Preview: Leinster v Saracens, Sunday April 1, 15:30, BT Sports 2

pickarooney

pickarooney wrote: »

Furlong played the full 80 yesterday?

Any full match vids around? I only saw 15 mins.

No, Porter came on.

thomond2006

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, once again Furlong was outstanding. He's got some engine considering the mass he has to carry around the pitch.

#InspiredbyHayes

Synode

Anyone find the full match online yet. Raging as I forgot to record it.

Or is there a way to watch back on Eir?

Tim Robbins

.ak wrote: »

Leavy only passed twice yesterday in 19 carries iirc.

Both Leavy and VDF have very good hands tho, don’t think either stand out above each other there.

Two fairly different 7s, both bring something unique to the party. Jvdf must be worried now tho.

Leavy's passes tend to be one handed short offloads. It is rare you see him run with two hands and hit a deft pass. This is where SOB and VDF would be better at and hence why I think Leavy is more of a 6.

Synode

Synode wrote: »

Anyone find the full match online yet. Raging as I forgot to record it.

Or is there a way to watch back on Eir?

Found it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voetJd6qxWo&t=1020s

Synode

Leavy was simply outstanding yesterday. He's seriously gone up a gear the last 3 months. Absolute beast at the breakdown but also has an outstanding rugby brain. He's going to be massive for Leinster and Ireland for many years to come.

James Ryan also had another excellent game. His pass for Leavy's try, the half break building up to Lowe's and his driving (with Isa) Lowe over the line were the highlights. He's a joy to watch.

clsmooth

Synode wrote: »

Leavy was simply outstanding yesterday. He's seriously gone up a gear the last 3 months. Absolute beast at the breakdown but also has an outstanding rugby brain. He's going to be massive for Leinster and Ireland for many years to come.

James Ryan also had another excellent game. His pass for Leavy's try, the half break building up to Lowe's and his driving (with Isa) Lowe over the line were the highlights. He's a joy to watch.

I was trying to work out what makes him so good. He’s not the quickest, not the biggest but he’s always in the right place, has an eye for a gap, rarely gets outmuscled and has an assurance about him that must rub off on the other players. There were a few moments from the England match which stood out to me, one where he was patting Best on the back for a turnover when both of them were pinned at the bottom of a ruck/collapsed maul and in the resulting scrum in the Irish 22 you could hear him g’ing up the lads saying ‘they don’t have the discipline lads’ and low and behold they didn’t. Just seems a very positive player. You’d look across at him in the dressing room and you’d feel you were definitely in with shout. Seems like a real leader. Not the most graceful in the actual act of scoring though

salmocab

Leavy has the strangest run, I can’t work out what it is but his legs seem to work in an odd manner.
A mate was saying during the match yesterday that if he was a kiwi they would be calling him the next Richie Mc Caw.

Burkie1203

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, once again Furlong was outstanding. He's got some engine considering the mass he has to carry around the pitch.

That &*$#head cummiskey was tweeting at half-time that Furlong should be taken off and porter brought on. He has me blocked so can't post link (along with Stephen jones) but saw a retweet.

prawnsambo

Burkie1203 wrote: »

That &*$#head cummiskey was tweeting at half-time that Furlong should be taken off and porter brought on. He has me blocked so can't post link (along with Stephen jones) but saw a retweet.

Are you collecting twitter blocks?

Synode

clsmooth wrote: »

Not the most graceful in the actual act of scoring though

All that tumble was missing was jazz hands at the end :pac:

Burkie1203

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you collecting twitter blocks?

No. Just blocked by the same two people most rugby fans are blocked by.

Jones blocked me and I never even replied to one of his tweets. Just because I had an IRFU logo pic on my twitter.

Cummiskey blocked me but I don't know why. I only discovered that today

durkadurka

salmocab wrote: »

Leavy has the strangest run, I can’t work out what it is but his legs seem to work in an odd manner.
A mate was saying during the match yesterday that if he was a kiwi they would be calling him the next Richie Mc Caw.

He looks like he’s only just learned how to run and hasn’t got the hang of it yet

Dubinusa

Just watched the match. Absolute cracker. Don't know what to say, except they were brilliant.
The rush defense is great, lotta missed tackles, but the pressure applied on the attacking team causes mistakes and very rushed play. It may backfire at some point but you would believe that he can adjust accordingly.
I thought Sarries were headhunting Sexton. One way to stop that would be to target Farrell.
It's becoming way too frequent from opposing teams and both Leinster and Ireland must respond in kind.
You must protect your playmaker. I am amazed that this is still continuing year after year, with out some kind of retribution.

Former Former

Burkie1203 wrote: »

That &*$#head cummiskey was tweeting at half-time that Furlong should be taken off and porter brought on. He has me blocked so can't post link (along with Stephen jones) but saw a retweet.

He said;

"Tadhg Furlong 12 tackles and only four carries (one Sonny Bill). Well off the boil, get Porter on."

Is it not very obvious that's a joke?

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

He said;

"Tadhg Furlong 12 tackles and only four carries (one Sonny Bill). Well off the boil, get Porter on."

Is it not very obvious that's a joke?

Gas

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Gas

The lack of emoji has me confused.

It could be or :rolleyes:

Just three little letters and my day is destroyed.

Buer

Watched the game last night. Leavy was brilliant but Ryan could easily have been MOTM also. He was immense.

I didn't notice at the game but Fardy had a brilliant first half also. Did a massive amount of defensive work. Our three locks and Healy were massive in those opening 40 minutes.

I don't know how we're going to select our back row if SOB is back now. Quite possible that Murphy is back out in the cold. With that said, Cullen's comments about SOB not being miles off suggest he's not actually going to be back immediately still.

pickarooney

prawnsambo wrote: »

The lack of emoji has me confused.

It could be or :rolleyes:

Just three little letters and my day is destroyed.

Without the appropriate emoji I'm obliged to assume that IBF is calling for the journalist in question to be sent to a concentration camp and murdered.

Which is not on, let's be clear.

For shame.

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

Watched the game last night. Leavy was brilliant but Ryan could easily have been MOTM also. He was immense.

I didn't notice at the game but Fardy had a brilliant first half also. Did a massive amount of defensive work. Our three locks and Healy were massive in those opening 40 minutes.

I don't know how we're going to select our back row if SOB is back now. Quite possible that Murphy is back out in the cold. With that said, Cullen's comments about SOB not being miles off suggest he's not actually going to be back immediately still.

And there's also a possibility that Conan would be back too. I haven't heard an update on his injury, but it was a knock to the knee which could mean anything really.

Just saw this on reddit. What a monster.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/89ben3/dan_leavy_my_god/

.ak

When I rewatched the game in the cold light of day I couldn’t believe Wigglesworth didn’t get carded or that it wasn’t looked at. There’s so many silly things that are looked at with no common sense because there may have been contact with the head accidentally, and then you get a player who not only uses his shoulder late on a fly half but launches himself up off the ground to try and target his head and it’s not even looked it? Baffling. He was clearly headhunting and considering the concerns around permanent damage due to concussions in the game at the moment that was a scummy move. If he was a taller man I’d have no doubt he’d have made clean contact with Sexton’s head.

Buer

On replay, the hits on Sexton were clearly deliberate. Itoje caught him with a knee which was accidental but the late hit and deliberate knock on was a definite penalty. The referee raised his arm for a penalty before changing to a scrum which I couldn't understand. He made no effort to catch the ball, just to block it down.

I thought the hit from Kruis wasn't too forceful but was very sneaky. Late and from behind. And then the Wigglesworth hit was the dirtiest of the lot. He didn't hit Sexton hard given his size but it was a deliberate attempt to take him out illegally off the ball with a high shoulder. Even the BT commentary thought he got out of jail on that one.

Garces should have stamped down on it early. When Saracens knew they were getting away with it, they had a free run to keep trying to take him out.

Sangre

.ak wrote: »

When I rewatched the game in the cold light of day I couldn’t believe Wigglesworth didn’t get carded or that it wasn’t looked at. There’s so many silly things that are looked at with no common sense because there may have been contact with the head accidentally, and then you get a player who not only uses his shoulder late on a fly half but launches himself up off the ground to try and target his head and it’s not even looked it? Baffling. He was clearly headhunting and considering the concerns around permanent damage due to concussions in the game at the moment that was a scummy move. If he was a taller man I’d have no doubt he’d have made clean contact with Sexton’s head.

Yes, based on the current reffing approach that was a pretty clear yellow card imo.

irishbucsfan

He's not a taller man and he didn't hit his head though. It was a completely defensible call as a penalty. We can't start penalising players for nearly doing things.

Now whether the tackle on its own is worthy of a yellow card might be debatable. But on review Garces did look at the replay and decided he was happy with his call, and that's fair enough.

baas baa

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Just saw this on reddit. What a monster.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/89ben3/dan_leavy_my_god/

There was a great counter ruck in the 2nd half as well that was led my Leavy iirc.

He has a great rugby IQ. Even for his own try it was him who spotted the opportunity and called for the play with Ryan.

stephen_n

irishbucsfan wrote: »

He's not a taller man and he didn't hit his head though. It was a completely defensible call as a penalty. We can't start penalising players for nearly doing things.

Now whether the tackle on its own is worthy of a yellow card might be debatable. But on review Garces did look at the replay and decided he was happy with his call, and that's fair enough.

He doesn’t have to hit his head, that’s irrelevant unless you are talking about a red card.

It wasn’t a tackle, he didn’t use his arms at all or make any attempt to, it was a shoulder charge and as such a definite yellow card, Garces and the TMO got it completely wrong.

irishbucsfan

stephen_n wrote: »

He doesn’t have to hit his head, that’s irrelevant unless you are talking about a red card.

It wasn’t a tackle, he didn’t use his arms at all or make any attempt to, it was a shoulder charge and as such a definite yellow card, Garces and the TMO got it completely wrong.

I never said he had to hit his head, I was responding to someone saying he would have hit his head if he was taller. It's pointless bringing that into the discussion because he is not taller and he didn't hit his head.

It was a tackle. Even a tackle without arms is still a tackle under the laws, its just an illegal tackle.

Not every shoulder charge is a binnable offense. Otherwise both Kearney and Wigglesworth should have gone. But in the end, both stayed on and the interpretation was consistent.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I never said he had to hit his head, I was responding to someone saying he would have hit his head if he was taller. It's pointless bringing that into the discussion because he is not taller and he didn't hit his head.

It was a tackle. Even a tackle without arms is still a tackle under the laws, its just an illegal tackle.

Not every shoulder charge is a binnable offense. Otherwise both Kearney and Wigglesworth should have gone. But in the end, both stayed on and the interpretation was consistent.

I don't think .ak was suggesting he should be sanctioned for something that didn't occur, I think he is merely suggesting that optically it looked like a cheap shot to put manners on Sexton but one that could have resulted in a head injury.

It was a borderline yellow for me, but he was all in on making the hit count. Sexton got 4 late hits, the 4th being the Wiggelsorth one. He started playing a bit tighter to the line after that penalty as Saracens had been disciplined for it and the next late hit was getting a card, it was a clear tactic though and whilst an outhalf that hangs onto the ball too long deserves to get smashed, every single attempt by Saracens was late and in Wiggelsworths case it was a real cheap shot.

Kearney also borderline, could have been a yellow and I'd imagine if that was the case it would have to have been a penalty try as there was no one else providing cover.

Podge_irl

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Not every shoulder charge is a binnable offense. Otherwise both Kearney and Wigglesworth should have gone. But in the end, both stayed on and the interpretation was consistent.

They were utterly incomparable situations!

The Wigglesworth one was almost comical but it was still a late, jumping shoulder charge. I would say that always gets a yellow but honestly I've never seen it before!

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Kearney also borderline, could have been a yellow and I'd imagine if that was the case it would have to have been a penalty try as there was no one else providing cover.

Nah, no way that could have been a penalty try. The entire reason Kearney hit him high was because he was already slipping before contact.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I never said he had to hit his head, I was responding to someone saying he would have hit his head if he was taller. It's pointless bringing that into the discussion because he is not taller and he didn't hit his head.

It was a tackle. Even a tackle without arms is still a tackle under the laws, its just an illegal tackle.

Not every shoulder charge is a binnable offense. Otherwise both Kearney and Wigglesworth should have gone. But in the end, both stayed on and the interpretation was consistent.

It was not a tackle. The laws clearly state you have to hold the ball carrier for it to be a tackle.


And Williams feel over all by himself so it was never a penalty try. If you fall over before contact then it's a massive stretch to say he'd have probably scored.

Faugheen

Sangre wrote: »

Yes, based on the current reffing approach that was a pretty clear yellow card imo.

I'd go red. He was clearly targeting him and the little leap in the air tells me he was aiming to hit him high.

Malicious and intentional. Red all day for me.

irishbucsfan

Janelle Scary Cheddar wrote: »

It was not a tackle. The laws clearly state you have to hold the ball carrier for it to be a tackle.

This is for the purposes of determining when a tackle is completed for the breakdown. Dangerous tackles under foul play are still referred to as tackles, because it's just silly not to do so.

Maybe we can invent a new word for them and start referring to them as "No-arm whallops" or "high shenanigans", but until then we should just keep on with what we're doing.

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

They were utterly incomparable situations!

The Wigglesworth one was almost comical but it was still a late, jumping shoulder charge. I would say that always gets a yellow but honestly I've never seen it before!

Well it clearly doesn't always get a yellow.

And for another poster to call a red for it is absolutely hilarious. If you're thinking that could ever be a red card, just take a breather, take off the blue glasses, and consider what offense actually occurred.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is for the purposes of determining when a tackle is completed for the breakdown. Dangerous tackles under foul play are still referred to as tackles, because it's just silly not to do so.

Maybe we can invent a new word for them and start referring to them as "No-arm whallops" or "high shenanigans", but until then we should just keep on with what we're doing.

I'm not going to start quoting chunks of the law book but it was not a tackle. It meets no definition of a tackle. The law that covers no arms does not mention the word tackle. Should have been a yellow imo.

swiwi_

salmocab wrote: »

Leavy has the strangest run, I can’t work out what it is but his legs seem to work in an odd manner.
A mate was saying during the match yesterday that if he was a kiwi they would be calling him the next Richie Mc Caw.

Are you saying he constantly cheats at the breakdown

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well it clearly doesn't always get a yellow.

And for another poster to call a red for it is absolutely hilarious. If you're thinking that could ever be a red card, just take a breather, take off the blue glasses, and consider what offense actually occurred.

He targeted the player late.

He made no attempt to use the arms

He lept up into the air.

His shoulder connected with the face.

And he knew full well what he was doing.

Intentional and dangerous.

Why is that not a red card?

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

Nah, no way that could have been a penalty try. The entire reason Kearney hit him high was because he was already slipping before contact.

Which is the same reason it wasn't a yellow. I'm merely suggesting that had the ref had to card for that he probably also would have had to award the try as remove Kearney and Williams will slide over the line.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

He targeted the player late.

He made no attempt to use the arms

He lept up into the air.

His shoulder connected with the face.

And he knew full well what he was doing.

Intentional and dangerous.

Why is that not a red card?

A lot of these things are either untrue or irrelevant.

It was a penalty. And it was given. It might have been a yellow if he'd been unlucky.

Move on.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A lot of these things are either untrue or irrelevant.

It was a penalty. And it was given. It might have been a yellow if he'd been unlucky.

Move on.

Don't tell me they're untrue or irrelevant. Point them out and explain them to me.

That's how debate works.

Synode

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is the same reason it wasn't a yellow. I'm merely suggesting that had the ref had to card for that he probably also would have had to award the try as remove Kearney and Williams will slide over the line.

He wouldn't have. Tracy was coming around and would easily have got to him before the line

Podge_irl

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is the same reason it wasn't a yellow. I'm merely suggesting that had the ref had to card for that he probably also would have had to award the try as remove Kearney and Williams will slide over the line.

Nah, don't think he was close to sliding over the line. In no universe is that a penalty try.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Don't tell me they're untrue or irrelevant. Point them out and explain them to me.

That's how debate works.

The fact he jumped, where you think he was aiming, the fact you think it was intentional, that he hit him in the face.

There's no real point in having a debate. Not too fussed over it, its long gone now and absolutely nothing will ever come out of it. We benefitted from having one of the best refs in the game but some people will never be happy.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Which is the same reason it wasn't a yellow. I'm merely suggesting that had the ref had to card for that he probably also would have had to award the try as remove Kearney and Williams will slide over the line.

I think he'd have to have been much closer for it to be considered a probable try.

The Williams sitution was one where if he hadn't have slipped he'd likely have been stopped anyway, so I don't think there can be too many complaints there for either side, just a little clumsy.

Faugheen

The jump



The connection with the face



You going to tell me both of them are untrue?

Add to this it was late, no arms, the use if the shoulder and he clearly targeted him.

Don't tell me I'm lying without any proof to back up your point.

What would it take for a red card? For it to be a little bit higher?

If you're going to target someone late, above the shoulders, leaping up into the air to make sure you did catch them and catch them with your own shoulder, you could have no complaints if you saw red.

irishbucsfan

I didn't say that everything you said was untrue. I said it was irrelevant. The fact he is off the ground is irrelevant. He hits him in the shoulder with his shoulder. What makes it illegal is the fact that it's late and the fact that he possibly didnt use his arms depending your interpretation of his left arm. That's it.

There's no point continuing this because the absolutely tiny interest I have in debating this with someone who thinks this could ever be a red card is completely extinguished when they don't even bother to read what I'm saying.

Faugheen

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I didn't say that everything you said was untrue. I said it was irrelevant. The fact he is off the ground is irrelevant. He hits him in the shoulder with his shoulder. What makes it illegal is the fact that it's late and the fact that he possibly didnt use his arms depending your interpretation of his left arm. That's it.

There's no point continuing this because the absolutely tiny interest I have in debating this with someone who thinks this could ever be a red card is completely extinguished when they don't even bother to read what I'm saying.

Are you just going to ignore the second picture that clearly shows contact with the face.

And the leap is very relevant. If he doesn't leap he probably doesn't connect with the face.

I'm the only one putting forward valid points here as to why it's a red card. You're not giving me any to say it isn't other than 'it's not a red card' or 'that's irrelevant'

WHY is it irrelevant? Explain that to me.

But you already said you won't, because clearly debating with facts isn't your strong suit.

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you just going to ignore the second picture that clearly shows contact with the face.

And the leap is very relevant. If he doesn't leap he probably doesn't connect with the face.

I'm the only one putting forward valid points here as to why it's a red card. You're not giving me any to say it isn't other than 'it's not a red card' or 'that's irrelevant'

WHY is it irrelevant? Explain that to me.

But you already said you won't, because clearly debating with facts isn't your strong suit.

Well said.

Why on earth would you need to leap off the ground to tackle in this situation ? The answer is for no other reason than to hit the head area. To make the tackle legally in this situation you would do the opposite you would bend your knees to lower your height.

It is a red, the fact it didn't even get a yellow let alone a review is ludicrous.

irishbucsfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Are you just going to ignore the second picture that clearly shows contact with the face.

And the leap is very relevant. If he doesn't leap he probably doesn't connect with the face.

I'm the only one putting forward valid points here as to why it's a red card. You're not giving me any to say it isn't other than 'it's not a red card' or 'that's irrelevant'

WHY is it irrelevant? Explain that to me.

But you already said you won't, because clearly debating with facts isn't your strong suit.

Good luck with that.

If it's a red card, Wigglesworth will be cited. That should be announced today.

Maybe it'll be a citing under law 99.é - Tackling without your feet on the ground.