Munster vs Connacht, Fri 14th May 6pm; Eir Sport

aloooof

Interested Observer wrote: »

I'm a nobody on the internet posting on a rugby forum. He is a 50 cap international/senior player for Munster. There is a slight difference in what he says and what I say. On top of it all, he is completely and utterly wrong. The ref made the correct call with both disallowed tries.


Edit - btw, if you are honestly suggesting because I (seriously, who?) said something on a message board once that somehow means it's ok for Stander to come out with this rubbish then you're off you're rocker. And we won't even get into you digging through months old posts looking for some silly gotcha.

I'm not defending Stander. And I agree there's obviously a massive difference.

I just find it incongruous to have a post like the following when you're happy to throw around accusations of bias yourself when it suits.

Interested Observer wrote: »

More great examples in this thread of the fact a Munster player has never, ever committed an act of foul play.

It just makes it all the harder to have a reasonable discussion. As evidenced by this thread.

Former Former Former

Zzippy wrote: »

He went back (incorrectly) for a Munster penalty 5m out.

If he penalised JOD for obstruction (rather than foul play), then he was correct to go back for the Munster penalty.

Interested Observer

aloooof wrote: »

I'm not defending Stander. And I agree there's obviously a massive difference.

I just find it incongruous to have a post like the following when you're happy to throw around accusations of bias yourself when it suits.



It just makes it all the harder to have a reasonable discussion. As evidenced by this thread.

Away with your reasonable discussion, you tried to shut down conversation on Stander's jokeshop whinging, which is very much mirrored on this forum by the perennial victims of Munster, with a link to a several month old scratch that a year and a half old (!!!) completely unrelated post, which you posted with no comment. So reasonable, such great discussion.

aloooof

Interested Observer wrote: »

Away with your reasonable discussion, you tried to shut down conversation on Stander's jokeshop whinging, which is very much mirrored on this forum by the perennial victims of Munster, with a link to a several month old scratch that a year and a half old (!!!) completely unrelated post, which you posted with no comment. So reasonable, such great discussion.

The perennial victims of Munster™


Getting back to the match, for me the biggest disappointment was that ill-disciplined performance came off the back of one of our more cohesive performances this season against Ulster. Thought Kleyn was generally good, but his handling seems to let him down an awful lot; can think of a number of instances even this season where his handling costs us at crucial points.

Henry Ford III

Munster were competitive up front but utterly clueless in attack beyond that.

The half backs had no control at all, and it's just awful to see a player of the pedigree of DDA being used as an auxiliary back row. Munster went back to one out runners again. Awful stuff.

p.s. Did anyone notice POM handing over the captaincy to Stander? What's going on there?

Zzippy

irelandrover wrote: »

Yes, if a sub deserves a yellow card for it then they should get a yellow card. To say you cant punish them because they are a sub is wrong.

But if none of them did anything worthy of a yellow card, what do you suggest, a penalty against a player not on the pitch? What next, a penalty against a coach for verbal? The ref was probably correct, he can deal with the above later through his referee's report, but he can't deal with it on the pitch as neither subs nor coach are involved in the game.
What's probably most true is that the ref didn't want to deal with ANY of the players involved in the shenanigans because he considered it ridiculous, best dealt with through a warning to both captains, and the focus on the subs getting drawn into it is just more sour grapes.

Interested Observer

I'm pretty sure I can remember a coach of a French club getting "sent off" a few years ago for interfering with a ball that was kicked to touch, one of the opposition was going to catch it and the coach got in the way, touched the ball, and stopped any chance of a quick throw. He might have done it twice during the game and the second time the ref sent him away from the touchline. I have googled and can't find it so may have some details wrong.

phog

Interested Observer wrote: »

I'm pretty sure I can remember a coach of a French club getting "sent off" a few years ago for interfering with a ball that was kicked to touch, one of the opposition was going to catch it and the coach got in the way, touched the ball, and stopped any chance of a quick throw. He might have done it twice during the game and the second time the ref sent him away from the touchline. I have googled and can't find it so may have some details wrong.

It happened in an AIL match in Thomond Park a few years back, I think it Shannion v St Mary's, an official from the away team caught a ball that Marcus Horan was trying to get toso he could try a quick throw, ref spoke to the official and sent him to the stands

VayNiice

irelandrover wrote: »

Honestly i don't care who started it. The ref stated the subs started it, but he couldn't punish them as they were subs. To make that statement is ridiculous.

The Munster subs were involved in a scrap down the other end of the pitch earlier in the game! Murray was on the ground grappling with his feckin bib on. Should they have gotten yellow cards too?

Lost Ormond

Zzippy wrote: »

But if none of them did anything worthy of a yellow card, what do you suggest, a penalty against a player not on the pitch? What next, a penalty against a coach for verbal? The ref was probably correct, he can deal with the above later through his referee's report, but he can't deal with it on the pitch as neither subs nor coach are involved in the game.
What's probably most true is that the ref didn't want to deal with ANY of the players involved in the shenanigans because he considered it ridiculous, best dealt with through a warning to both captains, and the focus on the subs getting drawn into it is just more sour grapes.

The referee is in charge/manages all of those involved in the game. That includes subs and coaches as they will be within the playing enclosure which is more than simply the pitch.
A referee can deal with subs and coaches during a game and they can be sanctioned.
You can often see coaches sent off from the sideline.

irelandrover

VayNiice wrote: »

The Munster subs were involved in a scrap down the other end of the pitch earlier in the game! Murray was on the ground grappling with his feckin bib on. Should they have gotten yellow cards too?

There's a small difference. The ref said that that Connacht subs started this one but that since they were subs he couldn't punish them.

I think his statement is wrong. If he says to CJ that what they did isn't worthy of punishment then its fine. But he stated he cant punish them because they are subs.

I think he made a few mistakes. Munsters maul try shouldn't have been allowed. Wootons pass wasn't clearly forward, it should have been let develop and then checked. I dont think it was a clear knockon for conways try (it could have been kicked forward, there was a connacht hand that could have ripped it, it could have been a knock on) and so the on field decision should have stuck.

i dont think his performance was that bad but the reffing this year has been poor in a lot of games and i think it just came out in CJs statement, in which he said it was the same for both sides.

theVersatile

That Ben Healy "tackle in the air" was an interesting call too, while we're on the topic. Before anyone jumps on my yes I acknowledge decisions went both ways.

phog

VayNiice wrote: »

The Munster subs were involved in a scrap down the other end of the pitch earlier in the game! Murray was on the ground grappling with his feckin bib on. Should they have gotten yellow cards too?

Look, look over there

Zzippy

Munster had a penalty advantage, which arguably they could have lost once JOD went after Papali'i. He went back for a Munster penalty. He didn't penalise anyone involved in the scrap, because it was silly handbags that all involved in should know better. Ye had the penalty lads. Someone else has posted about the Munster subs scrapping in another incident. Bleating on and on about the subs is just sour grapes.

phog

Zzippy wrote: »

Munster had a penalty advantage, which arguably they could have lost once JOD went after Papali'i. He went back for a Munster penalty. He didn't penalise anyone involved in the scrap, because it was silly handbags that all involved in should know better. Ye had the penalty lads. Someone else has posted about the Munster subs scrapping in another incident. Bleating on and on about the subs is just sour grapes.

I think the bleating on you refer to is working both ways here, some posters either don't understand the laws or want to ignore them and the ref certainly didn't help the situation by stating he couldn't punish those who started a scrap because they were subs.

He might not have wanted to punish them but he certainly had the power to do so had he so wished.

Zzippy

All I'm hearing is my 4 year old whining "but he started it".
Were punches thrown? No. It was handbags. I guarantee the ref, players involved have all moved on from the game and are not giving a moment's thought to who started a bit of handbags. CJ may be a little embarrassed about his comments but that's it.
The ref didn't help the situation? The situation was over, he took no action because it was just handbags, and went back for the penalty. Yet here we are...

phog

Zzippy wrote: »

All I'm hearing is my 4 year old whining "but he started it".

Yet here we are...

Are you trying to say/impy that you didn't egg some of it on?

Zzippy

phog wrote: »

Are you trying to say/impy that you didn't egg some of it on?

All I did was ask what the ref is supposed to do, if an offence is not worthy of a yellow card and he's already going back for penalty advantage. The manufactured outrage over subs being involved is hypocritical when it is pointed out that Munster subs also got involved in handbags. The final straw is about the subs 'starting it'. It's juvenile and I pointed that out.

The facts are: Munster had a try ruled out for foul play by JOD. They had penalty advantage. There were handbags after that. Subs got involved. No one committed an act worthy of a card. The most the referee could have done is give a penalty. He didn't have to, he went back for the original penalty, letting JOD off with foul play. And certain posters want - what? Extra punishment on the lads who "started it"? It went from bleating about the referee to "but he started it". Pathetic.

phog

Zzippy wrote: »

All I did was ask what the ref is supposed to do, if an offence is not worthy of a yellow card and he's already going back for penalty advantage. The manufactured outrage over subs being involved is hypocritical when it is pointed out that Munster subs also got involved in handbags. The final straw is about the subs 'starting it'. It's juvenile and I pointed that out.

The facts are: Munster had a try ruled out for foul play by JOD. They had penalty advantage. There were handbags after that. Subs got involved. No one committed an act worthy of a card. The most the referee could have done is give a penalty. He didn't have to, he went back for the original penalty, letting JOD off with foul play. And certain posters want - what? Extra punishment on the lads who "started it"? It went from bleating about the referee to "but he started it". Pathetic.

You're making stuff up now or at the very least you're ignoring what was actually said by a few posters.

Look if you want to drive the agenda here by misrepresenting what was posted then work away but to me it's a tad juvenile.

Burkie1203

phog wrote: »

You're making stuff up now or at the very least you're ignoring what was actually said by a few posters.

Look if you want to drive the agenda here by misrepresenting what was posted then work away but to me it's a tad juvenile.

What is zippy "making up"?

sprucemoose

Zzippy wrote: »

Munster had a penalty advantage, which arguably they could have lost once JOD went after Papali'i. He went back for a Munster penalty. He didn't penalise anyone involved in the scrap, because it was silly handbags that all involved in should know better. Ye had the penalty lads. Someone else has posted about the Munster subs scrapping in another incident. Bleating on and on about the subs is just sour grapes.

except he didnt, connacht got the penalty for obstruction even though advantage was being played still

Burkie1203

sprucemoose wrote: »

except he didnt, connacht got the penalty for obstruction even though advantage was being played still

Play restarted with munster penalty. IIRC they took a scrum 5m out in fairly central position.

TomsOnTheRoof

This place is laughable. The amount of supporters from other provinces having a go over, what was up until Friday, a "makey uppy" cup. Semantic arguments left right and centre. We'll be convening a tribunal next to investigate remarks about the referee.

sprucemoose

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Play restarted with munster penalty. IIRC they took a scrum 5m out in fairly central position.

sorry you are indeed correct, indicated penalty to connacht first but gave it (eventually) to munster

Burkie1203

sprucemoose wrote: »

sorry you are indeed correct, indicated penalty to connacht first but gave it (eventually) to munster

Ref should have restarted with a connacht Penalty. JOD was going after AP for absolutely no reason, AP had zero interest in getting involved.

Stander was whining about all the connacht subs getting involved and the score being chalked off. IMO the ref got it badly wrong about the connacht subs starting it. Don't think it was reviewed fully when it should have been.



https://twitter.com/threeredkings/status/1393350806796185602?s=19

https://twitter.com/threeredkings/status/1393359437050617856?s=19

b.gud

There's only one solution left for this thread

sprucemoose

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Ref should have restarted with a connacht Penalty. JOD was going after AP for absolutely no reason, AP had zero interest in getting involved.

afaik its only 'dangerous' play that can overturn advantage though.

Burkie1203

sprucemoose wrote: »

afaik its only 'dangerous' play that can overturn advantage though.

**** from World Rugby website *****
9 Foul play


A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.

Obstruction


When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, neither player may charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.

An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.

phog

Sorry folks, to the posters who like to chat about the game, etc, I should have listened to my own advice which I've given out a few times, don't give them oxygen.

sprucemoose

Burkie1203 wrote: »

**** from World Rugby website *****
9 Foul play


A player who commits foul play must either be cautioned or temporarily suspended or sent off.

Obstruction


When a player and an opponent are running for the ball, neither player may charge or push the other except shoulder-to-shoulder.

An offside player must not intentionally obstruct an opponent or interfere with play.

A player must not intentionally prevent an opponent from tackling or attempting to tackle the ball-carrier.

not disagreeing with that, but i dont see what your point is tbh? like i said, as far as i know it has to be a dangerous incident to overturn advantage (could be wrong on this). JOD might have been acting the dick but i wouldnt say it was dangerous play, if he had thrown a punch/slap itd be different