Match Thread: Munster v Connacht, Thomond Park, Sat 28/11 17:15, SKY

errlloyd

I'm only watching this now. First 15 minutes have been seriously impressive from connacht.

CatFromHue

Borders no.2 wrote: »

To me the penalty try is open to interpretation. I thought it was harsh but could see why he gave it. I doubt it would have been given if the shoe was on the other foot but that's to be expected.

However, I thought for a man who had plenty to contribute the TMO was remarkably quiet when it came to bringing the ref's attention to the Keith Earls arm on Henshaw. Bundee Aki's was a high tackle but it was as the ref saw it, he did catch him on the shoulder on the his hand slid up. Definite penalty, could possibly have been a yellow card given it was his 2nd offence but despite the Earls offence being played in front of the ref and TMO no action was taken, not even a word to Earls. For two people who replayed O'Halloran's try 3 times to try and find some offence I found it very strange how that was so easily overlooked.

I think everyone thought there must be some offence/blocking for TOH's try as it just looked so easy for him to go through and score.

Neil3030

Haven't read the entire thread but I sincerely hope this has been discussed:



The positioning of the Mazda logo makes it look like the players have thongs on.

Zzippy

former total wrote: »

The referee said the Earls offence was a penalty but not a yellow. TMO agreed. Not sure what the objection is?

I'll have to watch it again when I get home, but I thought Earls' high tackle was more of a stiff arm and probably deserved a straight yellow. It was certainly more aggressive and dangerous than Aki's one. He should at the very least have been spoken to and warned to be more careful.

Interested Observer

I didn't have the sound on so couldn't hear the ref but I was amazed to see that penalty go against Connacht. Earls' tackle was far worse imo, and was certainly worth a card.

Neil3030

Neil3030 wrote: »

Haven't read the entire thread but I sincerely hope this has been discussed:



The positioning of the Mazda logo makes it look like the players have thongs on.

BrokenMan

Interested Observer wrote: »

I didn't have the sound on so couldn't hear the ref but I was amazed to see that penalty go against Connacht. Earls' tackle was far worse imo, and was certainly worth a card.

Wouldn't it be the first offence gets penalised?

Agree that i was surprised the ref didn't have a word with Earls to be a bit more careful.

Bazzo

Neil3030 wrote: »

Haven't read the entire thread but I sincerely hope this has been discussed:



The positioning of the Mazda logo makes it look like the players have thongs on.

I'm not actually sure that's the mazda logo? I laughed a couple weeks ago when I first saw the jersey because I thought they had actually included the arse cheek outline on the back as they had the abs etc on the front.

former total

BrokenMan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the first offence gets penalised?.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. The ref could have carded Earls (would have been harsh IMO) but Munster would still have got the penalty kick.

Flipper22

BrokenMan wrote: »

Wouldn't it be the first offence gets penalised?

Agree that i was surprised the ref didn't have a word with Earls to be a bit more careful.

A technical penalty is reversed for foul play, but seeing as the first was also foul play I wasn't sure what he was going to do actually. Got it right imo.

BrokenMan

Is a penalty reversal for a related incident. Retaliation etc. Where these were two totally separate incidents?
May be a question for the laws thread actually.

connemara man

I'm after watching the highlights in tg4 there's a second link for the second half.

Firstly so happy with the win. the players deserved it for the work they have put into every aspect. Hopefully there won't be a hangover next week and we can get a result in Cardiff.

Connachts handling is unreal the skills coach is really doing a superb job!
Connolly is a star in the making, he looked assured and composed. On his first pro 12 start that's great.
The pack played brilliantly. I could name all of them. Muldowney is a natural leader. To see how he gathered every one together after the pen try and stopped players going to the ref was great and added more to an already impressive display.
We were unlucky not to be further ahead at the end of the first half. But we didn't take our chances. TOH try was mental I'm not surprised it went to the TMO.
Maul defence is an issue the first Munster try was far too easy.
I was surprised Munster didn't go to the posts more often keeping the scoreboard ticking over always being in touching distance would have made it a very different game.
Yellow and a penalty should have been the outcome For Muldoon, but its been fine through so I'll leave it at that.
Bundees try was fantastic! Healys break, Robbie's sidestep the offload. Then Bundees finish was sublime. He had so much to do after getting the ball. And did he do it! Deserved MOTM.

At the game I was fuming with the ref at the breakdown, but on watching the highlights I didn't think he was great for both sides. A lot of sloppy rucks lazy rollers etc on both sides really slowing ball from what was a very high tempo game.

I'd like to say any of the Munster support that I spoke to were gracious in defeat (as long as they were over 18) but that's teenagers for you. I've always liked Thomond Park. I think in gonna like it a bit more now

shuffol

Have to say I hate that penalty try call by the ref and sincerely hope it doesn't set a precedent, if only for the level of debate it provokes. I'm not going to weigh into whether a try would "probably" have been scored or not but you can't give a team 7 points for something that's so subjective, what if it was a forward who caught the ball and not a FB, would people's opinions be different, or if the covering player were a speedster. Will the ref have to carry around sprint data on all the players on the pitch to make these calls. Just give a yellow card and a penalty and save penalty try's for when a try would be a certainty beyond any reasoned arguments.

NiallBoo

Just a small thing the try debate...
Although Earls(sorry, Conway) is certainly faster at top speed, Marmion has faster acceleration and would cover the first 20 metres quicker.

former total

NiallBoo wrote: »

Just a small thing the try debate...
Although Earls is certainly faster at top speed, Marmion has faster acceleration and would cover the first 20 metres quicker.

It was Conway who was taken out, wasn't it? And he is very, very quick.

NiallBoo

former total wrote: »

It was Conway who was taken out, wasn't it? And he is very, very quick.

Whoops, bit of a brain-fart.
Marmion is still quicker off the mark.

connachta

NiallBoo wrote: »

Whoops, not of a brain-fart.
Marmion is still quicker off the mark.

And Conway would have had to control the ball, which is 1) uncertain when you see the pass 2) would have slown him down at least a bit

typhoony

so has a precedent been set now that Probability instead of Certainty decides that a try would have been scored if the foul had not taken place

Webbs

former total wrote: »

It was Conway who was taken out, wasn't it? And he is very, very quick.

Its the fact that it happened so far out and with the TMO review it was obvious there was the possibility of cover. In awarding a penalty try surely it has to be a certainty a try would be scored.
Look at the Ospreys Clermont match and the fact that this wasn't given as a penalty try from 3 yards out!
http://www.the42.ie/clermont-ospreys-beauitful-rugby-2460148-Nov2015/

former total

typhoony wrote: »

so has a precedent been set now that Probability instead of Certainty decides that a try would have been scored if the foul had not taken place

The laws of the game say "probable". This is a key point that many people seem to have missed.

Webbs wrote: »

In awarding a penalty try surely it has to be a certainty a try would be scored.

See above.

S12b

Can you post a link to the specific law, I'd be intrigued to see the wording of it

Interested Observer

typhoony wrote: »

so has a precedent been set now that Probability instead of Certainty decides that a try would have been scored if the foul had not taken place

It was never "certainty". It has always been a PT is awarded if a try would probably have been scored otherwise.

former total

S12b wrote: »

Can you post a link to the specific law, I'd be intrigued to see the wording of it

http://laws.worldrugby.org/?law=22.4

(h) Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team.

evil_seed

typhoony wrote: »

so has a precedent been set now that Probability instead of Certainty decides that a try would have been scored if the foul had not taken place

Probaby - almost certain. That's the language of the law book unfortunately

BrokenMan

Given the wording of the law should it be the case then that every collapsed driving maul near the line that's taken down illegally result in a penalty try.

NiallBoo

former total wrote: »

The laws of the game say "probable". This is a key point that many people seem to have missed.

not at all, I don't think it was probable.

Webbs

NiallBoo wrote: »

not at all, I don't think it was probable.

Thats exactly my take on it, it was possible but not probable.

Semantics I guess but in my view the Ospreys example was probable the Munster one possible

former total

former total wrote: »

The laws of the game say "probable". This is a key point that many people seem to have missed.

See above.

As I've said, if you took a snapshot right before Muldoon got his hands on Conway, I'd say that a try was certainly a potential outcome, but I don't think you could say that it was probable and I think you need to take into account that players reacted to Muldoon's tackle and slowed down / didn't engage. I think Henshaw was in range to get to him and Marmion would have come around in time.

I'm as confident that a Connacht player would have disrupted Conway as I am that Conway could have caught the ball and ran onto score.

I don't think this will set a precedent, I think it will be seen as an over zealous application of the penalty try laws.

former total

Deleted User wrote: »

As I've said, if you took a snapshot right before Muldoon got his hands on Conway, I'd say that a try was certainly a potential outcome, but I don't think you could say that it was probable and I think you need to take into account that players reacted to Muldoon's tackle and slowed down / didn't engage. I think Henshaw was in range to get to him and Marmion would have come around in time.

I'm as confident that a Connacht player would have disrupted Conway as I am that Conway could have caught the ball and ran onto score.

I don't think this will set a precedent, I think it will be seen as an over zealous application of the penalty try laws.

That's all fair enough. I was just pointing out rules of the game which people had wrong.

I suppose the key point is that "probable" introduces a lot more scope for subjectivity into it, makes it much more of a judgement call, so I don't think anyone can say the ref got it "wrong" or that it was an outrageous call.

former total

former total wrote: »

That's all fair enough. I was just pointing out rules of the game which people had wrong.

I suppose the key point is that "probable" introduces a lot more scope for subjectivity into it, makes it much more of a judgement call, so I don't think anyone can say the ref got it "wrong" or that it was an outrageous call.

No it was a good point, I wasn't aware of all the rules which come into application and I've probably softened my initial perception as a result.

Still don't see it becoming the status quo though in these sort of situations. I always felt a penalty try should be awarded where the person was literally falling over the line at the time or similarly where the maul / scrum was within 2 - 3m of the line, definitely not in a situation where they had most of the 22 still to run with potential traffic coming in.