Leinster vs Northampton match thread

UAEguy2020

molloyjh wrote: »

Very disappointing performance. Hard to say much else tbh. I just hope the injuries aren't too bad. We need Sexton back badly.

Yes because every poor Leinster/Ireland performance is down souly to Sexton not playing, next him returning will fix the Leinster lineout.

theVersatile

Of course if the laws surrounding shoulders not dipping below hips were employed more strictly, situations like this would happen less often.

Morathi

C4 looking at the VDF incident now.

OneLungDavy

No need for this outrage, insisting the ref should lose his job over a decision.

randomname2005

Morathi wrote: »

C4 looking at the VDF incident now.

So he puts his face down and he's hit on the top or back of the head. Still a hit to the head.
He closed the gap, big swinging genitalia, then don't go for the hit.

Morathi

Morathi wrote: »

C4 looking at the VDF incident now.

Aaaaand they pussyfooted around it. Mitigation blah blah blah.

Wtf is it going to take if this week of ALL WEEKS, an incident like that isn't roundly condemned.

Pretty poor performance there. Conditions weren't great but you'd have hoped for more. Real lack of ruthlessness at a lot of different points in the game.

Kraftwerk

Quinlan doing everything he can to excuse it even though he knows it's technically a red because there's clear shoulder to the face.

Strumms

Ehh if it’s the letter of the law, he deserves a red card. Jesus Quinlan

randomname2005

OneLungDavy wrote: »

No need for this outrage, insisting the ref should lose his job over a decision.

No, but should be made, not in the jury of social media, explain to his supervisors why he made the decision. And if he has to ref at lower levels for a few matches before Heineken Cup again, so be it

Pudsy33

Reddan the only one talking sense

sydthebeat

theVersatile wrote: »

Of course if the laws surrounding shoulders not dipping below hips were employed more strictly, situations like this would happen less often.

Agreed.

Rugby laws are clear

A player must not make contact with another player above the shoulders

Its that simple and that black and white

KH25

Reddan is spot on. There can’t be ambiguity with this. A hit to the head is a hit to the head regardless of the intention. Player welfare has to come first.

OneLungDavy

So Quinlan, BOD and Hartley think it's not a red? Maybe they, the ref and TMO are correct. I thought it was a red myself, but I'm here sitting in an arm chair.

irishbucsfan

theVersatile wrote: »

Obviously, but the point is that cleaners nowadays are taught to win the height battle, get square and wrap. The cleaner here is about six inches from the ground.

Obviously it's still atleast a yellow due to the nature of the contact, but it is exactly what coaches are looking for.

The coaches are not looking for their player to be sitting down off the field for 10 minutes while they’re down to 14 men. Technique is irrelevant here.


It’s done now anyway. Ref will have to defend it later on to the assessors. Wouldn’t have affected outcome so probably not worth losing too much sleep over.

Dog Botherer

apart from Mr Summers above, i have yet to see a single person, other than the referee of course, who thought that was a good clear out.

randomname2005

Dog Botherer wrote: »

apart from Mr Summers above, i have yet to see a single person, other than the referee of course, who thought that was a good clear out.

And the pundits

OneLungDavy

randomname2005 wrote: »

And the pundits

And the TMO. Pretty much every expert I've heard from so far other than Reddan, maybe we are wrong.

Faugheen

OneLungDavy wrote: »

So Quinlan, BOD and Hartley think it's not a red? Maybe they, the ref and TMO are correct. I thought it was a red myself, but I'm here sitting in an arm chair.

Or maybe the ex-pros are completely out of touch with the consequences of multiple hits to the head.

The week Steve Thompson revealed he has dementia and this is the ****e they’re coming out with.

A hit to the head is a hit to the head. They are all completely wrong here.

Dog Botherer

i think a few of those pundits will have a change of mind over the coming days.

Kraftwerk

OneLungDavy wrote: »

So Quinlan, BOD and Hartley think it's not a red? Maybe they, the ref and TMO are correct. I thought it was a red myself, but I'm here sitting in an arm chair.

Well Quinlan says its technically a red according to the laws. He disagrees with the law from what I gather.

Hartley never had a good understanding of what constitutes a red given he's got the worst disciplinary record in the game.

The TMO decided not to answer when he was asked if he agreed with the ref.

BOD usually backs the ref regardless. He's as bland and inoffensive a pundit as you can get in rugby.

So we're left with the ref who's quite clearly French and can't be trusted.

OneLungDavy

Kraftwerk wrote: »

Well Quinlan says its technically a red according to the laws. He disagrees with the law from what I gather.

Hartley never had a good understanding of what constitutes a red given he's got the worst disciplinary record in the game.

The TMO decided not to answer when he was asked if he agreed with the ref.

BOD usually backs the ref regardless. He's as bland and inoffensive a pundit as you can get in rugby.

So we're left with the ref who's quite clearly French and can't be trusted.

And that leaves the expert opinion of Kraftwerk :pac::pac:

Kraftwerk

OneLungDavy wrote: »

And that leaves the expert opinion of Kraftwerk :pac::pac:

Exactly. The sooner I'm in charge of all this rugby lark the better.

molloyjh

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The coaches are not looking for their player to be sitting down off the field for 10 minutes while they’re down to 14 men. Technique is irrelevant here.


It’s done now anyway. Ref will have to defend it later on to the assessors. Wouldn’t have affected outcome so probably not worth losing too much sleep over.

Agree with this. I'm more annoyed by the takes of the co-comms than anything else. At least Ryle wasn't on board with it. But the week that Drico was on off the ball saying he's had to reevaluate earlier "game has gone soft" takes he had, he then comes out with the "if he can't hit him anywhere else, then the head is fine" take. Thats just not good enough for people who are meant to be ambassadors for the game.

Former Former Former

Well, it's hard for Quinlan and Hartley to be too judgemental about dirty play...

KH25

OneLungDavy wrote: »

And the TMO. Pretty much every expert I've heard from so far other than Reddan, maybe we are wrong.

Personally I think too many of the pundits base their views on how the game was when they played. Also I’d expect nothing less than Hartley saying it’s fine with his record!

Player welfare has to come first. Yes, the game will need to change, but it will adapt. Nobody wants more players coming forward with CTE and the like.

lawrencesummers

OneLungDavy wrote: »

And the TMO. Pretty much every expert I've heard from so far other than Reddan, maybe we are wrong.

There is certainly a bias.

VDF was fine, played on, wasn’t cut.

If the contact with in fact with the head then it probably shouldn’t happen, but it’s rugby and these things happen in collisions. The drama and over reaction by some people is just another example of the softness of today’s society on many levels.

Man up a small bit.

Burkie1203

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is certainly a bias.

VDF was fine, played on, wasn’t cut.

If the contact with in fact with the head then it probably shouldn’t happen, but it’s rugby and these things happen in collisions. The drama and over reaction by some people is just another example of the softness of today’s society on many levels.

Man up a small bit.

Oh fcuk off with this **** take on head shots please.

It was direct to the head.

Faugheen

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is certainly a bias.

VDF was fine, played on, wasn’t cut.

If the contact with in fact with the head then it probably shouldn’t happen, but it’s rugby and these things happen in collisions. The drama and over reaction by some people is just another example of the softness of today’s society on many levels.

Man up a small bit.

It was a direct hit to the head.

I’m sure you wouldn’t be telling Steve Thompson to ‘man up a small bit’ over things as small as this.

It’s not just the incident but the precedent it sets. Hits to the head are not ok.

Just because VDF was fine this time doesn’t mean the next person who gets a shot like this will be. I’d consider VDF to be very lucky not to have been seriously injured.

yerrahbah

lawrencesummers wrote: »

There is certainly a bias.

VDF was fine, played on, wasn’t cut.

If the contact with in fact with the head then it probably shouldn’t happen, but it’s rugby and these things happen in collisions. The drama and over reaction by some people is just another example of the softness of today’s society on many levels.

Man up a small bit.

Drico is that you?

Strumms

Kraftwerk wrote: »

BOD usually backs the ref regardless. He's as bland and inoffensive a pundit as you can get in rugby.

He’s considering ‘brand’ O’Driscoll whenever he opens his mouth...

Post playing he’s if you are to believe some media sources , made over a million euros from both media/punditry and appearing in various advertisement campaigns...o2, Gillette, a newspaper was it The Times ?

He’s about as far removed from a Dunphy type as you can get... he on that basis, very marketable, but a not a very good pundit.

Faugheen

TMO in the Ulster game showing how exactly you can get the referee to change his mind.

thelad95

I think the TMO was a little shell shocked at the referees complete dismissal of the incident.

Definitely the most bizarre TMO-referee interaction I've ever seen.

eclipsechaser

lawrencesummers wrote: »

A hollow threat of violence has no place on a civilized forum.

Posters going soft. Neymar would be proud of your play acting.

Podge_irl

The TMO is in a crap situation. It is ultimately the ref's decision and the last thing you want to do is get into an argument about it. The co-comms on C4 were less forgiving of the decision though the only one to mention "red card" was Jim Hamilton.

Deusexmachina

Strumms wrote: »

He’s considering ‘brand’ O’Driscoll whenever he opens his mouth...

Post playing he’s if you are to believe some media sources , made over a million euros from both media/punditry and appearing in various advertisement campaigns...o2, Gillette, a newspaper was it The Times ?

He’s about as far removed from a Dunphy type as you can get... he on that basis, very marketable, but a not a very good pundit.

Get up the yard. O Driscoll is a very knowledgable pundit who actually offers insightful and considered feedback when discussing rugby. Similar to ROG in that respect.
You resent him making money from his profession?

Burkie1203

Deusexmachina wrote: »

Get up the yard. O Driscoll is a very knowledgable pundit who actually offers insightful and considered feedback when discussing rugby. Similar to ROG in that respect.
You resent him making money from his profession?

3 days ago he said he was wrong to go with the "games gone soft" comments

Last month he wondered how he could explain to his child about hits to the head.

Today he very much sits on the fence over a direct shoulder to the head.

Its almost like his contract states he cannot be critical of GP clubs

Tim Robbins

On the VDF head incident, it's a minimum Yellow. Only reason why it is not a Red is that you could say it is mitigated by
* an attempt to wrap
* VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others.

So I think if you were to ask Ref's they would go Yellow or Red. I thought it was really bizarre. With so much focus now on the risk to the head, it is not good to see this type of incident with video replays not been sanctioned.

Burkie1203

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On the VDF head incident, it's a minimum Yellow. Only reason why it is not a Red is that you could say it is mitigated by
* an attempt to wrap
* VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others.

So I think if you were to ask Ref's they would go Yellow or Red. I thought it was really bizarre. With so much focus now on the risk to the head, it is not good to see this type of incident with video replays not been sanctioned.

VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault.

An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?

molloyjh

Burkie1203 wrote: »

VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault.

An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?

He did look to bind and his left hand did bind on VDFs right arm. But I'm not sure that's real mitigation when there's no way that he could have made the hit without hitting VDFs head.

Burkie1203

molloyjh wrote: »

He did look to bind and his left hand did bind on VDFs right arm. But I'm not sure that's real mitigation when there's no way that he could have made the hit without hitting VDFs head.

Precisely. The only way he could wrap was by going through VDFs head basically.

crisco10

It was so bizarre that it wasn’t even a penalty for being a bit wreckless. Think the TMO was a bit stunned too

irishbucsfan

Burkie1203 wrote: »

VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault.

An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?

There was definitely an attempt to wrap.

Yellow would have suited me

Burkie1203

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There was definitely an attempt to wrap.

Yellow would have suited me

Doesn't matter. It was a straight shoulder to the head. Red card.


https://twitter.com/2__Stat/status/1340316093454409729?s=19

Former Former Former

It's contact to the head so should have been a red.

I wonder is the TV screen that the ref has to use a factor? It's one thing to argue yellow vs red but to see absolutely nothing?

Burkie1203

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Doesn't matter. It was a straight shoulder to the head. Red card.


https://twitter.com/2__Stat/status/1340316093454409729?s=19

So it’s JvdFs fault now ?! Looks like we have to add Quinlan to the list of ex players that need to sit down in remedial rules class on Monday.

It’s an illegal clear out, it’s a red card as I imagine the citing commissioner will say. Josh’s head never moves, it’s Woods fault 100% as the target area never changed. A few inches to the right and he could have attempted a clearout on Josh’s shoulder.

This ex players that don’t know the rules or can’t keep their bleeding mouths shut stuff is being a massive blight on the game. They they are throwing doubt and confusion on the rules. The rules are clear, but then you have them saying that stuff like that. Jesus wept.

Faugheen

Tim Robbins wrote: »

On the VDF head incident, it's a minimum Yellow. Only reason why it is not a Red is that you could say it is mitigated by
* an attempt to wrap
* VDF should really have his head up and his eyes focusing on what is coming at him. Everyone has a duty a care in a collision sport. To yourself and to others.

So I think if you were to ask Ref's they would go Yellow or Red. I thought it was really bizarre. With so much focus now on the risk to the head, it is not good to see this type of incident with video replays not been sanctioned.

This blaming of VDF is poisonous.

The duty of care is on Wood, not VDF, who did everything right.

Dog Botherer

Full match

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15ucK5FTlyM

Tim Robbins

Burkie1203 wrote: »

VDF did have his head up. And people have used that as a reason why it wasn't Woods fault.

An attempt to wrap what you? His arm around VDFs head?

It's doesn't mean it's yellow, it's more like if you are thinking red, then you ask any questions to see if there's anything to move it to yellow. That's normal ref practise.

I thought red, but someone else might think yellow and I was trying to argue why they might think that. No penalty makes no sense to me.

Burkie1203

Tim Robbins wrote: »

It's doesn't mean it's yellow, it's more like if you are thinking red, then you ask any question to see if there's anything to move it to yellow.

I thought red, but someone else might think yellow and I was trying to argue why they might think that. No penalty makes no sense to me.

Your OP basically blamed VDF. Which frankly is utter horse**** POV. He was in a perfect position and the player coming into the ruck has the duty of care.

Its stonewall red card.