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:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Stupid challenge from Dingwall. May well be a red.

He's always to upright. He's caught in two minds and then it's always dangerous so clear red.

Yep was always going to be red - however apparently Piers Francis did the same last night but only got yellow.  Haven't seen the tackle so don't know why - still lacking consistency?

No idea until I see a replay. Dingwall can have no complaints, I know Ludlam tried to make his case, if you go in that upright at speed and it's head on head it's a red. Ref was absolutely spot on.

Duty281 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Trying to watch both matches at the same time so only saw the last Sharks' try without sound ... why was the ball deemed out, was it due to Marler not having shoulder contact as the ball was still clearly in front of the back foot when Etzebeth ran around?

Yes, I believe that was the reason. He said Marler wasn't bound, that's the second time Quins were caught out by something they'd get away with in the Prem.

Seen the same in the prem to be honest. When I last saw it I wondered if it was reasonable to call it out if the player had been correctly bound by the shoulder but became 'unbound' as an opposing player pulled the player he was bound to forwards thus breaking the bind just as the defender ran around - maybe a deliberate tactic?

Duty281 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Trying to watch both matches at the same time so only saw the last Sharks' try without sound ... why was the ball deemed out, was it due to Marler not having shoulder contact as the ball was still clearly in front of the back foot when Etzebeth ran around?

Yes, I believe that was the reason. He said Marler wasn't bound, that's the second time Quins were caught out by something they'd get away with in the Prem.

Good it's a bugbear of mine. Players not bound properly only trying to extend the ruck. It's boring and slows the game down. Penalise it or shout ball out. Might get things moving a bit more. I also hate the standing a forward in front of the scrum half before a box kick, they are never behind the back feet and it's always blocking. Clamp down and open up challenges on the box kicks. Makes a more interesting game.

Whilst I'm on the soapbox I'd love to see them ban players joining the ruck after use it has been called and then refs encouraged to shout it as soon as the ball is available. Bye bye caterpillar rucks.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Heaf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Stupid challenge from Dingwall. May well be a red.

He's always to upright. He's caught in two minds and then it's always dangerous so clear red.

Yep was always going to be red - however apparently Piers Francis did the same last night but only got yellow.  Haven't seen the tackle so don't know why - still lacking consistency?

No idea until I see a replay. Dingwall can have no complaints, I know Ludlam tried to make his case, if you go in that upright at speed and it's head on head it's a red. Ref was absolutely spot on.

Yes no complaints there - would have been p*ssed off if it had been yellow given Loader's red last week where initial contact was shoulder/chest and the head to head came from the whiplash ... which is why I'd be interested to see why Francis only got yellow - some reports are saying it may have been 'passive' but I believe he went off injured so I can't see how it can be deemed 'low danger' when there's an injury, even if it's to himself.

Heaf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Heaf wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Stupid challenge from Dingwall. May well be a red.

He's always to upright. He's caught in two minds and then it's always dangerous so clear red.

Yep was always going to be red - however apparently Piers Francis did the same last night but only got yellow.  Haven't seen the tackle so don't know why - still lacking consistency?

No idea until I see a replay. Dingwall can have no complaints, I know Ludlam tried to make his case, if you go in that upright at speed and it's head on head it's a red. Ref was absolutely spot on.

Yes no complaints there - would have been p*ssed off if it had been yellow given Loader's red last week where initial contact was shoulder/chest and the head to head came from the whiplash ... which is why I'd be interested to see why Francis only got yellow - some reports are saying it may have been 'passive' but I believe he went off injured so I can't see how it can be deemed 'low danger' when there's an injury, even if it's to himself.

I saw in the Scottish thread that I happened as he got ran over in the tackle. Conceding a yellow card whilst you are treated liked a speed bump must hurt both pride and body.

Raises an interesting point though - if you put yourself in a position to cause a head on head but come off worse why is that still not a red card?

Heaf wrote:Raises an interesting point though - if you put yourself in a position to cause a head on head but come off worse why is that still not a red card?

The rules around it are that if you absorb the impact ie falling over backwards cushioning in effect then its less dangerous. As ever though laws are written to try and gain consistency...Read going for an intercept with 1 hand always classed as a deliberate knock on even if he's maybe made an actual attempt. Absorb is basically going backwards in the tackle then....but doesn't really take into account a little un tackling a big un.

Lol. Just watching the Harlequins now. 15 mins in and Harlequins caught napping with walker not adjudged rightly to be part of the ruck. Healey explains why saying his arms are outstretched no shoulder in effect and Dallaglio chimes in yes as soon as Cares arms are outstretched and on the ball the balls out... lol. How can they pay him when he has no idea what he's on about.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Raises an interesting point though - if you put yourself in a position to cause a head on head but come off worse why is that still not a red card?

The rules around it are that if you absorb the impact ie falling over backwards cushioning in effect then its less dangerous. As ever though laws are written to try and gain consistency...Read going for an intercept with 1 hand always classed as a deliberate knock on even if he's maybe made an actual attempt. Absorb is basically going backwards in the tackle then....but doesn't really take into account a little un tackling a big un.

It's trying to draw a line between the accidental head on heads or where the tackler is trying to pull out etc Vs the high impact and either dirty or reckless tackles where the tackler slams into the ball carrier.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lol. Just watching the Harlequins now. 15 mins in and Harlequins caught napping with walker not adjudged rightly to be part of the ruck. Healey explains why saying his arms are outstretched no shoulder in effect and Dallaglio chimes in yes as soon as Cares arms are outstretched and on the ball the balls out... lol. How can they pay him when he has no idea what he's on about.

It certainly explains why he got so many yellow cards during his career.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Raises an interesting point though - if you put yourself in a position to cause a head on head but come off worse why is that still not a red card?

The rules around it are that if you absorb the impact ie falling over backwards cushioning in effect then its less dangerous. As ever though laws are written to try and gain consistency...Read going for an intercept with 1 hand always classed as a deliberate knock on even if he's maybe made an actual attempt. Absorb is basically going backwards in the tackle then....but doesn't really take into account a little un tackling a big un.

It's trying to draw a line between the accidental head on heads or where the tackler is trying to pull out etc Vs the high impact and either dirty or reckless tackles where the tackler slams into the ball carrier.

Yeah. Just don't think it's implemented very well. Defining it tightly ignores where the tackler has put a bit in but is simply over powered by the carrier.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Heaf wrote:Raises an interesting point though - if you put yourself in a position to cause a head on head but come off worse why is that still not a red card?

The rules around it are that if you absorb the impact ie falling over backwards cushioning in effect then its less dangerous. As ever though laws are written to try and gain consistency...Read going for an intercept with 1 hand always classed as a deliberate knock on even if he's maybe made an actual attempt. Absorb is basically going backwards in the tackle then....but doesn't really take into account a little un tackling a big un.

It's trying to draw a line between the accidental head on heads or where the tackler is trying to pull out etc Vs the high impact and either dirty or reckless tackles where the tackler slams into the ball carrier.

Loader's was accidental and wasn't direct head on head as initial contact was shoulder/chest but red due to being upright in tackle - so if Francis was also upright and therefore caused the head on head I think it should still be red as it was clearly dangerous otherwise he wouldn't have been injured ...

Quins end up gifting the Sharks a TBP which could be crucial for Sharks by missing touch with a late pen and ending up conceding ...

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

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

OK thanks - so that's where I'm still a bit on the fence with the interpretation/guidelines - if tackle height is the problem in trying to eradicate head on head contact then making an upright tackle and making head on head contact should maybe be red, end of ... just because the tackler is 'passive' doesn't necessarily mean there isn't high force if they put their head in the way of an attacker running at speed. It's a tricky one for sure ...

Wonder why simmonds has been dropped to the bench.

Ulster sneak through at Sale's expense.

Will be Leinster V Ulster in Aviva, (unless LI win by a large margin). I think there is a chance of an upset. Ulster squad will mostly be together and well rested over 6 nations, Leinster squad mostly away on Ireland duty, after 6 nations they will likely be rested for Stormers game, so this game will be the first game Leinster will have had most of their squad together for weeks, add prob need more than a weeks rest after a grueling 6 nations, and I do think Ulster have a chance, Leinster obvs will still be heavy favourites.

Will be Leinster V Ulster in Aviva, (unless LI win by a large margin). I think there is a chance of an upset. Ulster squad will mostly be together and well rested over 6 nations, Leinster squad mostly away on Ireland duty, after 6 nations they will likely be rested for Stormers game, so this game will be the first game Leinster will have had most of their squad together for weeks, add prob need more than a weeks rest after a grueling 6 nations, and I do think Ulster have a chance, Leinster obvs will still be heavy favourites.

Just on the Ulster game clock was in the red, Ulster were 11 points ahead with 3 trys and they kicked it out? Why not try running it from your 22 in search of the 4th try and the BP, worst could have happened was Sale turned it over and got a try and conversion, not enough to win the game for them, and a LBP wouldn't have taken them back above Ulster in 8th?

Ospreys fans' should have their Munster hats on today, along with their Kiss me I'm Irish Peter O'Mahony tshirts .

Interesting to see that the 8 teams failing to make the last 16 were 5 French and 3 English

All URC teams qualified - credit to them

Sale are away to Cardiff in the KO stages of the challenge cup, I was sure they’d be at home to Ospreys. I don’t much get the format this year tbh.

Amazing try by Munster v Toulouse. Harlem Globetrotters stuff.

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

Could have potentially gone back to look at the coombes pass though.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

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

Could have potentially gone back to look at the coombes pass though.

I know but nice tries often get the benefit of doubt

Carberys goal kicking could be better

Dickson being a ref in Europe and for internationals is a little embarrassing. We have better than him. We should just pit him in a cupboard with some biscuits on these weekends.

mikey_dragon wrote:Sale are away to Cardiff in the KO stages of the challenge cup, I was sure they’d be at home to Ospreys. I don’t much get the format this year tbh.

Figured out where I went wrong here... I was talking about the wrong Sharks!

Ospreys vs Vodacom Sharks (in SA) would be a humdinger.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dickson being a ref in Europe and for internationals is a little embarrassing. We have better than him. We should just pit him in a cupboard with some biscuits on these weekends.

He is slowly getting better but if we'd spent the same time developing Adam Leal, Sara Cox or Hamish Smalles then we might have had an international quality ref already.

Ref letting Sarries away with a lot at the ruck.

Pretty harsh yellow for Itoje. Surely then obstruction.

I was saying that was obstruction before the commentators mentioned it - he clearly lost contact with the front of the maul. The commentators spotted it but then just dismissed it - where's the TMO?

Mauls are largely ignored. You do see loads of obstruction never picked up. Most of the time it's people joining and then the ball carrier being a bit canny by rejoining at the back but that 1 was pretty blatant.

Sarries have been very ill disciplined. Was going to say two yellow’s is a bit lucky, but now they’re on their third.

Only just started after watching a chunk of the first half. Looked like the itoje yellow was called by the tmo though. As I said pretty harsh to get a yellow for offside there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Mauls are largely ignored. You do see loads of obstruction never picked up. Most of the time it's people joining and then the ball carrier being a bit canny by rejoining at the back but that 1 was pretty blatant.

Indeed mauls can be a bit of a nightmare but that was so obvious it's difficult to understand how they ignored it - either they are massively incompetent or being intimidated by the crowd ...

Missed the first half too - what were the 2 yellows for?

Some laws are just ignored. Or forgotten about. Sometimes you're focused so much on 1 aspect another just evades you.

Only saw the george one. High tackles both. George was pretty lucky he was sparked backwards, potentially that passive tackle thing again...but hell be lucky to get away withiut a citing. Didnt see the 2nd.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Some laws are just ignored. Or forgotten about. Sometimes you're focused so much on 1 aspect another just evades you.

You can partially understand it in open play but when a try is scored off the back of it it's appalling officiating ... or maybe the TMO just doesn't like Sarries ...

I think if Sarries score, ospreys play Edinburgh away instead of Sharks!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Only saw the george one. High tackles both. George was pretty lucky he was sparked backwards, potentially that passive tackle thing again...but hell be lucky to get away withiut a citing. Didnt see the 2nd.

Ah some inconsistency again maybe, just for a change

mikey_dragon wrote:I think if Sarries score, ospreys play Edinburgh away instead of Sharks!

Which Sharks?

Heaf wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Only saw the george one. High tackles both. George was pretty lucky he was sparked backwards, potentially that passive tackle thing again...but hell be lucky to get away withiut a citing. Didnt see the 2nd.

Ah some inconsistency again maybe,  just for a change

Well it's consistency with the one we had the other game. Though I think it's a passive tackle as he knocks himself senseless. Not a black white decision hence I think there'll be a citing.

Hmmm so the ref sees that obstruction but not the more obvious one ...

How good has Schoeman been today? Pretty good some might say.

Vunipola quick to pick on the Eztebeth ruck technique. Gonna keep binding honest.

Lol. Awful by Edinburgh. Idiots.

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?