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

leakyboots wrote: »

Absolute nonsense. Dived for the ball.

"Sliding tackle", give over

Dived for the ball knee first you mean

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Jesus I think that's harsh. Can't see how it's clear that it was DeAllende that knocked it on and it wasn't kicked by one of the players clearing out.

Beirne knocked it on. He went to pick it up with one hand and dropped it.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Wooton was perfectly within his rights to delay touching the ball down

And JOD was perfectly within his rights to go for that ball until it was touched down.

Akrasia wrote: »

And JOD was perfectly within his rights to go for that ball until it was touched down.

Never said he wasn't within his rights to go for it. Just the whole Wooton was acting the maggot line is utter BS.

Former Former Former

Akrasia wrote: »

And JOD was perfectly within his rights to go for that ball until it was touched down.

But not by sliding in with his knees first. There's no spin that makes that a legal challenge.

Like, he never had any hope of getting to the ball first, but he was so wound up that he went on a 50 metre sprint just to put himself about.

It was dangerous play, he was very lucky not to have been pulled up for it and if Wootton had been more cynical and stayed down, the TMO would have looked at it.

On the 29th minute there should have been a penalty try and a yellow card. Tom Daley tripped Craig Casey while off his feet. That is not a legitimate rugby tackle and Casey was going to score if he wasn’t stopped

Law 14.
“ Other players must: Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.”

Tom Daley had just tackled a Munster player and before getting back to his feet he deliberately moved to get in the way of Craig Casey and ended up tripping him

stephen_n

Akrasia wrote: »

Law 14.
“ Other players must: Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.”

Tom Daley had just tackled a Munster player and before getting back to his feet he deliberately moved to get in the way of Craig Casey and ended up tripping him

You are contradicting yourself in your own post. If he was getting back to his feet, then he’s not on the ground.

stephen_n wrote: »

You are contradicting yourself in your own post. If he was getting back to his feet, then he’s not on the ground.

It was before getting back to his feet, how is that a contradiction?
In rugby you’re off your feet if any body part other than your feet are on the ground. Daley moved to trip Casey in a deliberate movement while off his feet. If the TMO reviewed that it would have been a YC and a penalty try

VayNiice

Akrasia wrote: »

On the 29th minute there should have been a penalty try and a yellow card. Tom Daley tripped Craig Casey while off his feet. That is not a legitimate rugby tackle and Casey was going to score if he wasn’t stopped

Law 14.
“ Other players must: Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.”

Tom Daley had just tackled a Munster player and before getting back to his feet he deliberately moved to get in the way of Craig Casey and ended up tripping him

Not a chance. There were two connacht players ahead of Casey even if he had of got through. In no world is that a penalty try. Also Daly didn't go for him at all, he was standing up and Casey ran over him.

Added to that, the offload before went about a metre forward and wasn't called.

You're grasping at straws here.

OldRio

Akrasia wrote: »

Wooten was anting the maggot too, he deliberately relayed touching the ball down until the last second

When JOD went for that ball lit was in play

Are you being serious?

Former Former Former

Akrasia wrote: »

On the 29th minute there should have been a penalty try and a yellow card. Tom Daley tripped Craig Casey while off his feet. That is not a legitimate rugby tackle and Casey was going to score if he wasn’t stopped

Law 14.
“ Other players must: Not play the ball or attempt to tackle an opponent while on the ground near the tackle.”

Tom Daley had just tackled a Munster player and before getting back to his feet he deliberately moved to get in the way of Craig Casey and ended up tripping him

I'm not sure he's still "near the tackle" when he follows up on Casey. There's a good two or three metres of a gap from the first tackle area.

If he's moved away from the tackle then it's play on.

Former Former Former wrote: »

I'm not sure he's still "near the tackle" when he follows up on Casey. There's a good two or three metres of a gap from the first tackle area.

If he's moved away from the tackle then it's play on.

That's a very literal interpretation of the laws. It's also interesting now that you point it out considering Law 13.3 provides that

A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of
the ball.
b. Not play the ball.
c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.

No mention of being near the tackle area. Interesting quirk.

That being said, I'm not quite sure Casey didn't just run into Daly and collide with him. If you look at it in real time it'd be very hard to conclude that Daly purposefully went to tackle Casey having just spun out of the previous tackle and been flung backwards.

There has to be a coming together of clubs and referee's to sit down and watch games together...to have clear and open dialogue between both sides and for input from players taken on-board..and for the reasons behind decisions to be acknowledged by players.
It'll benefit both sides immensely imo

OldRio

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

There has to be a coming together of clubs and referee's to sit down and watch games together...to have clear and open dialogue between both sides and for input from players taken on-board..and for the reasons behind decisions to be acknowledged by players.
It'll benefit both sides immensely imo

I take it Munster lost?

OldRio wrote: »

I take it Munster lost?

Yes, does that lessen the point in some way?

OldRio

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

Yes, does that lessen the point in some way?

It makes my point

OldRio wrote: »

It makes my point

And what exactly is your point, Mr Cryptic?

OldRio wrote: »

It makes my point

You didn't make a point, you just went for a glib shot....no bother about that but ....we have seen an overall deterioration of refereeing standards in the Pro 14...there has to be something done about it.

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

Yes, does that lessen the point in some way?

Yes because the narrative is always to micro analyse ref decisions that didn't go Munster's way.

Even a senior Munster player is now pushing that narrative in the media.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Yes because the narrative is always to micro analyse ref decisions that didn't go Munster's way.

Even a senior Munster player is now pushing that narrative in the media.

It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change

Cookiemunster

The poor standard of refereeing in the Pro14 is well known about and discussed regularly across many threads. Yet when a Munster fan mentions it they're accused of only bringing up to as an excuse for the loss. Pathetic really from the usuals.

Shelflife

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change

You're making the very dangerous assumption that the International player knows the laws better than a professional referee.

Just because he doesn't like the decisions doesn't make them wrong !

VayNiice

Casey is being made out to be the new saviour but I felt he was poor at times. Got bounced like a rag doll a couple of times, particularly with his attempted tackle on Arnold who is no man-mountain.

Also seemed slower getting the ball away, similar to Murray.

theVersatile wrote: »

That's a very literal interpretation of the laws. It's also interesting now that you point it out considering Law 13.3 provides that

A player on the ground without the ball is out of the game and must:
a. Allow opponents who are not on the ground to play or gain possession of
the ball.
b. Not play the ball.
c. Not tackle or attempt to tackle an opponent.

No mention of being near the tackle area. Interesting quirk.

That being said, I'm not quite sure Casey didn't just run into Daly and collide with him. If you look at it in real time it'd be very hard to conclude that Daly purposefully went to tackle Casey having just spun out of the previous tackle and been flung backwards.

If you watch it back Daly had his eyes on Casey while making the tackle and moved deliberately towards Casey after the tackle and tripped him while off his feet.

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

It's not about micro analysis...it's about trying to raise standards.....and if an international player is thinking there is an issue, then you should probably listen, for a change

but the narrative from Stander is the ref is biased.

Neither did 23 penalties shared almost evenly but CJ Stander fumed at the performance of the referee Dan Jones afterwards when he told eir Sport that it had felt like “playing against more than 15 men”, adding “I can say it now I’m done but it’s difficult for both sides.”

Plenty of calls went Munsters way too.

Akrasia wrote: »

If you watch it back Daly had his eyes on Casey while making the tackle and moved deliberately towards Casey after the tackle and tripped him while off his feet.

thats the sort of dark arts we are told POM is great at.

Burkie1203 wrote: »

but the narrative from Stander is the ref is biased.

This was the point raised by Shaka Hislop.

Shaka Hislop wrote: »

There has to be a coming together of clubs and referee's to sit down and watch games together...to have clear and open dialogue between both sides and for input from players taken on-board..and for the reasons behind decisions to be acknowledged by players.
It'll benefit both sides immensely imo

Where does "bias against Munster" come into it? All you're doing is trying to drag down the conversation and rope a few lads into an argument. Maybe address the point made instead of peddling nonsense?

VayNiice

Akrasia wrote: »

If you watch it back Daly had his eyes on Casey while making the tackle and moved deliberately towards Casey after the tackle and tripped him while off his feet.

Get over it mate, there was a forward pass before that incident anyway and two connacht players ahead of him.

theVersatile wrote: »

This was the point raised by Shaka Hislop.

Where does "bias against Munster" come into it? All you're doing is trying to drag down the conversation and rope a few lads into an argument. Maybe address the point made instead of peddling nonsense?

the international player in question - his issue is he believes the ref is biased against his team with his "we are playing against more then 15" comment, they arent.