely that it being reckless is in fact the worst case scenario.

Absolutely gutted for O'Connor. Second game, a petty citing and now the biggest day of his rugby career at Welford Road could be taken away from him. Absolutely sickened for him. Very rarely does a citing commission not enforce some kind of ban regardless of whether or not it is deserved. If you go through the minutiae of the laws you could cite half a dozen players every game. I've seen no evidence to suggest it was anything more than an accident and hopefully the panel take that into account.

Whets the appetite for the return game at Scotstoun, proper grudge match now.

Nonsense notch - this is not a petty citing - a possible head high tackle resulting in an unconscious player? Its exactly what citing was meant for. If you don't cite this then what would you?

The Great Aukster wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Its as I said. From the maul is formed we cannot tell where O'Connors arms are. If he starts high its fair to assume its a citing. If not its hard to prove.

In honestly I don't think Townsends comments were as inflammatory as the journalistic license in the article. But I tend to agree with Notch in that it seems something bad happened by accident. If video proves otherwise then fair enough

Surely if something bad happened then a citing and ban follows. We learned from the Payne/Goode incident it is irrelevant whether it was by accident.

i m coming from the point of view of what i would like to happen. In talking of potentially fatal collisions have we overlooked Louis ludik landing on his neck. If intent is irrelevant then we are talking a citing and facing a long ban for lamont. Imo it was an accident and appropriately dealt with

I would prefer if these things were settled in the changing rooms. Ask the guy was it intentional? If he says it wasn't and apologises afterwards, shake hands and move on. A bit of honour and sportsmanship could stop these cases even getting before a citing commission.

If there is evidence that it was intentional then cite. It seems to have crept into rugby that some clubs are happy to try and get guys banned if they lose. It seems like an unnecessarily vindictive culture. I'm wondering if there was even any dialogue between the two teams prior to this coming out.