Connacht vs Munster, Sat 16th April 19.15, Sportsground. Sky Sports 5/TG4

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You yourself agree Cronin deserved a card.

Locking out the scrum is not illegal. Without the illegal scrummaging from Cronin it's a legitimate contest. It's as simple as that. If Bealham had collapsed without being pulled down then a penalty against him would be fair, it didn't happen.

I'll retract that so.

If Cronin deserved a card, so did Bealham.

Anyone got a link to Neil Tracy's analysis? I can't find it.

jm08

connemara man wrote: »

and what was dangerous from the laws of the game?

Law 20.1 (h)

A crouched position is the extension of the normal stance by bending the knees sufficiently to move into the engagement without a charge.


Sanction: Penalty kick


Bealham was not bending his knees.

---

Another one of the scrums:

(j)
Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.

---

The ball never left the scrumhalf hand. This was the scrum that Cronin got carded for.

CMOTDibbler

jm08 wrote: »

Law 20.1 (h) A crouched position is the extension of the normal stance by bending the knees sufficiently to move into the engagement without a charge.

Sanction: Penalty kick

Bealham was not bending his knees.

Glad you quoted that. You missed the bit about the engagement. Cronin pulled Bealham down after the engagement. The above law doesn't require Bealham to have his legs bent at that point.

jm08 wrote: »

(j) Stationary and parallel. Until the ball leaves the scrum half’s hands, the scrum must be stationary and the middle line must be parallel to the goal lines. A team must not shove the scrum away from the mark before the ball is thrown in.

---

The ball never left the scrumhalf hand. This was the scrum that Cronin got carded for.

Well it clearly wasn't stationary when Cronin pulled Bealham down. Cronin however was turned in on his hooker. He couldn't even take the pressure of the engagement so he pulled Bealham down. Clear as day.

To recap:
1. Bealham was locked out and steady (If you look at the pic, you'll see he wasn't fully locked out, his knees were bent; enough to drive forward if needed)
2. Cronin was turned in on his hooker (not straight and parallel)
3. He had an illegal bind on Bealham
4. He pulled him down. (this is as clear as day). You can see the pulling motion clearly and the cause and effect are immediate and violent.
5. Eddie O'Sullivan is a backs coach. His knowledge of the scrum wouldn't cover a postage stamp. His motivation would be highly suspect as well seeing as he's out of a job and Munster have just said goodbye to two of their coaching staff.

btw, you won't find an analysis by Neil Treacy of this game. He didn't do one. But I never said he did. I just asked had you ever read his articles. He often describes this very situation and apart from saying it needs a fair bit of strength to do it, it's never an issue.

Love that Murray Kinsella's opinion, that it was dangerous of Bealham to lock out as he did (where Murray is clearly saying that it is dangerous for Bealham to do so as he cannot add additional power) has become dangerous play.

I've never seen someone play chinese whispers with themselves before.

Fascinating.

Robbo

Munster would have won that scrum and therefore the game if Hiroo Onoda was locking out the scrum.

former total

Deleted User wrote: »

Love that Murray Kinsella's opinion, that it was dangerous of Bealham to lock out as he did (where Murray is clearly saying that it is dangerous for Bealham to do so as he cannot add additional power) has become dangerous play.

I've never seen someone play chinese whispers with themselves before.

Fascinating.

You see, the issue here is that most people reason things out by the following process:
1. Gather facts
2. Consider available information
3. Come to conclusion

Whereas the other side in this "debate" uses the following:
1. The conclusion is Go Munster!
2. Google, google, google until facts are located to support step 1
3. Where no such facts exist, do not under any circumstances deviate from step 1.
4. Repeat steps 1-3.

b.gud

former total wrote: »

You see, the issue here is that most people reason things out by the following process:
1. Gather facts
2. Consider available information
3. Come to conclusion

Whereas the other side in this "debate" uses the following:
1. The conclusion is Go Munster!
2. Google, google, google until facts are located to support step 1
3. Where no such facts exist, do not under any circumstances deviate from step 1.
4. Repeat steps 1-3.
5. If all else fails bring up the dual training grounds

Added 1 step that you missed

Zzippy

Or this...




.




.

CMOTDibbler

Zzippy wrote: »

Or this...

You have to admire the dedication though. I don't think I spent any more time on this discussion than what it took to write the posts. Most of us are posting on the basis of what we know and can see, jm08 however spent two hours looking for an article that I never said existed and even more time googling the laws on scrummaging.

It's admirable really but ultimately pointless. Ironically it reminds me of this:



The irony being who is actually wrong.

spurscormac

mods - any chance of a lock on this thread?
It's circled so much I thought it would have run out of fuel by now.
Time for an emergency landing to save lives before it crashes in a highly populated area.

spurscormac

spurscormac wrote: »

mods - any chance of a lock on this thread?
It's circled so much I thought it would have run out of fuel by now.
Time for an emergency landing to save lives before it crashes in a highly populated area.

Before it does, who do you think was scrummaging illegally Bealham or Cronin?

spurscormac

Deleted User wrote: »

Before it does, who do you think was scrummaging illegally Bealham or Cronin?

Who cares, we won :P

MarinersBlues

I think Bealham was fine but Buckley was breaking every rule possible on the other side.
Whitehouse chose to ignore what was happening right in front of him and went after Cronin for no good reason at all.

Bazzo

MarinersBlues wrote: »

I think Bealham was fine but Buckley was breaking every rule possible on the other side.
Whitehouse chose to ignore what was happening right in front of him and went after Cronin for no good reason at all.

I heard Whitehouse was reversing into a parking space outside the changing rooms and Cronin nipped in in front of him.

CMOTDibbler

Deleted User wrote: »

Before it does, who do you think was scrummaging illegally Bealham or Cronin?

Neither. It was Buckley apparently.


You and your trick questions emmet

MarinersBlues

Bazzo wrote: »

I heard Whitehouse was reversing into a parking space outside the changing rooms and Cronin nipped in in front of him.

It was an hour before the game but Nigel jumped straight out of his car and ran under the posts to award a penalty try.:D

jm08

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Glad you quoted that. You missed the bit about the engagement. Cronin pulled Bealham down after the engagement. The above law doesn't require Bealham to have his legs bent at that point.

Well it clearly wasn't stationary when Cronin pulled Bealham down. Cronin however was turned in on his hooker. He couldn't even take the pressure of the engagement so he pulled Bealham down. Clear as day.

To recap:
1. Bealham was locked out and steady (If you look at the pic, you'll see he wasn't fully locked out, his knees were bent; enough to drive forward if needed).

2. Cronin was turned in on his hooker (not straight and parallel)
3. He had an illegal bind on Bealham
4. He pulled him down. (this is as clear as day). You can see the pulling motion clearly and the cause and effect are immediate and violent.
5. Eddie O'Sullivan is a backs coach. His knowledge of the scrum wouldn't cover a postage stamp. His motivation would be highly suspect as well seeing as he's out of a job and Munster have just said goodbye to two of their coaching staff.

btw, you won't find an analysis by Neil Treacy of this game. He didn't do one. But I never said he did. I just asked had you ever read his articles. He often describes this very situation and apart from saying it needs a fair bit of strength to do it, it's never an issue.

If the Munster front row didn't engage, Bealham would have fallen flat on his face. He was not supporting his own weight.

It should have been a reset, if not a free kick to Munster for pushing before the ball was put in.

Are you a scrum coach of a professional team that you feel that you can dismiss EOS's analysis?

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

Love that Murray Kinsella's opinion, that it was dangerous of Bealham to lock out as he did (where Murray is clearly saying that it is dangerous for Bealham to do so as he cannot add additional power) has become dangerous play.

I've never seen someone play chinese whispers with themselves before.

Fascinating.

Ah sure, wasn't Murray Kinsella a centre, what would he know about the scrum

spurscormac

Unsubscribe thread

awec

Thread is like a turd that's circling the drain. Taking the toilet brush to it, closed.