Munster vs Connacht, Fri 5th March 7:35pm, Eir Sport 1

ElisaAtWar

gally74 wrote: »

munster will maul and roll over most teams from 5 meters,

but they will win nothing when it comes to the buisness end of the compettion,

I agree with that sentiment. But it doesn't take away from a lateral performance from Connacht. That was just simply where the biggest disappointment was

AbusesToilets

Porch's poor kick really killed Connacht. Try from nothing. Ref with some harsh calls at the end, the high tackle call on Carberry especially was poor imo.

leakyboots

Thought Cloete's one was harsh, ball was there to be picked up. He's caused mayhem on the deck since they changed the laws. I know he gets penalised but he wins so much ball. Billy Holland flopped in the ruck which could have been a penalty there.

Ben Healy had a poor night, awful actually bar a nice offload. Nothing really went right for him, including kicks. He's still young enough but you'd think that's him 3rd choice for the remainder of the season, this was the game to potentially grab the jersey.

Casey was good, a couple of sloppy kicks but very lively around the ruck and passing was snappy. Tackled his heart out too.

Haley continued his good form, worth a look internationally maybe? Great stepper, always good for an offload, handy in the air. His kicking is mixed is the only criticism I'd have, he sometimes kicks with the same low trajectory as James Lowe.

Cronin had a fine game, his form has been good too. Has the nose for a try and is a good groundhog, solid in the scrum. Wycherley has a bit of work to do to break in ahead of him and Killer. Loughman has done very little wrong this season too. We're well stacked at LH.

Daly had a night to forget. He's in a strange situation whereby he's in the national squad, not getting gametime and then not playing much with Munster. You'd think it's Conway/Earls/Haley for the final.

Lineout was a disaster, Connacht did a right number on us there, fair dues.

Gonna single out Archer too, he's been a brilliant servant and gets no plaudits. It's quite a while ago now but he used have an absolutely awful time in the scrums, he used ship fierce criticism. He has been regularly locking it down for years, without necessarily being dominant mind, but generally gets parity. He's one that has popped up with nice hands in play too, thrown an offload off the ground recently enough also. 225 caps is some going for a guy that looked like losing a contract around 8 years ago, not sure what his contract situation is but I think he's worth another season.

Ardillaun

I thought Connacht were going to be under pressure in the set-pieces but the scrum was solid and the lineout was dominant. Thornbury was incredible, esp. with the charge downs, real Itoje stuff. Blade has a lovely grubber kick.

Jump_In_Jack

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

The yellow against Aki stalled the momentum of the game and was a poor call I thought. Penalty was all that should have been given.

Could someone explain why Cloete got his yellow for picking up the ball with no one competing with him?

Same for Aki’s penalty that gave Munster the soft 3 points.

If the rules mean you have to ruck over it for a teammate to pick it up behind you even when there is nobody from the other team trying to ruck against you it seems like a stupid rule that just slows down the game needlessly, or have I got it wrong?

Cloete wasn't on his feet, you could clearly see him supporting his weight with a hand on the ground just before going for the ball. At that point he's out of the game.

Aki, the ball was in the ruck. You can't handle the ball in a ruck.

Shelflife

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Porch's poor kick really killed Connacht. Try from nothing. Ref with some harsh calls at the end, the high tackle call on Carberry especially was poor imo.

That penalty while hard on Wooton was correct, Wooton made contact with the head so it’s a high tackle.

There wasn’t a lot that Wooton could do about it but it’s still high and still a pen.

Overall I think Busby had a solid game, he kept a lid on a pot that was simmering nicely throughout the game and was consistent in his decisions.

Sure there were one or two that could have gone the other way , but that’s always the case in every game.

yerrahbah

Another iffy performance by Munster

Connacht really did a number on us at lineout time

I felt if we could have won a few more of our lineouts then our maul would have won us a few penalties

Fortunate enough with a few decisions, the Cloete flailing arm and the "high" tackle on Carbery in the corner spring to mind

Not a great performance by Healy, but this is essentially his first proper season so hopefully he learns from it.

ShineyShiney

Shelflife wrote: »

That penalty while hard on Wooton was correct, Wooton made contact with the head so it’s a high tackle.

There wasn’t a lot that Wooton could do about it but it’s still high and still a pen.

Overall I think Busby had a solid game, he kept a lid on a pot that was simmering nicely throughout the game and was consistent in his decisions.

Sure there were one or two that could have gone the other way , but that’s always the case in every game.

Thought he had a good game, was consistent with his decisions, I wouldn't be disappointed to see him reffing us again. Thought DDAs around the neck tackle on the 10 in the last 5 minutes right in front of him was a bad call and not in keeping with the rest of his game but generally a good game. I like Joy as a ref but I'm struggling with her as a tmo. Thought the high tackle on Carty, Daly taken out off the ball by cloete and Coombes obstruction all warranted a look.

Excellent game, disappointed to.come out the wrong side but well played Munster.

mun1

Good energetic game to watch , and excellent commitment form both sides.
Good runout for some of the munster squad players last night. Really thought Connacht were going to do it based on the respective starting teams.
Thought we would see more from Healy, Daly, Conway, Farrell, Wycherley .

Player wise , Winners on the night were Cronin, Casey, Cloete and Haley

Well done to Connacht for dong their homework in the line out , but their back play was worse than Munsters and with a lot of lovely passing across the field, they lacked the patience and accuracy to make the possession count. AKI is an absolute monster and would love to see him down at munster.

Had a close look at carty and while his skill levels are very good, his decision making and control go missing at crucial times.

Klyne, Beirne, POM, CJ, KOB , kilcoyne to come back into the pack for the final along with Murray (although I’d put Casey on a par with him) JJ, DDA, earls in the back line.
Even with those players back , the performances have been very inconsistent this season , so it will be some trick to win the final.

Shame the final is the week after 6N ends , but with the nature of the season , I’m thankful for any rugby to watch.

Padkir

Shelflife wrote: »

That penalty while hard on Wooton was correct, Wooton made contact with the head so it’s a high tackle.

There wasn’t a lot that Wooton could do about it but it’s still high and still a pen.

Overall I think Busby had a solid game, he kept a lid on a pot that was simmering nicely throughout the game and was consistent in his decisions.

Sure there were one or two that could have gone the other way , but that’s always the case in every game.

Just a question on the high tackle law as it might be my poor understanding.

It was a high tackle, yes, as he caught him around the neck, but without much force. Does the fact that the player was falling and only a foot from the ground not mitigate it down to no sanction?

For example, if it was high with more force, it might start at yellow card, then be mitigated down to a penalty only because of the falling player.

Why does the mitigation not go a step further if the original sanction was penalty only? Genuine question as it's always confused me and I always find it so harsh that you can win a penalty by slipping while trying to step someone, while they have no time to do anything to avoid it.

sydthebeat

I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone

Cookiemunster

sydthebeat wrote: »

I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone

The thing is though, that you can't touch another players head under any circumstances anymore. That's simply the way the game is gone.

sydthebeat

Cookiemunster wrote: »

The thing is though, that you can't touch another players head under any circumstances anymore. That's simply the way the game is gone.

I know the point, however I think refs need to be braver and realise that sometimes the action of the ball carrier causes the contact, not the actions of the tackler.

I'm not saying carbery bought the pen, but there needs to be an understanding that if a ball carrier brings himself head first down to the shins of a tackler, the only way to tackle with arms (as is the requirement) is to the head area.

Said this plenty of times before but Its anathema to me that someone can get pinged for a high tackle when their arms are not about their waist.

Bazzo

A game finished 24-24 Connacht with a late try and missed conversion to level

FACECUTTR

Those Craggy rugby guys are great. The podcast is fantastic too for anybody interested.

Shelflife

sydthebeat wrote: »

I thought the Wooton penalty on carbery was utterly ridiculous to be honest.

Carbery is almost prone on the ground as he decides to drop before he tackle.

Wootons arms never come up higher than his waist.

If that was a defender tackling a guy trying to dive over the line for a try it's never a pen, and shouldn't be just because the ball carrier is in his one 5 meter zone

sydthebeat wrote: »

I know the point, however I think refs need to be braver and realise that sometimes the action of the ball carrier causes the contact, not the actions of the tackler.

I'm not saying carbery bought the pen, but there needs to be an understanding that if a ball carrier brings himself head first down to the shins of a tackler, the only way to tackle with arms (as is the requirement) is to the head area.

Said this plenty of times before but Its anathema to me that someone can get pinged for a high tackle when their arms are not about their waist.

I understand where ye are coming from and it can be frustrating for players and officials alike.

Simply put, any contact with the head is a high tackle and is at minimum a pen, I agree that there wasnt much that Wooton could do apart from not not tackle him.

Basically if you cant execute a tackle safely then you shouldnt execute a tackle, if you allowed tackles like those to go unpunished you would find players putting in a cheap shot on the basis that their arms were below the waist.

sydthebeat

Shelflife wrote: »

I understand where ye are coming from and it can be frustrating for players and officials alike.

Simply put, any contact with the head is a high tackle and is at minimum a pen, I agree that there wasnt much that Wooton could do apart from not not tackle him.

Basically if you cant execute a tackle safely then you shouldnt execute a tackle, if you allowed tackles like those to go unpunished you would find players putting in a cheap shot on the basis that their arms were below the waist.

Nah, a forceful arm to the head is a strike, and a completely different penalty. I've no issue at all with that.

It can't be any contact to the head. Cloete didn't get pinged for his contact with carty. The Glasgow 6 today made head to head contact with the zebre 9 which lead to both players going off injured, and no penalty. The TMO checked both these incidents.... So it's not "every contact to the head is a penalty"

I have an issue with a ball carrier leading with the head being allowed to make gains without being tackled. That's encouraging dangerous play, or encouraging the buying of penalties. Like I said already, it was carbery that caused the contact to the head with Wooton last night, not the other way round.

Just watching zebre Glasgow here and I'd say 50% of pick and goes within the 5 meter are defended by means which includes contact to the head.

gally74

sydthebeat wrote: »

Nah, a forceful arm to the head is a strike, and a completely different penalty. I've no issue at all with that.

It can't be any contact to the head. Cloete didn't get pinged for his contact with carty. The Glasgow 6 today made head to head contact with the zebre 9 which lead to both players going off injured, and no penalty. The TMO checked both these incidents.... So it's not "every contact to the head is a penalty"

I have an issue with a ball carrier leading with the head being allowed to make gains without being tackled. That's encouraging dangerous play, or encouraging the buying of penalties. Like I said already, it was carbery that caused the contact to the head with Wooton last night, not the other way round.

Just watching zebre Glasgow here and I'd say 50% of pick and goes within the 5 meter are defended by means which includes contact to the head.

i reckon its the next area of focus, the stuff inside 5 meters is more like reated NFL scrummages.... there's no way there is not head contact.

If the law changes there it would open up the game, and probalby take away 50% of munster tries, I dotn like that part of the game,

ElisaAtWar

If I were a Munster supporter I would take heart from the fact that the opposition had the lion's share of possession, won most of the competing situations and still managed to win the game.

As a Connacht supporter I'm less enamored. For all the possession how was it that we were so clueless. TOH had said in an interview just prior to the game that Connacht were going to test Munster. But it didn't happen like that.

Possession was there but no ideas. When Wooten came on things improved. I just got the impression that previous to his introduction the back 3 were always in defensive mode.

Can't put my finger on why that was the case. You had to think that Connacht knew they had to release their back 3. And when they had the possession how did this not happen. Was it that Blade simply pushed the ball to the big lads and didn't make any use of the speed in behind him.

I tend to think so. I believe when Marmion came on the game speeded up a bit and Wooten benefited while Porch, TOH, Healy looked static under Blade

Just an opinion

AbusesToilets

Question re: the penalty against Aki. The ref said he couldn't play the ball, as he was in the ruck, basically needed another Connacht player to come behind him to pick it up legally. How was what Aki did any different from a player picking and going from a ruck normally?

He had successfully counter-rucked, which would mean the ruck, as a object so to speak, moved with him. His hind foot was Connacht's new offside line, and the front of him, Munster's. So if he reaches back and picks up, why is that illegal?

Am I misundertanding the laws completely here?

aloooof

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Question re: the penalty against Aki. The ref said he couldn't play the ball, as he was in the ruck, basically needed another Connacht player to come behind him to pick it up legally. How was what Aki did any different from a player picking and going from a ruck normally?

Imo, the difference here is the length of time between the carrier releasing / place it and Aki putting his hands on the ball.

The jackal penalties you see given are typically when the jackaler immediately wins the space and gets hands on the ball before the clear out comes. But Farrell was in the ruck, and Daly had also arrived when Aki starts his counter-ruck. He puts his hands on the ball after that, and a fair bit after DDA had placed it.

I thought it was a pretty obvious pen, tbh.

Dubinusa

What a match. Great stuff. Disappointing for Connacht as they were so good in stages. Of course, you gotta score, but!!
For Munster, I thought JOD was sharp and the most influential forward. Cronin did the business too. Surely Farrell needs to have a gander at him. But the locks were not at the races. Combes was also good. Why don't they throw to him at the line out?

I thought Dillane was immense throughout and Thornbury too. Oliver was poor, imo. I think the occasion got to him. Couple of brain dead penalties. Boyle was ok and I thought he could have made a better effort for Haley's try.

Fantastic performance by both sides. Munster to stay in it whilst being hammered at the beginning and Munster for working back into it. Ref was good too!

Bundee was sensational except for the penalty at the ruck. His yellow was very harsh, I thought.

phog

Poor enough fare from Munster, especially our lineouts, I know Connacht targetted them to try stop our maul before we got to form one but we needed to bring some change to it.

On Bundee's YC, a one handed slap on the ball to the ground is making the ref's decision easy, saying Casey was never going to catch it is irrelevant. Listen to Barnes when he refs, if you go to intercept use two hands if you want to avoid a card for a knockon.

In a way this game might have suited JJ better. Overall, I think we did enough to win but we need some improvements if we are to have any hope of winning the final.

aloooof

aloooof wrote: »

Imo, the difference here is the length of time between the carrier releasing / place it and Aki putting his hands on the ball.

The jackal penalties you see given are typically when the jackaler immediately wins the space and gets hands on the ball before the clear out comes. But Farrell was in the ruck, and Daly had also arrived when Aki starts his counter-ruck. He puts his hands on the ball after that, and a fair bit after DDA had placed it.

I thought it was a pretty obvious pen, tbh.

Yeah thought it was definitely a penalty. He could have tried to ruck it backwards given the access he had, or else Connacht needed 2-3 more bodies to pile in and make it clear they'd won possession.