Europe (ish) round 4

First topic message reminder :

Starting on Friday night with the Ospreys visit to Welford Road. The Ospreys were somewhat humiliated to lose to a heavily rotated Tigers side in Wales but have since then been impressive beating Montpelier home and away. Tigers have beaten Clermont home and away but had issues with injuries and some shocking league form (as well as losing their head coach and defence coach).

The teams for this one showing a good number of internationals and Owen Williams returns to Welford Road. Tigers still very short on outside backs but the return to the bench of Montoya is a huge boost, particularly with the 6N just round the corner. The second row could be a fun watch with Tigers sporting Chessum and Henderson who have both been selected for the 6N and who are 23 or under Vs AWJ and Beard the experienced Welsh campaigners. Nicky Smith Vs Cole will be a fun watch, Smith caused Heyes all sorts of issues in the last game, on rare occasions he even did it legally, and having been snubbed by Gatland he'll want to lay a marker down against Dan Cole who's managed to force his way back into England contention at 35 (he could reach his century of caps as well).

STARTING XV
15 Freddie Steward [66]
14 Harry Potter [55]
13 Matt Scott [56]
12 Dan Kelly [50]
11 Harry Simmons [28]
10 Handré Pollard [3]
9 Jack van Poortvliet (vc) [59]
1 James Whitcombe [33]
2 Charlie Clare [67]
3 Dan Cole (vc) [303]
4 Ollie Chessum [42]
5 Cameron Henderson [26]
6 Hanro Liebenberg (c) [73]
7 Tommy Reffell [90]
8 Olly Cracknell [13]

REPLACEMENTS
16 Julián Montoya [32]
17 Dan Richardson [8]
18 Will Hurd [17]
19 Harry Wells [170]
20 Sean Jansen [14]
21 Ben Youngs [293]
22 Jimmy Gopperth [8]
23 Charlie Atkinson [9]

Ospreys: C Evans; Cuthbert, Collins, Hawkins, Giles; O Williams, Morgan-Williams; Smith, Lake, Botha, Beard, AW Jones, R Davies, Tipuric (capt), J Morgan.

Replacements: Baldwin, G Thomas, Henry, Sutton, Morris, Aubrey, K Williams, North.

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Vunipola quick to pick on the Eztebeth ruck technique. Gonna keep binding honest.

But why did the ref send him back?

Because he didn't realise initially....then he did when vunipola said about the bind. Its a correction by him else he'd have given a pen after the sh was intimidated by a charging Billy.

That was a really poor decision from Edinburgh at the end, got to be more aware of the bigger picture.

Really odd game from Saracens, they looked like they just didn't want to be there, inaccurate and sulky.

Yeah even with Leicester s patchy form this season it's not the first choice place you want to go for a knock out game.

Cumbrian wrote:That was a really poor decision from Edinburgh at the end, got to be more aware of the bigger picture.

Really odd game from Saracens, they looked like they just didn't want to be there, inaccurate and sulky.  

Edinburgh may prefer to go away to Leicester than be at home to Munster!


Saracens were lucky only to get 3 YCs. Either of the tackle ones could have been seen as red and numerous other killing of the ball on the line in the first half should also have been punished.


Quite why Jamie George was allowed back on is a bit of a mystery as well!

During the round-up after the match when they showed the last try in the Montpellier v Irish match the SH dummied from the base of the scrum - thought that wasn't allowed or it is just at rucks?

Heaf wrote:During the round-up after the match when they showed the last try in the Montpellier v Irish match the SH dummied from the base of the scrum - thought that wasn't allowed or it is just at rucks?

Another ignored rule. Nearly every single box kick the sh dummies.

BigGee wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:That was a really poor decision from Edinburgh at the end, got to be more aware of the bigger picture.

Really odd game from Saracens, they looked like they just didn't want to be there, inaccurate and sulky.  

Edinburgh may prefer to go away to Leicester than be at home to Munster!


Saracens were lucky only to get 3 YCs. Either of the tackle ones could have been seen as red and numerous other killing of the ball on the line in the first half should also have been punished.


Quite why Jamie George was allowed back on is a bit of a mystery as well!

Presumably passed his hia and they didn't see him groggy.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Vunipola quick to pick on the Eztebeth ruck technique. Gonna keep binding honest.

But why did the ref send him back?

Because he didn't realise initially....then he did when vunipola said about the bind. Its a correction by him else he'd have given a pen after the sh was intimidated by a charging Billy.

The Edinburgh 9 should have been pinged multiple times for taking well over 5 seconds after the call of use it. Absolutely ridiculous, ref calls use it and the 9 calls in a couple more forwards for a bigger caterpillar and then slowly rolls it to the back, sets himself, has a cup of tea and then finally kicks the blessed thing. As a neutral it was painful as it slowed down an entertaining game.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:That was a really poor decision from Edinburgh at the end, got to be more aware of the bigger picture.

Really odd game from Saracens, they looked like they just didn't want to be there, inaccurate and sulky.  

Edinburgh may prefer to go away to Leicester than be at home to Munster!


Saracens were lucky only to get 3 YCs. Either of the tackle ones could have been seen as red and numerous other killing of the ball on the line in the first half should also have been punished.


Quite why Jamie George was allowed back on is a bit of a mystery as well!

Presumably passed his hia and they didn't see him groggy.

he was clearly groggy after the hit and the neutral doc disagrees with you hence he was pulled

TJ wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

BigGee wrote:

Cumbrian wrote:That was a really poor decision from Edinburgh at the end, got to be more aware of the bigger picture.

Really odd game from Saracens, they looked like they just didn't want to be there, inaccurate and sulky.  

Edinburgh may prefer to go away to Leicester than be at home to Munster!


Saracens were lucky only to get 3 YCs. Either of the tackle ones could have been seen as red and numerous other killing of the ball on the line in the first half should also have been punished.


Quite why Jamie George was allowed back on is a bit of a mystery as well!

Presumably passed his hia and they didn't see him groggy.

he was clearly groggy after the hit and the neutral doc disagrees with you hence he was pulled

Er you misunderstand. I'm saying the people giving him am hia didn't see him groggy.

Sarries doctor. what a suprise.

Sarries showed what a dirty bunch of cheats they are today. got away with a lot of it as well. should have been more yellows

TJ wrote:Sarries doctor.  what a suprise.

Sarries showed what a dirty bunch of cheats they are today.  got away with a lot of it as well.  should have been more yellows

Lol. As ever, lol.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Vunipola quick to pick on the Eztebeth ruck technique. Gonna keep binding honest.

But why did the ref send him back?

Because he didn't realise initially....then he did when vunipola said about the bind. Its a correction by him else he'd have given a pen after the sh was intimidated by a charging Billy.

The Edinburgh 9 should have been pinged multiple times for taking well over 5 seconds after the call of use it. Absolutely ridiculous, ref calls use it and the 9 calls in a couple more forwards for a bigger caterpillar and then slowly rolls it to the back, sets himself, has a cup of tea and then finally kicks the blessed thing. As a neutral it was painful as it slowed down an entertaining game.

That tactic did not do any favours to Edinburgh as both their SHs were hopelessly slow getting the ball away from any occasion, set piece or the loose. If Edinburgh could have got any momentum in their backs to match their forward dominance, they would have won that match at a canter.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:During the round-up after the match when they showed the last try in the Montpellier v Irish match the SH dummied from the base of the scrum - thought that wasn't allowed or it is just at rucks?

Another ignored rule. Nearly every single box kick the sh dummies.

So Reinach scored a try in both matches that should have been disallowed if either the ref or TMO had been competent - would have been 2 wins for Irish and a place in the last 16 ... oh well

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:During the round-up after the match when they showed the last try in the Montpellier v Irish match the SH dummied from the base of the scrum - thought that wasn't allowed or it is just at rucks?

Another ignored rule. Nearly every single box kick the sh dummies.

So Reinach scored a try in both matches that should have been disallowed if either the ref or TMO had been competent - would have been 2 wins for Irish and a place in the last 16 ... oh well

When was the last time you ever saw it penalised. You want consistency, it is consistently ignored.

Difficult route for the Ospreys; Montpellier away, Tigers away, and now Saracens away in the KO stages.

mikey_dragon wrote:Difficult route for the Ospreys; Montpellier away, Tigers away, and now Saracens away in the KO stages.

Yeah very tough. Kind of bizarre that the Ospreys are around 13th in the league are able to qualify for the champions cup knock out stages but struggle so much in the league.

Even worse though that Gloucester get thrashed twice but still qualify and Ulster and Montpellier qualify with just one win.

Yeah all of that is a bit strange. I expect Ospreys will start picking up more wins in the league now though, not sure if they'll catch the top 4.

Random items from the Pool Stages;
- All French sides in Pool A were in the bottom 4 (non progressed to knockout)
- 3 of the 4 English sides in Pool B were in the bottom 4 (Leicester being the exception)
- We have a team from every Union that entered the pool stages progressing to the knockouts (Italy weren't represented)
- Leinster's points difference of 150, beats second and third points difference combined (Exeter 71 and Rochelais 63)
- Gloucester had the worst points difference of -78 and still made the knockout stages
- Exeter and Leinster picked up TBPs in all four fixtures
- 3 URC teams, 3 English sides and 2 french sides are hosting their games in the next round (fairly even distribution)
- The SA sides, new to the comp, got 3 through to knockouts with 2 teams hosting their next game
- Leinster v Ulster and Sharks v Munster are the only same league fixtures in the next round

Nice stats. Shame Leinster have to play Ulster for the 2nd year in a row. Anyone else.

Collapse2005 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Difficult route for the Ospreys; Montpellier away, Tigers away, and now Saracens away in the KO stages.

Yeah very tough. Kind of bizarre that the Ospreys are around 13th in the league are able to qualify for the champions cup knock out stages but struggle so much in the league.

Even worse though that Gloucester get thrashed twice but still qualify and Ulster and Montpellier qualify with just one win.

Didn't Ospreys really only start to click once Owen Williams came in for the injured Anscombe around the first game Vs Montpellier?

Also. The Pool stages are a bit too forgiving. Just a single win kept a team a knockout competition (falling into the parker pen!).
I wonder is this why this format hasn't had (in my memory) an entertaining start or first two rounds.
It used to be that you had to win your home games and pick up something on the road to progress.
No you can lose both matches before xmas and still know you have 2 chances to progress.
That's why rounds 3 and 4 get exciting?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

mikey_dragon wrote:Difficult route for the Ospreys; Montpellier away, Tigers away, and now Saracens away in the KO stages.

Yeah very tough. Kind of bizarre that the Ospreys are around 13th in the league are able to qualify for the champions cup knock out stages but struggle so much in the league.

Even worse though that Gloucester get thrashed twice but still qualify and Ulster and Montpellier qualify with just one win.

Didn't Ospreys really only start to click once Owen Williams came in for the injured Anscombe around the first game Vs Montpellier?

Did it start when Tips got fed up of having to give the ball to the outhalf and started to take the more attacking tactical kicks himself!

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Also.  The Pool stages are a bit too forgiving. Just a single win kept a team a knockout competition (falling into the parker pen!).
I wonder is this why this format hasn't had (in my memory) an entertaining start or first two rounds.
It used to be that you had to win your home games and pick up something on the road to progress.
No you can lose both matches before xmas and still know you have 2 chances to progress.
That's why rounds 3 and 4 get exciting?

Yeah you have to feel for the Ospreys, 3 wins including 2 on the road & they get Saracens.

Oakdene wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Also.  The Pool stages are a bit too forgiving. Just a single win kept a team a knockout competition (falling into the parker pen!).
I wonder is this why this format hasn't had (in my memory) an entertaining start or first two rounds.
It used to be that you had to win your home games and pick up something on the road to progress.
No you can lose both matches before xmas and still know you have 2 chances to progress.
That's why rounds 3 and 4 get exciting?

Yeah you have to feel for the Ospreys, 3 wins including 2 on the road & they get Saracens.

It was the same last year for us (Ulster), absolutely smashed the pool stages only to get Toulouse.
This year we had an awful pool stage and get Leinster which is more in line with what you'd expect. We're still going to stuff them mind you

Oakdene wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Also.  The Pool stages are a bit too forgiving. Just a single win kept a team a knockout competition (falling into the parker pen!).
I wonder is this why this format hasn't had (in my memory) an entertaining start or first two rounds.
It used to be that you had to win your home games and pick up something on the road to progress.
No you can lose both matches before xmas and still know you have 2 chances to progress.
That's why rounds 3 and 4 get exciting?

Yeah you have to feel for the Ospreys, 3 wins including 2 on the road & they get Saracens.

Sarries didnt look that good against Edinburgh yesterday, Edinburgh really should have beat them by a lot more that 6 points.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Oakdene wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:Also.  The Pool stages are a bit too forgiving. Just a single win kept a team a knockout competition (falling into the parker pen!).
I wonder is this why this format hasn't had (in my memory) an entertaining start or first two rounds.
It used to be that you had to win your home games and pick up something on the road to progress.
No you can lose both matches before xmas and still know you have 2 chances to progress.
That's why rounds 3 and 4 get exciting?

Yeah you have to feel for the Ospreys, 3 wins including 2 on the road & they get Saracens.

Sarries didnt look that good against Edinburgh yesterday, Edinburgh really should have beat them by a lot more that 6 points.

Agreed they really struggled with the game played by Saracens, that said their own discipline cost them 3 yellow cards.

I think they will be a different proposition at home.

I thought they probably could have had more than three yellows. Sarries kept killing the ball on their own line right in front of the ref. Was quite cynical from them.

I suppose the SA sides will be satisfied to have at least made the play offs. Though the Bulls were a bit disappointing.

Old Man wrote:I suppose the SA sides will be satisfied to have at least made the play offs. Though the Bulls were a bit disappointing.

They have done well. This season the test for them was always going to be to see how their squad depth holds up in the URC and the Champions Cup which for most sides is a tough task.

The Stormers and the Bulls have a good chance now that the six nations is on to close in on Leinster at the top of the league.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:During the round-up after the match when they showed the last try in the Montpellier v Irish match the SH dummied from the base of the scrum - thought that wasn't allowed or it is just at rucks?

Another ignored rule. Nearly every single box kick the sh dummies.

So Reinach scored a try in both matches that should have been disallowed if either the ref or TMO had been competent - would have been 2 wins for Irish and a place in the last 16 ... oh well

When was the last time you ever saw it penalised. You want consistency, it is consistently ignored.

I want the laws applied consistently - if a law is always ignored then remove it, but don't ignore a clear infringement and then penalise the opposition player that's caught offside because of it ... I'm not sure I agree that it happens all the time however, will have to look closer.

Collapse2005 wrote:Nice stats. Shame Leinster have to play Ulster for the 2nd year in a row. Anyone else.

Leinster played Connacht last year. Not Ulster.

I was kind of doubting myself as I wrote it but all the same its just playing another Irish province isnt what I would want.

TJ wrote:

Haven't seen the tackle so don't know why - still lacking consistency?

Francis was stood still so passive tackle so yellow is right.  

Citing officer apparently disagrees ...

Heaf wrote:

TJ wrote:

Haven't seen the tackle so don't know why - still lacking consistency?

Francis was stood still so passive tackle so yellow is right.  

Citing officer apparently disagrees ...

Looks like it.  Im surprised.  Perhaps on the grounds it was not an attempt at a wrap therefore no mitigation to be applied?

Edit - I would have been better to say I understand why the ref gave yellow rather than its right

If that one got cited, i can't see why the two Sarries players who got YCs as well are also not cited. Both were lazy upright tackles that made no wrapping attempt and resulted in head contact.

To be honest it's sometimes difficult to follow which rationale they are using from one incident to another. Sometimes they say there was direct head to head but it was passive so that mitigates it to yellow. Sometimes they say initial contact was with another body part then head so that mitigates it. Sometimes a player makes an otherwise legal tackle eg wraps arms around shoulder/chest but the whiplash from the tackle brings their heads together and that's not mitigated because they were upright. It's a bit of a minefield ...

It is a minefield. They need to tackle lower to try and avoid it really.

A the more reasons to gjve them RCs when they do stupid tackles

Probably the only thing that will het through to them!

Warwick, of Ulster, got a ban from the citing office when Manu ran into him.
I not even convinced Warwick saw him coming, he was just taking a position in the defensive line

As passive a stop, you couldnt call it a tackle he didn't move towards Manu at all

Totally farce, the whole thing is a lottery

Until decision are made on actions not outcomes this farce will continue

I do think that the passive tackles where the tackler is stationary even if they are high do not merit a red card. The dangerous tackles really involve the tackler hitting someone with force and those are the ones that should be sanctioned if the tackler gets them wrong.

Collapse2005 wrote:I do think that the passive tackles where the tackler is stationary even if they are high do not merit a red card. The dangerous tackles really involve the tackler hitting someone with force and those are the ones that should be sanctioned if the tackler gets them wrong.

I agree somewhat however the crux of it if they're both head on head then they should be red.

Are you saying if a taller player runs at speed and ducks down hitting a passive defenders head the defender should be sent off?

geoff999rugby wrote:Are you saying if a taller player runs at speed and ducks down hitting a passive defenders head the defender should be sent off?

No, that's not what I said, there would be mitigation there in so much as the attacker was coming in lower.

What if the defender is stationary and makes no movement, is caught by surprise and the attacker hits him at speed but doesn't lower his head ?

geoff999rugby wrote:Are you saying if a taller player runs at speed and ducks down hitting a passive defenders head the defender should be sent off?

I definitely dont anyway. Thats what happened with the Andrew Porter on Brodie Retallick tackle in the summer, Wayne Barnes' famous absorbing tackle call.

Even though Retallick broke his cheek I dont think it should have been red as Porter just stood his ground, brought no force to the collision but was upright.

Collapse2005 wrote:Amazing try by Munster v Toulouse. Harlem Globetrotters stuff.

Mike Prendergast is a big improvement on Larkham. Rowntree is a big improvement on JVG too. Baths decision to get JVG was the best thing to happen Munster in years. They might not win anything but at least the standard of rugby has greatly improved.

It has alright and those guys are a big step up which is great to see. However for parts of the game Munster's attack was also quite sloppy, a bit like they weren't that well practiced on their back line moves. Quite a few passes went astray or were just off. It was a bit frustrating to watch and then that Beirne try everything came together beautifully. One of the tries of the champions cup so far. Best I've seen anyway.

Francis case has been dismissed anyway so despite not really agreeing with the how the passive tackle rule is being implemented it does appear to be pretty consistent (in the end).

Still seems daft to me - if you go into a tackle upright on a ball carrier that's moving quickly and cause a head clash there is still a high level of force to both players, even if the tackler themselves isn't moving - basic physics. Unless the ball carrier has contributed by changing height/direction suddenly then the tackler is responsible for the dangerous contact, irrespective of their speed.