Leinster vs Edinburgh - Friday 15 April 2016

First topic message reminder :


LEINSTER


EDINBURGH
Players not considered due to injury: Mike Coman (calf), Jack Cuthbert (knee), Nathan Fowles (shoulder), Grant Gilchrist (arm), Will Helu (pectoral), Nasi Manu (neck), Fraser McKenzie (neck), Matt Scott (arm), Jade Te Rure (knee).


Edinburgh Rugby v Leinster, Friday 15 April 2016, RDS Dublin, kick-off 7.35pm

15. Blair Kinghorn

14. Damien Hoyland

13. Chris Dean

12. Phil Burleigh

11. Tom Brown

10. Jason Tovey

9.   Sam Hidalgo-Clyne



1. Alasdair Dickinson

2. Ross Ford (captain)

3. WP Nel

4. Anton Bresler

5. Ben Toolis

6. Jamie Ritchie

7. John Hardie

8. Cornell Du Preez



Substitutes

16. Stuart McInally

17. Rory Sutherland

18. John Andress

19. Alex Toolis

20. Magnus Bradbury

21. Hamish Watson

22. Sean Kennedy

23. Mike Allan



Leinster (63)

Playing For: Home Playoff

Run in: Ulster (A), Treviso (H)


Edinburgh (52)

Playing for: Top 6 Qualification

Run in: Munster (A), Cardiff (H)



Outlook

It's hard to see anything but a Leinster win here. This is an ideal opportunity for Leinster to get 5 points against an Edinburgh side that only mustered a try bonus point against Zebre in the final minutes. With a tough trip to Ulster the following week, this might be a good opportunity for Leinster to rest/not risk a few key players.

For Edinburgh, I don't think a top 6 place is vital. Of course it would be nice to see the likes of Toulon/Saracens/Wasps/Racing come to Murrayfield although it would not help to develop young players (or the whole team tbh). I'd like to see Edinburgh use the run-in to finish the season on a high and bring back the strong defence that has gone on holiday recently.

Judging the Irish TMO too - if that was Edinburgh would he have been more vocal?

Outrageous decision

Well Edinburgh partially redeemed themselves in the end, but threw the match away at the beginning of the second half.

That tackle better get a citing, it was an absolute shocker

He was the last man, so card and penalty try. I hope there is a citing. The officials completely bottled it

demosthenes wrote:

Munchkin wrote:That's a ridiculous call by the ref. At least a yellow, but I think a red.

Absolutely.  Total bottle / wrong call by the ref.  Did I hear him say something to the effect that "he didn't have time " to get the arms round?

Yes, apparently it's ok to smash a head with the shoulder, so long as the attacking player is crashing into his opponent at speed. No time to wrap the arm.... What a stupid decision.

Well I would have taken a lbp before the game so can't really complain.

That tackle has left a bitter taste in the mouth though.

We played some great rugby in the last 20 minutes - why do we only do that when we're points down??

What was the tackle thingy?

And that, gentleman, is why rugby is becoming more and more like football.

Punishing the outcome rather than the act.

The fact that Hoyland got up and kept on going, while McFadden was the one left on the ground no doubt influenced the decision.

If that same tackle had been made on Jonathon Sexton he'd have been rolling about on floor like he was on fire holding his head (after throwing his arms up to appeal, of course) and it would undoubtedly have been a red.

We need to start punishing the action rather than the outcome, or else we will keep on seeing things like this go unpunished while players continue to get sent off for accidents where the player happens to land slightly awkwardly.

BigGee wrote:

bsando wrote:Nice try! Kennedy is looking good at SH, good control/speed

Apart from the howler for the interception try!

Just rewinded to have a look. So Tovey missed touch with his low weak kick to the corner. Du Preez threw a ropey pass to Kennedy who somehow managed to not knock it on. Unfortunately it might have been better if he had because Kennedy then threw a rather rushed lofty pass which was clearly a reaction to pressure being applied by Leinster.

My opinion would be Tovey is an idiot, Du Preez should have just gone into contact instead of trying to counter attack, it was definitely not on and Kennedy should have gone to ground. I think its harsh to blame Kennedy it was a sequence of stupidity.

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

Really pleased with the effort and skill shown by Edinburgh in that second half. Yes, an utterly daft period of play around the 50 minute mark cost us the contest. Quite how we turned an attacking penalty into -7 points in less than 30 seconds I'll never know. Still, really good effort in the end and good continuity of possession to open Leinster up a few times. Leinster were a bit too slick for us at times but a LBP well deserved.

As for the high tackle from McFadden, I saw that as a straight red and a penalty try as the last defender. Hoyland had the other two defenders well beaten. I'm not grumbling about the result, but that's a player safety issue. It was an utterly reckless piece of play from McFadden.

RDW_Scotland wrote:https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Sweet lord, that is not pleasant!

In terms of individual performances I thought Ben Toolis and Michael Allen were tireless, and Sutherland brought real impact off the bench. I also thought Sean Kennedy had one of his best games for Edinburgh. Really came on and added tempo. Du Preez also had one of those games where he showed up. A couple of loose passes but his ball carrying was powerful.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

The guys an idiot. Looking at it again I'm more convinced it was a red.

Munchkin wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

The guys an idiot. Looking at it again I'm more convinced it was a red.

Thought it was going be red, but to get away with just a penalty farical. Total home advantage there.

Also factor in that McFadden is the last man & you've strong ground for a penalty try. Take him out of the equation & Hoyland has no one to step & goes under the posts.

Anywho, congrats Leinster.

First half wasn't up to much with both defences cancelling each other out, but the second half more than made up for it. Some lovely play, and Edinburgh can play sexy rugby

bsando wrote:

BigGee wrote:

bsando wrote:Nice try! Kennedy is looking good at SH, good control/speed

Apart from the howler for the interception try!

Just rewinded to have a look. So Tovey missed touch with his low weak kick to the corner. Du Preez threw a ropey pass to Kennedy who somehow managed to not knock it on. Unfortunately it might have been better if he had because Kennedy then threw a rather rushed lofty pass which was clearly a reaction to pressure being applied by Leinster.

My opinion would be Tovey is an idiot, Du Preez should have just gone into contact instead of trying to counter attack, it was definitely not on and Kennedy should have gone to ground. I think its harsh to blame Kennedy it was a sequence of stupidity.

Agree it was a catalogue of errors, the worst of which was by Tovey. Kennedy would have been well advised to hang onto it though. Otherwise he played pretty well and I say that having not seen a lot in him so far, better than SHC, but that has been generally the case this season.

Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly. McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms - the 'intention' to use them being both hopelessly subjective and completely irrelevant according to the laws. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Sam Warbuton being a super chap who always calls his mum each Sunday correctly had no bearing on his tip tackle red card. Not good at all and I would be astounded if there is not at least a citing hearing.

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Utter nonsense - look at the replay again.  Shoulder into chin.  No arms, dead cert yellow, possible red.  No penalty try - there were defenders around

Intent of wrapping arms? no way Jose and even then it doesn't matter - no arms tackle is no arms tackle.

George Carlin wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Because that's how you see it. Others see it differently.

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

So if you go with the intent to kick the ball but kick someone in the head it shouldn't be a red?

Same logic.

The hard fact is it was a high shoulder charge - what he intended to do with his arms is irrelevant

RDW_Scotland wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

So if you go with the intent to kick the ball but kick someone in the head it shouldn't be a red?

Same logic.

The hard fact is it was a high shoulder charge - what he intended to do with his arms is irrelevant

No it's not.

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Actually RDW - that wouldn't even be a penalty if you go to fly hack and someone falls on it before you connnect

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense. I have a cup of it here.

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

Maybe Hoyland should have "done a Sexton" and milked it for all it was worth, you know like a cheat, but the only bit of cheating came from the Leinster 14

Lets see what the citing commissioner says without a partisan crowd

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

Ha!
But seriously unless I've slept through another World Rugby law change, really can't see how that wasn't worthy of a card.

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

I'd suggest you digest the rulebook over that cup of common sense.

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.

cakeordeath wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

Maybe Hoyland should have "done a Sexton" and milked it for all it was worth, you know like a cheat, but the only bit of cheating came from the Leinster 14

You need to look at the Sexton incident again and see what actually happened.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

I'd suggest you digest the rulebook over that cup of common sense.

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.

A recurring theme amongst some Scottish fans obviously. You need to look at the Sexton incident again to see what actually happened.

Pot Hale wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Because that's how you see it. Others see it differently.

Law 10.4(e) and (g) describes it very clearly.

Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

Is the citing officer Irish?

Genuine question.

George Carlin wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:

George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right

Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Because that's how you see it. Others see it differently.

Law 10.4(e) and (g) describes it very clearly.

Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

I know the feeling.

Well I was really impressed by Hoyland for continuing to go forwards!! How did he not break his neck?! That looked so much worse than the hit Thom Evans took to end his career.

RDW_Scotland wrote:Is the citing officer Irish?

Genuine question.

Who knows? Genuine answer.

Pot Hale wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

I'd suggest you digest the rulebook over that cup of common sense.

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.

A recurring theme amongst some Scottish fans obviously. You need to look at the Sexton incident again to see what actually happened.

I wasn't referring to a specific incident with Sexton. Just the general clamour in Ireland anytime someone touches his hair. It's why I find your misunderstanding of the rules in order to justify an obvious piece of foul play in this particular incident rather amusing.

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:

GLove39 wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:Tackle was fair by McFadden. Don't know why it was even a penalty. Wrong call by ref being pushed into giving something to Edinburgh they were complaining so loudly.  McFadden clearly went in with intent of wrapping arms.

Edinburgh were fortunate to get the losing bonus point in my view.

Some of what you're smoking / injecting / snorting / please

Common sense.  I have a cup of it here.

I'd suggest you digest the rulebook over that cup of common sense.

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.

A recurring theme amongst some Scottish fans obviously. You need to look at the Sexton incident again to see what actually happened.

I wasn't referring to a specific incident with Sexton. Just the general clamour in Ireland anytime someone touches his hair. It's why I find your misunderstanding of the rules in order to justify an obvious piece of foul play in this particular incident rather amusing.

I think he is referring to my remark, which was snide, but truthful

bsando wrote:Well I was really impressed by Hoyland for continuing to go forwards!! How did he not break his neck?! That looked so much worse than the hit Thom Evans took to end his career.

Agreed, he did well to spring back up and keep going, and let's not overlook his searing pace to get past the other two Leinster defenders. Were they forwards??

Still, if we are to progress as a side we need to take a look at some of those Leinster backline moves and try to emulate. The use of dummy runners and inside passes cut us open on numerous occasions. We also need to replicate that sort of urgency we showed in the last 20 minutes. We produced nothing like that in the 29-0 win over Zebre.

George Carlin wrote:Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

Just logging on here now and didn't see the game, but after watching it several times it very, very much seems the initial contact is across the shoulder before riding up. The timing of the tackle makes it clumsy, dangerous to both- and unintentional, as well as initially legal. McFadden isn't in control of the tackle and messes up his technique but he doesn't take the player above the shoulders and given the speed it happens at and the fact he's incredibly unbalanced as he tries to predict whether Hoyland who is at full pelt the clumsiness is going to step and if so which way, this can't be held against him.That should be case closed. I can see a penalty given and I can even see a yellow card with a really harsh referee, but this can't possibly be seen as a red card incident. I'm sorry.

Given the importance of our next game against Leinster no-one would be happier than me to see a few bans but on that evidence it ain't gonna happen.

I do agree that Hoyland could have been seriously hurt, by the way, but this is true of so many completely legal tackles now that if we continue to watch and support rugby union in this era of brutal collisions we have to admit we are okay with watching a sport where players are seriously putting their future health on the line every time they take contact. Either we change the game to de-emphasise certain things and reduce contact, like banning jumping in the air, or we admit that rugby at the top-level has become very high-risk- in my opinion, nearly unacceptably so.

Citing Commissioner: Tim Lowry (IRFU) -Ulster Branch
TMO: Dermot Moloney (IRFU) Munster Branch

Initial contact looks pretty high to me

Then why did you post a picture that shows his arms wrapping around the players shoulders?

I guess the only argument is that the shoulder is high, but Ive watched it half a dozen times and the line of McFaddens shoulder and his tricep takes Hoyland across the line of his shoulders/collarbone.

He clearly tries to wrap his arms but the force of the tackle makes the two players bump off each other. What's all this nonsense coming out now about refereeing bias towards Leinster on here? It's bad enough we have to hear it after every game from certain welsh people.

Dollar Bill wrote:Citing Commissioner: Tim Lowry (IRFU) -Ulster Branch
TMO: Dermot Moloney (IRFU) Munster Branch

No one is claiming bias - but its a clear no arms tackle and high.  no question at all. His arms fly out and to an extent round from the force of the impact. He makes no attempt to grab and the shoulder goes in under the chin.

Shame for Mitrea - I like his reffing and I thought he had a good game but that is a very poor decision - let down by the TMO

TJ wrote:No one is claiming bias - but its a clear no arms tackle and high.  no question at all.

I'm not sure how you can say there is no bias and still come to that conclusion, to be somewhat direct- I think in the cold light of day after the immediate poist-game emotions have cooled it won't be such a big deal. I've no dog in this fight myself. If they're going to cite him and ban him it'll only weaken them ahead of their visit to Ravenhill so its very much in my interest to be wrong about this and I won't mind if I am!

What is very scary is that a few cm higher and that could have been a broken neck. Given the speed everything happened at it is incredibly good luck that he walked up from it.

So whatever people think about the technicalities, surely we can agree it was incredibly reckless (but not deliberate) and it is only down to luck that it wasn't much worse?

Notch wrote:

George Carlin wrote:Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

Just logging on here now and didn't see the game, but after watching it several times it very, very much seems the initial contact is across the shoulder before riding up. The timing of the tackle makes it clumsy, dangerous to both- and unintentional, as well as initially legal. McFadden isn't in control of the tackle and messes up his technique but he doesn't take the player above the shoulders and given the speed it happens at and the fact he's incredibly unbalanced as he tries to predict whether Hoyland who is at full pelt the clumsiness is going to step and if so which way, this can't be held against him.That should be case closed. I can see a penalty given and I can even see a yellow card with a really harsh referee, but this can't possibly be seen as a red card incident. I'm sorry.

Given the importance of our next game against Leinster no-one would be happier than me to see a few bans but on that evidence it ain't gonna happen.

I do agree that Hoyland could have been seriously hurt, by the way, but this is true of so many completely legal tackles now that if we continue to watch and support rugby union in this era of brutal collisions we have to admit we are okay with watching a sport where players are seriously putting their future health on the line every time they take contact. Either we change the game to de-emphasise certain things and reduce contact, like banning jumping in the air, or we admit that rugby at the top-level has become very high-risk- in my opinion, nearly unacceptably so.

Completely disagree. McFaddens body is moving upwards, from a crouch, and was always going to hit high. The initial contact was shoulder to shoulder, but looks to have caught the chin as well. There's no way you can prove that he was attempting to wrap his arm around, rather than raise his arm for the hit. Whatever about intent, it was completely reckless, and very dangerous.

Guys, it doesn't matter the citing officers nationality. Thinking that because he's Irish is going mean he's biased is nonsense. I understand the anger, but a bit of perspective is needed