Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Match Thread: Leinster A V Edinburgh 19:35 TG4/BBC Alba, 15/04/16

Options
1…6781012

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Moflojo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,006 ✭✭✭Moflojo


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    They have a clip of that angle on The 42 if anyone wants to see it. Definitely looks the worst from that angle. In McFadden's defence, he was already committed to the tackle and couldn't see Hoyland had dipped so much from putting the brakes on. I still think the initial impact was fine buit because he drove up and Howland was bracing down, he rode up in the tackle. The fact that Hoyland bounced back up would indicate that he took the main impact lower doen than his chin otherwise he'd be able to go 12 rounds with Anthony Joshua :).

    As much as Hoyland was dipping slightly, McFadden appeared to be rising through the tackle - he sort of hopped into the tackle - so it was probably going to be a high tackle regardless.

    People often try to defend these types of tackles with arguments of 'poor technique' or 'misreads' but I think the 'steppers' need to be protected above all else - anyone can swing a flailing stiff arm at someone when they've been sidestepped but in reality it's a desperate attempt (& cheap shot imo) to stop a player who has beaten them fairly with their evasive running.


  • Options
    #273
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    Moflojo wrote: »
    My two cents on the McFadden "tackle" is that it was high and there was no wrapping of the arms (forget about "intent to wrap"). I really thought he was going to be lucky if he only received a yellow at the time. If Hoyland had stayed down for any period of time McFadden would have been off (to the bin at least). The perceived lack of injury to Hoyland, and the fact that McFadden injured himself quite badly, probably influenced the referee's decision more than his viewings of the replays. I wouldn't be too harsh on Mitrea for this, it shows he's human and sympathetic to the 'feel' of the game.

    I haven't heard many people talking about the potential for a penalty try being awarded: McFadden was the last defender and Hoyland had already left R Kearney and Reddan for dust. As McFadden had committed an offence you have to disregard any influence he had on Hoyland's progress. Hoyland had a clear run to the line (minus McFadden) and a penalty try should have been considered in my opinion. We saw Ben Whitehouse give a penalty try against Munster (I think) in similar circumstances earlier this year. Anyone else think a penalty try was warranted?

    It was a penaltry try for Munster, against Connacht, similar circumstances in that it was 20m out from the try line or so, but it was for tackling the man without the ball. As it was a foul tackle, the defender was considered to be removed from the equation which would have meant a clearer run to the line. TOH was covering over and might have made a covering tackle but the ref decided he wouldn't. Mitrea didn't even seem to consider the field position and situation, you may have a point.


  • Options
    #274
    .ak
    Registered Users Posts: 30,308 Mod ✭✭✭✭.ak


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    And I see he's been cited...No surprises there.

    What is up with McFadden? He's gone from all-round nice-guy to "thug" this season. Not the first bit of dodgy stuff from Fergus.

    Only seen your comment on me defending it.

    Is that your way of saying I'm the soundest guy on the forum?

    Thanks!


  • Options
    #275
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,484 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    Moflojo wrote: »
    Anyone else think a penalty try was warranted?

    Good luck with that one...


  • Options
    #276
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    awec wrote: »
    It would have been worth looking at.

    Leinster were very fortunate there, they could have had a pen try against them but at the very least should have been defending the Edinburgh attacks at the end with a man less.

    Penalty try? Absolute nonsense.

    I doubt the citing commission will over-rule the ref's decision. He looked at it carefully at the time and made the right call in my opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,484 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    .ak wrote: »
    Only seen your comment on me defending it.

    Is that your way of saying I'm the soundest guy on the forum?

    Thanks!

    Yip, you would be my choice of legal representative for any form of citing...

    You could weasle your way out of anything .ak. Respect.


  • Options
    #278
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.


  • Options
    #279
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.

    Nothing bizarre about it. The ref looked at it half a dozen times, analysed it as it happened and concluded (rightly) that it warranted a penalty and nothing more.


  • Options
    #280
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    First Up wrote: »
    Nothing bizarre about it. The ref looked at it half a dozen times, analysed it as it happened and concluded (rightly) that it warranted a penalty and nothing more.

    Well that's just an opinion. If it was so obviously correct McFadden wouldn't have been cited.

    It was worthy of escalation for many reasons. Even if it wasn't high it was an illegal tackle (as even you admit) that prevented a try scoring opportunity.

    I'm not sure what the Pro 12 disciplinary committee will do, they're entirely unpredictable, but he was very lucky to stay on the pitch.


  • Options
    #281
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Well that's just an opinion. If it was so obviously correct McFadden wouldn't have been cited.

    It was worthy of escalation for many reasons. Even if it wasn't high it was an illegal tackle (as even you admit) that prevented a try scoring opportunity.

    I'm not sure what the Pro 12 disciplinary committee will do, they're entirely unpredictable, but he was very lucky to stay on the pitch.

    There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

    As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Buer
    Registered Users Posts: 24,191 ✭✭✭✭Buer


    First Up wrote: »
    All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

    I'm somewhat baffled here.

    :confused:


  • Options
    #283
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    First Up wrote: »
    There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

    As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

    It has nothing to do with Mitrea being incompetent. Referees aren't expected to be perfect when squinting at a screen 30 meters away in the middle of refereeing a game. For all we know in his match report he might have questioned his own decision (wouldn't be the first time a ref has done that).


  • Options
    #284
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    First Up wrote: »
    There are obviously different opinions (e.g. yours and mine) but to over-rule a ref's decision that he had taken considerable time over, would be a major step. If it was something the ref hadn't seen or had only a partial view it would be a different matter but to penalise McFadden further would be effectively saying Mitrea is incompetent and I very much doubt they will do that.

    As for the penalty try, it would mean that McFadden ONLY had recourse to an illegal act. All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

    This is total nonsense.

    Citings happen all the time for refereeing mistakes.

    It doesn't matter if it was deliberate or accidental either. If the offence prevented a probably try then a penalty try was warranted.


  • Options
    #285
    jacothelad
    Registered Users Posts: 5,911 ✭✭✭jacothelad


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    A penalty try is definitely worth discussing for that but in reality I think he was too close to other potential defenders for there to be any certainty. The fact McFadden was the last defender however made the decision to allow him to stay on the field even more bizarre, that's been widely pointed out elsewhere.
    As it happenned I immediately thought it was a red card. McFadden ran into Hoyland at full tilt. As far as I could see, McF's right forearm connected with Hoyland on his humerus / upper arm below shoulder height. I think it was a reckless challenge in that it took no regard for it's outcome to himself or Hoyland - which is usually the best way to tackle - but having looked at it a few times I can't actually see any offence. Tackling balls out as it were is not against the laws of the game unless running full tilt front on is seen as dangerous.

    What relevance has McF being the last defender to the ref's decision. The ref saw a hard but not high tackle that he thought was worthy of a penalty somehow......on what grounds other than it was a brutal clatter. He didn't use his shoulder, he was clearly using his arms. Hoyland ducked a bit into it.


  • Options
    #286
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?


  • Options
    #287
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Bazzo wrote: »
    I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?

    Well you can just look at the reaction to the Guirado hit on Dave Kearney in the WC.


  • Options
    #288
    Zzippy
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 14,166 Mod ✭✭✭✭Zzippy


    First Up wrote: »
    All that happened was a slightly misjudged tackle at high speed - a technical offence rather than an act of foul or illegal play.

    A technical offence is playing the ball in an offside position when it's been knocked on by a teammate, or feeding the ball into the second row in a scrum. Nearly taking someone's head off with a high tackle is certainly an act of foul play, regardless of the intent.

    jacothelad wrote: »

    What relevance has McF being the last defender to the ref's decision. The ref saw a hard but not high tackle that he thought was worthy of a penalty somehow......on what grounds other than it was a brutal clatter. He didn't use his shoulder, he was clearly using his arms. Hoyland ducked a bit into it.

    It has no relevance to whether it should have been deemed an illegal tackle, but every relevance to whether a penalty try should have been considered, and whether a card was warranted. The referee deemed it to be a high tackle, although he considered McFadden did try to use the arms. As he was the last defender and he made an illegal tackle, the referee is supposed to regard him as out of the equation and consider whether a try would have been scored had McFadden not been there. I can't recall if there were other defenders nearby who could have made a tackle but it certainly merited consideration. TMO review would have easily shown that but Mitrea either erred by not asking for it, or was already of the opinion that a try would not have been scored.


  • Options
    #289
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 53,459 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Reddan was never catching him and he had already burned Kearney. Without McFadden a try was highly likely IMO.


  • Options
    #290
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No cherry picking, posts from the thread at the time of the incident during the game.
    sheep? wrote: »
    McFadden should be gone for that. Looked horrible.
    A-Train wrote: »
    McFadden with an awful looking hit once again!
    Zzippy wrote: »
    McFadden tckling with his head? No arms anyway
    P_1 wrote: »
    Jausus that didn't look good!
    Synode wrote: »
    Ferg what the ****. He's done that a fee times in the last few weeks
    Korat wrote: »
    Leinster pressing the self-destruct here.
    corny wrote: »
    Definitely arms involved. Very high on the chest.
    Deleted User wrote: »
    Red and a stretcher for McFadden?
    Richard Hillman wrote: »
    That was a horrendous tackle.
    sheep? wrote: »
    I can't believe the ref. That's a yellow card at least.
    LeinsterDub wrote: »
    Intention doesn't matter sir. It's no arms and high. And that's from a Leinster fan
    Clegg wrote: »
    McFadden has done this in a recent game too.

    Idiot.
    Kristopherus wrote: »
    Red card for McFadden.

    Edit. the officials have funked it
    Buer wrote: »
    That's a terrible call. He deserved instant yellow. Attempt to wrap is generous. It was high and possibly to neck or jaw area.

    Fairly across the board non-blinkered posting I'd have said.


  • Options
    #291
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No cherry picking, posts from the thread at the time of the incident during the game.

    Fairly across the board non-blinkered posting I'd have said.

    If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Bazzo wrote: »
    If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

    Nah I was just copying the posts from earlier in the thread as they're easily lost in the post-game chat.


  • Options
    #293
    former total
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,536 ✭✭✭former total


    Yer man has a decent turn of speed, fair play to him.

    Pity for him he didn't have a side-step to go with it...


  • Options
    #294
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    former total wrote: »
    Yer man has a decent turn of speed, fair play to him.

    Pity for him he didn't have a side-step to go with it...

    Add a stone chin to his traits!


  • Options
    #295
    Dravokivich
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Music Moderators, Politics Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 22,360 CMod ✭✭✭✭Dravokivich


    Just in regards to the McFadden card question. Even Fitz was unsure if he could come back on as sub at the time.


  • Options
    #296
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,484 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    Bazzo wrote: »
    If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

    IBF is a Munster fan. Dyed in the wool.

    Buer is Leinster, you're correct on that score.


  • Options
    #297
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Bazzo wrote: »
    I think some of the views here are slightly blinkered, and I'm not giving out it's completely natural to show bias toward your team, but if the situations were reversed and Hoyland had put that tackle in on McFadden and Leinster had gone on to lose by 7 points, would the assessments honestly be the same?

    Mine would, and more importantly, the ref would agree with me.


  • Options
    #298
    First Up
    Registered Users Posts: 14,822 ✭✭✭✭First Up


    Bazzo wrote: »
    If you're responding to me my intention was never to accuse all Leinster fans of being blinkered. IBF and Buer are both Leinster fans as far as I know and have both been arguing against those saying there was nothing wrong with the tackle.

    I don't think anyone has said there was nothing wrong with the tackle. But I'm among those saying that it only merited a penalty and that talk of yellow, red or penalty tries is hysteria.


  • Options
    #299
    Bazzo
    Registered Users Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    IBF is a Munster fan. Dyed in the wool.

    Buer is Leinster, you're correct on that score.

    What? Pull the other one, next you'll be telling me awec isn't a John Lacey fan or Billysaysno isn't Simon Zebo's number 1 supporter.


  • Options
    #300
    swiwi_
    Registered Users Posts: 4,484 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    Bazzo wrote: »
    What? Pull the other one, next you'll be telling me awec isn't a John Lacey fan or Billysaysno isn't Simon Zebo's number 1 supporter.

    I have it on good authority that awec has the "Referee's almanac 2016 edition", featuring a John Lacey centrefold, under his bed.

    I can't speak for Guillhaumeditnon/Wilhemsagtnein, his (or her) posts no longer appear for me when I browse this forum...

    I should have added that IBF is also a closet Super Rugby fan, but the shame of combining that with his Munster allegiance was too much. So he masquerades in Blue.

    NB: just to be clear, this "good authority" is not me personally...!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    awec wrote: »
    Reddan was never catching him and he had already burned Kearney. Without McFadden a try was highly likely IMO.
    The thing is you can't just wipe McFadden off the pitch when assessing if a try would have been scored or not. He made a tackle and it went high (My interpretation ;)) due to Hoyland dipping to recieve the tackle and McFadden pushing up. Putting that aside, if the tackle is deemed (or was deemed) illegal, he still has the option of going lower and still stopping Hoyland. In other words, if it was illegal, he still was in position to at least slow Hoyland for the support to finish it off.

    So a penalty try doesn't seem at all likely because it would have been the way he tackled rather than the fact of the tackle being made or not.


Advertisement