Munster Team Talk Thread VI - Stander Up and Fight

phog

Mr Tickle wrote: »

It's one of those games where you want both teams to score 4 trys regardless of who wins. I'd rather bot irish teams stay in the top 3 (and hopefully catch glasgow.

I imagine CJ either gets the week off or he might bench. POM, TOD & Botha is still an excellent back row.

Welsh twitter would go to meltdown :pac:

I'd love to see the 2 Irish teams in the top three but I want Munster above Connacht and overtake Glasgow if we can.

Mr Tickle

Return of the JJ

phog wrote: »

Welsh twitter would go to meltdown :pac:

I'd love to see the 2 Irish teams in the top three but I want Munster above Connacht and overtake Glasgow if we can.

I can think of no more noble goal

Defunkd

phog wrote: »

I think we have to send a strong team to Galway, we're neck and neck with them for 2nd spot, a win would be a huge result for us, a LBP would even be ok if we only let Connacht get 4 points from the game.

I think Munster will win at least 5 of the 9 games left to us with the possibility of 3 BP, while i see Conn. winning 4 of theirs. I'd be cautious about Munster's 3 games in Wales because a) we're not travellibg great this season and b) the Welsh turn it up a notch when it's in their backyard. We're in Wales for OSP/SCA during the 6N, so we'll be down 8(?) players. I don't know how stripped the Welsh teams will be.

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

The majority have and havent come through the schools in the Munster schools cups. Many have played youths rugby as well or moved to the rugby schools at 16/17.
In Limerick all the biggest and main schools are the rugby schools and plenty will play a lot of youths rugby where they can
The Munster team that emerged in 99/2000 etc was older than many with quinlan, foley and that side did come through club game. Like i have a signed shannon programme from one of their 4 in a row AIL sides with a pack that included Horan, Hayes, Galway, Foley, Quinlan, Eddie Halvey

Getting new schools isnt the answer for Munster. The youths game and the Munster Cup/Plate/Bowl structure that is in place is where Munster can really develop much more players for the pro game and for the adult game for the sport in general.

Limerick schools and clubs have barely produced forwards in the last 15 years. Sherry and Kilcoyne are the only ones of note so in reality neither schools nor clubs are currently working well in Limerick at producing forwards.

It's pretty clear something is fundamentally broken in Limerick rugby and the infighting between club and school only obscures that.

Guys like O'Connell, Wallace and Flannery all left school in the late 1990's, since then there has been a general collapse in the standard of forward being produced for whatever reason (albeit those three were absolutely exceptional players)

Cookiemunster

Psycho Killer - "Hands Away" (Prop-Prop-Prrrroppp-Prop, Prop-Prop-Prop-Prrrrrrop-Prop)

Defunkd wrote: »

I think Munster will win at least 5 of the 9 games left to us with the possibility of 3 BP, while i see Conn. winning 4 of theirs. I'd be cautious about Munster's 3 games in Wales because a) we're not travellibg great this season and b) the Welsh turn it up a notch when it's in their backyard. We're in Wales for OSP/SCA during the 6N, so we'll be down 8(?) players. I don't know how stripped the Welsh teams will be.

We'll probably only be down POM, Stander, Earls and Murray for the Ospreys game as it's on a rest weekend and the players outside the starting XV get released back to their provinces. They're may be more missing for the Scarlets though as it's a Friday game and players may not be released form camp in time.

phog

Lowe banned for two weeks

Murray Kinsella
@Murray_Kinsella

James Lowe banned for two weeks.

Entry point was four weeks but 50% shaved off for good disciplinary record and conduct.

Has right to appeal, but now set to miss Leinster's crucial tie against Toulouse on 12 January.

bennyl10

Guess Who's Back, Back Again? JJ's Back, Tell a Friend

phog wrote: »

Lowe banned for two weeks

Absolute minimum he should have gotten.
This taking off 50% of bans is a joke.

I know it happens for every player, but it makes a mockery of minimum entry points

Cookiemunster

Psycho Killer - "Hands Away" (Prop-Prop-Prrrroppp-Prop, Prop-Prop-Prop-Prrrrrrop-Prop)

bennyl10 wrote: »

I know it happens for every player, but it makes a mockery of minimum entry points

Agreed. Either stick to the minimum entry or scrap it completely. It happens every single time.

Mickiemcfist

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Agreed. Either stick to the minimum entry or scrap it completely. It happens every single time.

But sure if we didn't have it there'd be shootings & brawls in the courtroom

Former Former

John Hayes Ligind

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Agreed. Either stick to the minimum entry or scrap it completely. It happens every single time.

Then there's no incentive to plead guilty and no reward for players with clean records.

thomond2006

A new born king to see POM POM POM POM POM

There should be scope for mitigation but conduct at the hearing being one is laughable.

Riskymove

Former Former wrote: »

Then there's no incentive to plead guilty and no reward for players with clean records.

make the minimum 2 weeks and then it doubles if you plead not guilty but lose

bennyl10

Guess Who's Back, Back Again? JJ's Back, Tell a Friend

Former Former wrote: »

Then there's no incentive to plead guilty and no reward for players with clean records.

Should there be a reward?
guilty fine, but dangerous play is that. full stop.

Cookiemunster

Psycho Killer - "Hands Away" (Prop-Prop-Prrrroppp-Prop, Prop-Prop-Prop-Prrrrrrop-Prop)

Former Former wrote: »

Then there's no incentive to plead guilty and no reward for players with clean records.

Should there be a reward for every player with a clean record? Fair enough Lowe didn't mean to tip Conway, but some players go in to do damage. Pleading guilty and not having been previously cited should not be enough to reduce the sentence.

Jump_In_Jack

thomond2006 wrote: »

Something like:

Kilcoyne, Marshall, Ryan, Beirne, Kleyn, POM, TOD, Stander;
Murray, Carbery, Earls, Arnold, Farrell, Sweetnam, Conway

Scannell, Loughman, Archer, Wycherley, Botha, Cronin, Johnston, Wootton

Both teams are scheduled to be announced at 12 noon tomorrow.
I would rather rest half the team but taking into account that Van Graan mentioned he will not be making too many changes from the 23 to face Gloucester and the need for some result out of the Connacht match:

My guess for the Munster 23 to face Connacht:
1. Loughman, 2. Marshall, 3. Archer, 4. Kleyn, 5. Holland, 6. P O'Mahony (C), 7. O'Donnell, 8. Botha, 9. Murray, 10. Carbery, 11. Wootton, 12. Arnold, 13. Farrell, 14. Sweetnam, 15. Haley.
Subs: 16. N Scannell, 17. Kilcoyne, 18. Ryan, 19. Wycherley, 20. G Coombes, 21. Mathewson, 22. Hanrahan, 23. Conway.
Regardless of the score, with injuries permitting, would ideally be taking off Loughman, Marshall, Archer, Kleyn, P O'Mahony, Murray, Carbery, and Haley with 20-25 minutes to go.

Resting: Beirne, Stander, Earls, R Scannell.
Expecting not to be in the 23 for Gloucester: Wycherley, G Coombes, Wootton, Arnold.

phog

It's hardly rocket science - start all bans with the minimum sanction then increase the ban if the Disciplinary Committee feel the guilty party didn't co-operate, should have pleaded guilty but didn't, has had previous cards/citings/bans for foul play or for whatever reason they currently extend bans from the minimum sanction.

Mickiemcfist

Both counts pretty harsh on Wycherley IMO, after last week he's first on the team sheet for me.

Former Former

John Hayes Ligind

bennyl10 wrote: »

Should there be a reward?
guilty fine, but dangerous play is that. full stop.

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Should there be a reward for every player with a clean record? Fair enough Lowe didn't mean to tip Conway, but some players go in to do damage. Pleading guilty and not having been previously cited should not be enough to reduce the sentence.

You're not looking at this logically.

OK; you say that a player with a clean record should not be given a reduction for dangerous play. Fair enough.

Except the conclusion of that is that a player who does it once and a player who is up on his twentieth charge get the same punishment.

So a guy like Lowe or Baloucoune gets the same ban as a Dylan Hartley or a Calum Clark? Really?

Mickiemcfist

Former Former wrote: »

You're not looking at this logically.

OK; you say that a player with a clean record should not be given a reduction for dangerous play. Fair enough.

Except the conclusion of that is that a player who does it once and a player who is up on his twentieth charge get the same punishment.

So a guy like Lowe or Baloucoune gets the same ban as a Dylan Hartley or a Calum Clark? Really?

Or just add weeks due to bad records?

Riskymove

Former Former wrote: »

Except the conclusion of that is that a player who does it once and a player who is up on his twentieth charge get the same punishment.

er..no....just add weeks for multiple offender

Podge_irl

John Hayes Ligind

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Or just add weeks due to bad records?

What difference does it ultimately make if the outcomes essentially is the same.

There may also be sound legal reasons for doing it this way.

Riskymove

Podge_irl wrote: »

What difference does it ultimately make if the outcomes essentially is the same.

There may also be sound legal reasons for doing it this way.

Basically, as an example for this case

If Lowe was cited and said "ok Guilty" then he gets two weeks and that's that...no need for a hearing

If he pleads not guilty then there is an appeal in the knowledge that he'll get 4 weeks if found guilty

Former Former

John Hayes Ligind

Riskymove wrote: »

er..no....just add weeks for multiple offender

Mickiemcfist wrote: »

Or just add weeks due to bad records?

And the net outcome is exactly the same. Literally identical.

Podge_irl

John Hayes Ligind

Riskymove wrote: »

Basically, as an example for this case

If Lowe was cited and said "ok Guilty" then he gets two weeks and that's that...no need for a hearing

If he pleads not guilty then there is an appeal in the knowledge that he'll get 4 weeks if found guilty

There is always a need for a hearing - guilt or innocence is not the only factor. There needs to be an adjudication of guilt and then a sentencing hearing essentially. The latter will always need to take place.

Riskymove

Podge_irl wrote: »

There is always a need for a hearing

fair enough for a citing where nothing done at the time


but why in cases like these?

sent off for reckless play = automatic 2 week ban

you can appeal if you disagree and then there can be the hearing

Riskymove

Former Former wrote: »

And the net outcome is exactly the same. Literally identical.

at present the penalty is 4 weeks

this is dropped to 2 for record

is it increased beyond 4 for bad record or just left at 4?

The Lost Sheep

A new born king to see POM POM POM POM POM

Riskymove wrote: »

fair enough for a citing where nothing done at the time


but why in cases like these?

sent off for reckless play = automatic 2 week ban

you can appeal if you disagree and then there can be the hearing

You have to determine specifics around the incident. You cant simply not have a hearing and just give a ban based on the sanctions per the crime/incident of foul play. Not all dangerous tackles can be considered the same or similar and recieve same punishments.

Former Former

John Hayes Ligind

Riskymove wrote: »

fair enough for a citing where nothing done at the time


but why in cases like these?

sent off for reckless play = automatic 2 week ban

you can appeal if you disagree and then there can be the hearing

Then you could have an absolutely horrendous act of reckless play that might merit 8 weeks, and the guys says 'grand, I'll plead guilty and get away with 2 weeks'. You need a hearing.

I'm not sure what problem we're trying to fix?

Riskymove

Former Former wrote: »

Then you could have an absolutely horrendous act of reckless play that might merit 8 weeks, and the guys says 'grand, I'll plead guilty and get away with 2 weeks'. You need a hearing.

I'm not sure what problem we're trying to fix?

I am not sure that the laws recognize different types of reckless but I am sure it is possible to devise a range of offences with different penalties

In other sports there are automatic bans which can subsequently be increased if bodies feel necessary but the first automatic stage usually rules out a lot of hearings/appeals etc

such hearing s could just be used for particularly significant events

Certainly I think it is crazy that there could be 3 separate decisions made on Lowe's action with the possibility of a further appeal hearing over something fairly clearcut

Riskymove

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You have to determine specifics around the incident. You cant simply not have a hearing and just give a ban based on the sanctions per the crime/incident of foul play. Not all dangerous tackles can be considered the same or similar and recieve same punishments.

as I have said where players get a red or pick up a number of yellows or whatever, I see no issue with a ban without a hearing

where the body feels something more serious occurred they can then do a hearing