Leinster v Salarysins

[riocard911]

If you got lawyers and money enough, expect to get off. It's no different to the rest of the world. If you're mad about this, wait until you hear about tax!

The welsh and the kiwis don't have money and lawyers and get away with murder too. Their fans, media, and officials row in behind their players and make themselves heard instead of worrying about being liked. It's about time the Irish rugby community did the same.

Éist! Éist!!!!!!!

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Well we know they saw the other incident later on with Johnny and didn’t bother carding Rhodes then.

I still can’t believe that...all the officials staring at a video showing head on head contact and they Immediately brush it off as just a penalty.

On the citing, I don’t understand why the “doubt” about contact renders the headbutt unpunishable. It’s nonsense to ignore what happened anyway considering it’s so clear, but surely they should punish an attempted headbutt?

[riocard911]

Well we know they saw the other incident later on with Johnny and didn’t bother carding Rhodes then.

I still can’t believe that...all the officials staring at a video showing head on head contact and they Immediately brush it off as just a penalty.

On the citing, I don’t understand why the “doubt” about contact renders the headbutt unpunishable. It’s nonsense to ignore what happened anyway considering it’s so clear, but surely they should punish an attempted headbutt?

We lost. Saracens won. Rhodes got MOTM. It's water under the bridge. No use crying over spilt milk.

[Dave Cahill]

On the citing, I don’t understand why the “doubt” about contact renders the headbutt unpunishable. It’s nonsense to ignore what happened anyway considering it’s so clear, but surely they should punish an attempted headbutt?

An attempted headbutt isn't a red card offense, which is the minimum standard for a Citing Committee.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

On the citing, I don’t understand why the “doubt” about contact renders the headbutt unpunishable. It’s nonsense to ignore what happened anyway considering it’s so clear, but surely they should punish an attempted headbutt?

An attempted headbutt isn't a red card offense, which is the minimum standard for a Citing Committee.

Foul play is though and I’d have thought this was a very clear case of it.

The disciplinary process really gets on my wick, I wish they’d rip it up and start again. First thing I’d do is have every entry point at one week because having them at 3 etc makes panels reluctant to hand that out if the offence isn’t really that serious and some offences really don’t deserve more than a one game ban anyway. Second thing would be to get rid of the character witness/charity work shite to reduce sentences. If they still want to include that stuff then use it to prevent the harshest sentence being given out, not to reduce it.

[Dave Cahill]

On the citing, I don’t understand why the “doubt” about contact renders the headbutt unpunishable. It’s nonsense to ignore what happened anyway considering it’s so clear, but surely they should punish an attempted headbutt?

An attempted headbutt isn't a red card offense, which is the minimum standard for a Citing Committee.

Foul play is though and I’d have thought this was a very clear case of it.

The disciplinary process really gets on my wick, I wish they’d rip it up and start again. First thing I’d do is have every entry point at one week because having them at 3 etc makes panels reluctant to hand that out if the offence isn’t really that serious and some offences really don’t deserve more than a one game ban anyway. Second thing would be to get rid of the character witness/charity work shite to reduce sentences. If they still want to include that stuff then use it to prevent the harshest sentence being given out, not to reduce it.

Foul play isn't, its a base penalty offense. It's when the penalty is awarded that the ref decides on a further sanction and that depends on, depending on the type of foul play, the completion, force, degree of recklessness, intent, effect on play, etc.

If the ref or other official had seen what had happened in this situation, he likely would have awarded a penalty straight away. Then he would look to see if the action was completed i.e. did the offending players head make contact with the other players head. Then, did he intend to do so or was he simply reckless? If there was intent, was the action completed with a degree of force - if he was reckless, was he reckless to the point of endangering another player? Its the extra factors that lift foul play from a penalty to a temporary suspension to a red card.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

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

So yes, foul play is a red card offence. The fact that it can be other things doesn’t change that, and an “attempted” headbutt clearly fits in there.

[Dave Cahill]

9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.

Sanction: Penalty.

Its on review that the sanction moves towards the maximum, it doesn't start at the maximum and work down. That would be patently ridiculous

[riocard911]

9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.

Sanction: Penalty.

Its on review that the sanction moves towards the maximum, it doesn't start at the maximum and work down. That would be patently ridiculous

Is "verbal abuse" defined? I would have thought the goading of opposition players would fulfill the criteria, but then perhaps the term only applies to the use of racist language. Any idea, Dave?

[Dave Cahill]

Goading an opponent is generally punished, when punished, as Misconduct, an act against the spirit of good sportsmanship.

Verbal abuse includes, but is not limited to, abuse based on race, religion, gender preference, sexual orientation.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

9.12 A player must not physically or verbally abuse anyone. Physical abuse includes, but is not limited to, biting, punching, contact with the eye or eye area, striking with any part of the arm (including stiff-arm tackles), shoulder, head or knee(s), stamping, trampling, tripping or kicking.

Sanction: Penalty.

Its on review that the sanction moves towards the maximum, it doesn't start at the maximum and work down. That would be patently ridiculous

Foul play is a red card offence.

It is an offence and you can get a red card for it.

Simple as that. Trying to argue that a headbutt isn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t be seen as foul play is patently ridiculous.

[Dave Cahill]

Simple as that. Trying to argue that a headbutt isn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t be seen as foul play is patently ridiculous.

Literally no one is arguing that.

The Committee decided that Rhodes had committed an act of foul play.

[Dave Cahill]

On another point of interest with this citing, it should also be noted that Robbie Henshaw will have been interviewed by the Citing Commissioner or will have been invited to make a submission in lieu of an interview. When the decision is published it will be interesting to see what he had to say on the matter.

[LeRouxIsPHat]

Simple as that. Trying to argue that a headbutt isn’t/shouldn’t/couldn’t be seen as foul play is patently ridiculous.

Literally no one is arguing that.

The Committee decided that Rhodes had committed an act of foul play.

Hmmm...

Bottom line is that there was foul play and it was clearly a red card offence that deserved a ban. Don’t think anyone could argue with that apart from the citing commission and Sarries fans on twitter.

[Oldschool]

Don't know if anyone noticed that in the HCC highlights on Virgin One on Monday evening Dave McKay (?) is doing the commentary and in the background there's someone doing an awful lot of coughing.
It's particularly noticeable just before HT when Trin Duc scores a try.
It's the Clermont v Racing game about 50 mins into the program.
Is it Poite, the ref?

[Dexter]

Don't know if anyone noticed that in the HCC highlights on Virgin One on Monday evening Dave McKay (?) is doing the commentary and in the background there's someone doing an awful lot of coughing.
It's particularly noticeable just before HT when Trin Duc scores a try.
It's the Clermont v Racing game about 50 mins into the program.
Is it Poite, the ref?

Yeah Poite was coughing a LOT! He was also falling over a lot in the first half. The BT guys had to assure everyone that the officials had been tested too.

[riocard911]

Any chance of a kindly subscriber to the IT block-copying the Darce's take on our defeat last Saturday and popping it in here?

[riocard911]

On foot of an article about the match on The Irish Times Sports Page on Facebook, "Scrum Doctor" Peter Bracken, who Dave, Jason and John a while back had as a guest on Blues Talk TV, posted a series of comments analysing Leinster's misfortunes at scrum time vs Jamie George et al. I found them very interesting and am block-copying them unredacted here for the rest of ye. He didn't do it in one big piece, but in a series of individual comments. Here they are:

***

Saracens wanted to physically and mentally dominate at scrum time. They saw it as an area of the game they could get an advantage and went for it. It was a calculated risk. It looks as if they put a lot of effort into it during the week and then in the match itself. If all that effort wasn't rewarded Leinster would have won.
Leinster have an excellent scrum, they were targeted at scrum time by a team that have only one competition to play for.
In many ways similar to SA v England in the last world cup final. England had an excellent scrum all tournament but SA picked the scrum as the way to beat England that day and it worked.

Saracens have been working a lot on an isometric hold, build tension and potential energy and then explode forward type of scrum.
Makes sence as they purchased a scrum machine that does that from me, 2 years ago, and they use it regularly! Leinster weren't interested in the machine btw! A side point, I digress

Scrum 1: excellent tight, elbow down, perfectly legal right arm bind from Saracens 3. Leinster 1 can't get full extension on his left arm and is left in a weak position. This senario repeats itself throughout the match. Leinster flanker bails out prematurely, ie, sticks his head up in the air before scrum is over. Leinster are now down to 7 men scrummaging. Saracens would have felt this and exerted the forward push. Leinster locks hips come up, under the pressure and Saracen carnage insues.

Scrum 1 senario is repeatedly continually throughout the match.

Leinsters scrum failures couldn't be rectified on the day. The damage was done in the weeks leading up to the match. To get the efficiency, timing, team work that Saracens had only comes from hours of intense practice. Especially the isometric hold training. Takes hours to get that right. The safest and most effective way to train the isometric hold is on my machine but nobody believes me and I'm fed up trying to convince anyone any more. But maybe Saracens have done it for me!
Probably not, Irish clubs love those big metal, useless, expensive Rhino and Predator machines.

By scrum 4 the referee was in Saracens pocket. He was going to give them every 50/50 penalty scrum time which is what happened. He is only human and Saracens had deservedly put themselves in this advantageous position with regard the ref with they're destruction of Leinster in the previous scrums. Scrum 4 was a penalty against Leinster 3 for slipping to his knee. Extremely harsh. Should not have been anything. Leinster 3 immediately regained his footing and scrum was safe. Should have been play on. But the ref was looking to give Saracens the advantage at scrum time from this scrum onwards.

Scrum 5: sheer power from Saracens but Leinster get the ball away. Great strik from Leinster 2.

Scrum 6: Leinster getting nervous now. They don't want to get hosed again so over commit and push before the ball is in. Penalty. Correct decision

Scrum 7: Leinster got the LH side up fairly in a controlled manner. Not a spin. Incorrect decision to penalize Leinster. It should have been Leinsters penalty.

Scrum 8: Pure brute force combined with straight scrummaging with excellent low height and body position from Saracens. Saracens had the mental scrum battle well won at this stage

***

At this point the person who asked Peter for the explanation made the following comment:

Excellent analysis, have you offered your services to Leinster, they should have listened to you first time!!

To which Peter replied:

Thank you *****. I haven't offered my services in a few years *****. Might strick when the iron is hot!
To be fair, it's only one bad scrum performance. They'll rectify it I'm sure. Excellent players, excellent coaches, excellent organisation, they'll be fine.
Anyway, Pro14 Winners!

[OTT]

Good post. Thanks for throwing it up.

Anyone have the Brendan Fanning article about Leinster going anway from the IRFU plan since hiring McBryde? Or even if there is any point of interest in it? It is behind a paywall.

[FLIP]

Most scrum machines are completely useless that I can agree with. Nothing at all like a real scrum. I don't have any experience with an isometric one as mentioned above so can't comment on that.

With scrum one, a bind that prevents a player getting a bind is illegal and unsafe.

Otherwise good analysis.