‪Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread IX: The Last Jordi [****]

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

I really don't think inconsistent is the right word

I'm probably just not sufficiently familiar with it. My understanding is that players from some countries are impacted and some from others are not.

For example, if Lowe, Fardy and Gibson Park were all South African it would be fine right?

Because they are Australian and Kiwi it becomes problematic.

Again, we knew this was the case, we signed the players regardless. It's not unfair, everyone has to comply with the same ruling, but it does seem a bit inconsistent that we could field 10 South Africans but no more than 3 Kiwi's.

Have I misinterpreted anything?

Bazzo

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I'm probably just not sufficiently familiar with it. My understanding is that players from some countries are impacted and some from others are not.

For example, if Lowe, Fardy and Gibson Park were all South African it would be fine right?

Because they are Australian and Kiwi it becomes problematic.

Again, we knew this was the case, we signed the players regardless. It's not unfair, everyone has to comply with the same ruling, but it does seem a bit inconsistent that we could field 10 South Africans but no more than 3 Kiwi's.

Have I misinterpreted anything?

Yes but the players affected (for all intents and purposes) are those who only hold a new Zealand or Australian passport. That rule is never bent or broken in any situation, it's incredibly consistent.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm probably just not sufficiently familiar with it. My understanding is that players from some countries are impacted and some from others are not.

For example, if Lowe, Fardy and Gibson Park were all South African it would be fine right?

Because they are Australian and Kiwi it becomes problematic.

Again, we knew this was the case, we signed the players regardless. It's not unfair, everyone has to comply with the same ruling, but it does seem a bit inconsistent that we could field 10 South Africans but no more than 3 Kiwi's.

Have I misinterpreted anything?

It gets even more complicated... if you hold a single passport, where your grandparents are from, how many children you have and where they were born come into to it too. I tried to understand it once but gave up. It's a really bizarre work-visa related rule.

Bazzo

Bazzo wrote: »

Yes but the players affected (for all intents and purposes) are those who only hold a new Zealand or Australian passport. That rule is never bent or broken in any situation, it's incredibly consistent.

Apologies, I meant that it's inconsistent in the way it applies to Southern Hemisphere players, I don't mean that it's inconsistent in the way that it is implemented.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm probably just not sufficiently familiar with it. My understanding is that players from some countries are impacted and some from others are not.

For example, if Lowe, Fardy and Gibson Park were all South African it would be fine right?

Because they are Australian and Kiwi it becomes problematic.

Again, we knew this was the case, we signed the players regardless. It's not unfair, everyone has to comply with the same ruling, but it does seem a bit inconsistent that we could field 10 South Africans but no more than 3 Kiwi's.

Have I misinterpreted anything?

No you haven't. But it's not inconsistent. It was inconsistent up until the Kolpak ruling. NZ and Aus are in the process of joining in an association agreement with the EU, so they could potentially be part of the Kolpak bloc.

irishbucsfan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Apologies, I meant that it's inconsistent in the way it applies to Southern Hemisphere players, I don't mean that it's inconsistent in the way that it is implemented.

It’s consistent in how it applies to people from countries who don’t have freedom of movement in the EU. Not much can be done about it. Brexit may see it revisited

Squidgy Black

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, we knew this was the case, we signed the players regardless. It's not unfair, everyone has to comply with the same ruling, but it does seem a bit inconsistent that we could field 10 South Africans but no more than 3 Kiwi's.

See the issue is that previously this was the case. They had to be EU citizens. But then a Slovakian handball player (called Kolpak) brought a case to the European Court of Justice, because at the time Slovakia wasn't in the EU but they had an agreement with the EU. He was let go from his club because of the quotas and they ended up having to change the rules so that players from countries with agreements with the EU were excluded from the rule.

So from a legal perspective, the SAs have to be excluded from the ruling because they have an agreement with the EU.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

Anybody looking for a batch of tickets for Saturday? I have a group of up to seven available without Ticketba$tard costs.

the tickets i have are for section 522, row L

ill offer one ticket free if someone wants the 7 together

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

It gets even more complicated... if you hold a single passport, where your grandparents are from, how many children you have and where they were born come into to it too. I tried to understand it once but gave up. It's a really bizarre work-visa related rule.

AFAIK it's to do with (a) being an EU citizen, (b) having eligibility based on residency or (c) being a citizen of a country that has a free trade agreement with the EU. For example South Africa has a free trade agreement, NZ does not.

prawnsambo

molloyjh wrote: »

AFAIK it's to do with (a) being an EU citizen, (b) having eligibility based on residency or (c) being a citizen of a country that has a free trade agreement with the EU. South Africa has a free trade agreement, NZ does not.

I think it's an agreement that allows for the free movement of workers. A simple trade agreement won't cut it. Although I don't think the EU enter trade agreements without free movement clauses tbh.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think it's an agreement that allows for the free movement of workers. A simple trade agreement won't cut it. Although I don't think the EU enter trade agreements without free movement clauses tbh.

Yeah, that’s it

baas baa

The kolpak ruling gets a lot of bad press but it doesn't negatively affect Leinster, just provides a loophole for other sides to exploit. How the law stipulating only 2 non european players in the ECC affects Leinster is fair and exactly how it was intended to operate.

errlloyd

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think it's an agreement that allows for the free movement of workers. A simple trade agreement won't cut it. Although I don't think the EU enter trade agreements without free movement clauses tbh.

The EU can enter specific trade agreements without free movement clauses. We do it all the time with developing countries. I think it's pretty ethically dodgy, but sure we do it.

What the EU won't do is enter a completely free trade agreement, without some sort of free movement. Which is what we keep telling the UK.

arsebiscuits1

What I don't like about the rule is you grab yourself a passport from Fiji, Samoa or Tonga - which is an option for a lot of New Zealanders - they, hey presto, you can play!!

That is how Toulon get away with it and it is presumably how we get away with it with Isa playing.

So basically the rule applies to people who are 3rd generation of their native country which is a bit discriminatory

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

If the possession stats are good in our favour at 40 minutes I think we'll have a a deserved lead. If possession stats are close it's going to be a rough ride.

Generally agree with your post but this stands out. The Scarlets don't rely on significant possession. They are happy to set up a defensive line and stay out of multiple rucks until they have a turnover opportunity. They're the best team in Europe at it.

They've played 7 games in Europe this season. How many games did they have more possession than the opposition? Zero and that includes a double header against Treviso.

We'll need the ball to win the game but we'll need to be extremely accurate at the breakdown /handling and be ruthless with our opportunities.

Dubinusa

Without Luke this becomes more difficult. Hopefully the pack gets on top and smothers them, if not it could be a long day. The winner of this one, will be champions imo. Of course, depending on injuries etc. Lowe's absence is not as crucial as Luke's and Henshaw returning is good news. If he can hit the ground running, we will pose a lot of problems for them. Should be an epic.

stephen_n

We should just swap JGP with Cooney, Ulster owe us one for Jordi, no more Kolpak problem.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Generally agree with your post but this stands out. The Scarlets don't rely on significant possession. They are happy to set up a defensive line and stay out of multiple rucks until they have a turnover opportunity. They're the best team in Europe at it.

They've played 7 games in Europe this season. How many games did they have more possession than the opposition? Zero and that includes a double header against Treviso.

We'll need the ball to win the game but we'll need to be extremely accurate at the breakdown /handling and be ruthless with our opportunities.

I don't think Scarlets need possession, but as you say if we gift them it we're going to be in trouble, especially if we gift them a lot of it which is what I was alluding too. I think our game plan will be to hold onto the ball and play as much rugby between our 40 meter line and their 22 as possible, that's easier said than done but it's what we'll look to do with our possession.

Looking at our likely backrow and wing picks it's clear the coaches agree with you. Three strong breakdown merchants and an extra two borderline flankers on the wings in Isa and McFadden.

There are similarities to the teams in some ways, I just think we are better at playing with the ball for extended periods and as good at creating opportunities without it. Maybe not quite as good as turning those opportunities directly into points, but certainly at maintaining good territory outside our 22.

It's going to be a fascinating game, but I'm growing more confident that we're two scores the better side.

baas baa

Scarlets are well set up to be able to hurt teams even though they may not be as star studded as sides you may typically find at this stage of the tournament. If you kick loosely they can punish you on the counter attack but if you try to retain possession in your own half you run a high risk of coughing up a turnover penalty and 3 points with Halfpennys range. I think the start is key, they're not a side I'd like to be chasing a game against.

Buer

Rumours on Scarlets forum that they're going to reshuffle and play Jones at 10, Patchell at 15 and Halfpenny out wide.

That will make them more dangerous attacking from deep, I believe but definitely make life easier on us when we attack them out wide too particularly if we look for territory.

Yeah_Right

How does Kolpak work when a player is elligible for Ireland but not a citizen? Like when JGP qualifies he will still be a couple of years shy of citizenship. Is he still under Kolpak rules? Marrying an Irish citizen would negate Kolpak right? Same sex marriage is legal so maybe one of the Leinster lads could step up and drop the knee.

Yeah_Right

Yeah_Right wrote: »

How does Kolpak work when a player is elligible for Ireland but not a citizen? Like when JGP qualifies he will still be a couple of years shy of citizenship. Is he still under Kolpak rules? Marrying an Irish citizen would negate Kolpak right? Same sex marriage is legal so maybe one of the Leinster lads could step up and drop the knee.

I'm pretty sure at least three boardsies have offered to marry Lowe.

I don't know if had anything to do with eligibility though.

Podge_irl

Yeah_Right wrote: »

How does Kolpak work when a player is elligible for Ireland but not a citizen? Like when JGP qualifies he will still be a couple of years shy of citizenship. Is he still under Kolpak rules? Marrying an Irish citizen would negate Kolpak right? Same sex marriage is legal so maybe one of the Leinster lads could step up and drop the knee.

Kolpak has nothing to do with international eligibility so it won't make a difference I would think. It is a purely legal issue.

Yeah_Right

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pretty sure at least three boardsies have offered to marry Lowe.

I don't know if had anything to do with eligibility though.

We know that you would do it if wasn't for that pesky restraining order.

errlloyd

Yeah_Right wrote: »

We know that you would do it if wasn't for that pesky restraining order.

Is that Venjur's wife's name?

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Is that Venjur's wife's name?

Honestly, I'd say my wife would be cool with it too.

It would rule me out of playing for Ulster Rugby however and I'm not willing to close the door on that possibility just yet.

Munster would be still a runner mind you so not all bad!

bennyl10

Hey lads, housemate of mine has 2 tickets for Saturday for sale, face value block 511 if Anyone is interested?

arsebiscuits1

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/hes-35-now-welsh-legend-shane-williams-has-identified-isa-nacewa-as-the-leinster-weak-link-36822752.html

Anyone see Shane Williams say Isa was the weak link?

Isa Nacewa is a wonderful player – someone I faced numerous times during my career – but he’s 35 now and more used to playing full-back or wing than centre," Williams wrote in The Rugby Paper.

"Robbie Henshaw’s injury means Nacewa is likely to start in the blue 12 jersey and while he is a top-class operator, the Scarlets must look to exploit him in that position.

"In Hadleigh Parkes and Scott Williams the Scarlets have two men in peak form. Their challenge is to tie in Nacewa, target him with some initial carries, and then work off that platform.

Tut tut Shane, you should be keeping up with the latest reports

errlloyd

arsebiscuits1 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champions-cup/hes-35-now-welsh-legend-shane-williams-has-identified-isa-nacewa-as-the-leinster-weak-link-36822752.html

Anyone see Shane Williams say Isa was the weak link?

Tut tut Shane, you should be keeping up with the latest reports

Target him with CARRIES! Is he ****ing nuts, has he seen how hard Nacewa hits!

If you want to exploit him try and catch him out with pace, but his tackle technique and timing are still great. He will hurt you.

arsebiscuits1

errlloyd wrote: »

Target him with CARRIES! Is he ****ing nuts, has he seen how hard Nacewa hits!

If you want to exploit him try and catch him out with pace, but his tackle technique and timing are still great. He will hurt you.

Yeah Shane has it totally backwards I feel.

I think Isa will be exposed much more playing on the wing than in the centre