Leinster v Glasgow Warriors The Semi Cometh

First topic message reminder :

Well boys, here we are at the mid-way point on the rope bridge: who will tumble into the crocodile infested waters and who will march on to Ulster?
Thereplacements bench vs Connacht pretty much tells us who will deffo start, so
1. Grant (British and Irish front row of the season)
2.WeePee ( although I can't put a cigarette paper between him and Hall on form)
3. Angela ( pit mair weight oan that bar!)
4.Swinson (unbelievably consistent this season)
5. Kellock ( if paternity leave is over, Ryder played very well v Connacht but we wont go to a Dublin semi without our spiritual leader)
6. Bluto
7. Barclay
8. Wilson ( the back row picks itself, Harley is very unfortunate but will be on the bench)
9. Matawaloo (furra linee)
10. Ruaridh ( he is the only 10, with Horne and Hogg as cover)
11. DTH
12.
13.
14. Maitland
15. Hogg

The eagle-eyed amongst you will have noticed no centres. I think this is where Toonie will earn his corn, or not.
Horne-Schlong were good on Friday. Schlong was very good going forward, but can he defend against the angles BOD will conjure up?
Morrison- Dunbar would be solid defensively and if Dunbar got the ball could be effective going forward.
Morrison-Messiah would certainly carry some clout.
Dunbar-Horne would be the most attack minded.
Then again 10-12-13 could be Horne-Dunbar-Messiah defending from out to in and forcing Madigan back into the loving embrace of Barclay.
I know games are won or lost in the pack, but if Toonie picks the right centre combination we will win convincingly as opposed to throwing away a winning position earlier in the season.
How many sleeps till the match?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

George Carlin wrote:

TJ wrote:Good point - maybe its a step too far.

Although if you come over to the Dark (Blue) Side, to be fair you'll never spend a penny on tweed, Hackett chinos, Pimms, received pronounciation, brogues, bestiality or those posh girls from the law school again either.

You should never have to pay for bestiality.

Aye, but to be fair, Lucky, it takes on a whole new meaning down Newport-way!

I have a thing for waterfowl.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I have a thing for waterfowl.

I always wondered what that song 'No More Chasing Waterfowls' was about...

I get a lot of stick for it, but I don't care any more. It's water off a duck's crack.

pete (buachaill on eirne/) wrote:It's a game of inches though, we had our chances as much as you did.
We missed a few kicks. Conway was nearly in for a try but for a forward pass, we had a scrum on your 5m line where we got penalised when we maybe shouldn't have, we gave away a great opportunity when we overthrew a lineout inside your 22. Remember the kick that nearly stood up for Nacewa to walk in in the corner? We had our chances too, it was not a one-sided game so please stop making it out that way.

Sorry mate, didn't mean it to come across that way. At the end of the day, Leinster scored more and conceded less points, so deserved the win

You had plenty of chances too, I was just speaking from a Glasgow point of view in terms of the moments where they could have done better/not been so stupid. Leinster did fantastically well soaking up all the pressure though, and not conceding the points that may other teams would have.

Leinster have that tactical nous and mental resilience as a team which comes from years of winning. Winners know how to win, and Leinster are definitely proven winners!

Pete,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Leinster didn't have their chances etc, It was a cracking game of rugby for me as a neutral, with Irish bias i must confess, but Glasgow did play more of the rugby and while the ref was very even handed and spot on with forward passes and the like, the penalty count was lopsided (a couple of them were stupid by Glasgow, but it was more what he didn't ping Leinster for at times.

Regarding the yellow card, well while harsh he was a lazy runner and did prevent Leinster exploiting an attacking opportunity, though the pass was thrown at himas much as he ran into it. However, if he walks for that then Sexton walks for the panelty 5 metres from his line for lying on. How that wasn't a yellow card in light of how the rest of the game was reffed is a mystery to me.

Glasgow were excellent and deserved more. Leinster won through experience and grit. Fair dues.

Great way to spend a Saturday evening, so thank you to both teams.

The harshest penalty I thought actually was the one to make it 13-10.

Glasgow penalised for an obstruction in midfield. Zero material affect. It was about 5m ahead of the guy with the ball and the ball carrier was going to be tackled anyway.

I thought the yellow for #9 Glasgow was a fair call. He knew what he was up to.

What I was very impressed with was how the team of three spotted forward passes. Picked out about 3 or 4 of them very well.

Great game - shame there had to be a losing side. I thought both teams were excellent and Glasgow, although likely gutted not to make the final, did themselves proud by throwing and kitchen sink and everything else against a very good and polished Leinster side in Dublin.

I felt the extra experience of Leinster in big matches ultimately shone through, as did their scramble defence (which was first class) and Kevin McLaughlin (superb performance).

Glasgow were excellent value though, and couldn't really have done much more. A bit more composure and patience at times would have paid off, and I was suprised that Hogg took that last kick rather than Jackson. Struass going off was a big loss as it happens, and although Harley is a tackling machine, his ball carrying and ball skills are now become a serious barrier to his progress. Ryan Wilson was heroic with ball in hand. Big statement ahead of the summer tour - could well have ousted Beattie with that performance.

Great game. Well done Leinster ultimately. Just a tad more streetwise.

So Cian Healy is saying there (more or less) that he's not arsed about Leinster and the Leinster boys can't keep their mind off the Lions.... advantage Ulster? .....

rodders wrote:So Cian Healy is saying there (more or less) that he's not arsed about Leinster and the Leinster boys can't keep their mind off the Lions.... advantage Ulster? .....

Say what? When? Where? How? Why? To whom?

Straight from the horses mouth on sky sports fly ....

Building the execution pyre for him already, the traitor!

Or maybe he wants Bowe to think he's not thinking about Leinster............

I can see Bowe being hit with a lot of pychological warfare stuff when the two sides meet to make him lose concentration and his cool...things like, "Did your mammy iron your Lions socks yet, Tommy?" should make him absolutely implode into a wreck of nerves and excirahment!

That's it. I'm back to calling him Stompy Stomperson now.

rodders wrote:Straight from the horses mouth on sky sports fly ....

It's a bit mean to call Cian Healy a horse, Rodders.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

rodders wrote:Straight from the horses mouth on sky sports fly ....

It's a bit mean to call Cian Healy a horse, Rodders.

Horses are well thought of in Ireland luckless .

debaters1 wrote:Pete,

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Leinster didn't have their chances etc, It was a cracking game of rugby for me as a neutral, with Irish bias i must confess, but Glasgow did play more of the rugby and while the ref was very even handed and spot on with forward passes and the like, the penalty count was lopsided (a couple of them were stupid by Glasgow, but it was more what he didn't ping Leinster for at times.

Regarding the yellow card, well while harsh he was a lazy runner and did prevent Leinster exploiting an attacking opportunity, though the pass was thrown at himas much as he ran into it. However, if he walks for that then Sexton walks for the panelty 5 metres from his line for lying on. How that wasn't a yellow card in light of how the rest of the game was reffed is a mystery to me.

Glasgow were excellent and deserved more. Leinster won through experience and grit. Fair dues.

Great way to spend a Saturday evening, so thank you to both teams.

This.

Also two teams who came to play rugby. Little cynical fouling. little appealing to the ref, little playing for penalties.

Refs were Poopie hot on the forward passes as well - I thought they did wellas ateam if a gouple of harsh calls against Glasow

I'm glad they were strict on forward passes. I hate this argument that refs should let that kind of thing go in the interests of promoting an open game. That's bogus. Forward passes have nothing to do with an open game. The idea is that you should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side, but how is that fair on the side that concedes the try?

Indeed. Would Leinster have been happy if Glasgow had won on a try scored off a forward pass?

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I'm glad they were strict on forward passes. I hate this argument that refs should let that kind of thing go in the interests of promoting an open game. That's bogus. Forward passes have nothing to do with an open game. The idea is that you should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side, but how is that fair on the side that concedes the try?

Totally disagree, I hate pedantic refereeing on marginal forward passes. Look at the SH...jeebus every other of Sonny Bill Williams much vaunted offloads were forward, but down there they just applaud the attacking endevour and skill.

The benefit of a slightly forward pass to the attacking side is minimal, if anything. For the good of the game I think benefit needs to be given to the attacking side on this one.

If a pass is forward, it should be called forward. If players don't want to be called for them, they should make sure they pass backwards. They should be able to manage that, what with being professional rugby players and all.

An offence in attack is no less an offence than one committed in defence.

Is an "off load" the same as a pass though?

If you hand the ball to another player without it ever being out of contact with someone, is it a pass?

The benefit should always be given to the attacking side, no matter what.
I don't want rugby to become a kicking fest ans see teams win with penalty only.

I agree that if a pass is 'flat' and a 50:50 call the benefit should go to the attacking side. However, that's very different from ignoring a pass that is clearly forward from the perspective of the linesman/ref which should always be called for a foul - the alternative is that we all just start playing American football now with all of the other ladyboys.

Off loads are just passes you make whilst taking contact. No reason why different rules should apply.

VinceWLB wrote:The benefit should always be given to the attacking side, no matter what.
I don't want rugby to become a kicking fest ans see teams win with penalty only.

Really? No matter what? So should we ignore knock-ons too, and losing the ball over the line? How far do you want to take it?

Note: there is no such thing as a "forward pass" in rugby. It is a "throw forward".

Offloads tend to be thrown. You very rarely seen a ball being handed forward to another player without being thrown MrsP.

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:The benefit should always be given to the attacking side, no matter what.
I don't want rugby to become a kicking fest ans see teams win with penalty only.

Really? No matter what? So should we ignore knock-ons too, and losing the ball over the line? How far do you want to take it?

As required until the stage where we end the game with one point more than Leinster.

MrsP wrote:Is an "off load" the same as a pass though?

If you hand the ball to another player without it ever being out of contact with someone, is it a pass?

Yes, the ball can't travel forward except from a kick.

Luckless a blatent forward pass should be called back, but if it's flat or marginal the benefit should go to attacking side. In 99% of cases tee forward pass has no impact on the move and too many times referees and touch judges are too keen to blow the whistle at even the faintest hint of a marginal pass.
'
The SH is totally different as is RL, they a much more leniant on forward passes. Too many flat passes are given as forward in NH rugby.

I meant if a referee has a doubt about a forward pass or a ruck, he should give the benefit to the team with the ball.

But why, Vince? Defence is just as important a part of the game as attack. I don't see why one should be favoured over the other. As I've said, if you don't want a pass to be called forward, make sure it doesn't go forward. Take the doubt out of the equation. And if someone's over-run a pass, don't throw it.

Imo attacks with beautifull lines and offload and 20m pass take more skills than just defend, thats why i would favour it, just my opinion.

How many inches should a forward pass be allowed to ...pass forward...before the fans should climb on a ref's back and complain that he's either biased or a dope?

I mean, if we're going to say a 'little' forward pass is ok, then we have to categorize how much a little is.
Ref's discretion? - BIASED!!!!!
No Ref discretion but a common sense distance we all understand as 'little'? - REF DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO MEASURE!!!!
A stated lawful Forward distance? - That's just a New/same ol' forward pass ruling.

I'm seeing far too many tricky just-there forward passes. I don't like them. I don't like them not because I think they shouldn't be allowed but because in certain games they are blatantly allowed and gain points, in others they aren't and sides can lose League position or titles because one ref likes the rules too much and another guy doesn't care about the forward pass rule.

When you have ref's interpreting such an important one, better to just call them in and say 'no discretion - enforce the ruling'.

I agree with you, Vince; but if a player / players don't have the skills to throw those passes properly / legally, should we let it slide? I say no.

Let's say there's a match between a side renowned for its attacking play and a side famous for its defence: why should the attacking side get let off for infringements when that lenience isn't shown to the defending side?

Well there aren't "that" many 50-50 calls, be it flat pass or ruck areas, just let the game flow.

Luckless, for me the tackler releasing the player rule isn't enough enforced for my liking so there is lenience shown to the defending sides too

True enough.

Agree that youve got to have a clear definition of "forward", otherwise where do refs draw the line?

What annoys me more though, is fumbles that dont really go forward being called as knock ons. Sometimes it feels like that unless the ball goes backwards by at least 2m, it just gets called a knock on, even if it didnt go forwards. However, like passing, if the rules were relaxed, thered be far less consistency. It might be frustrating at the moment, but at least theres not wildly different interpretations of it.

SecretFly wrote:How many inches should a forward pass be allowed to ...pass forward...before the fans should climb on a ref's back and complain that he's either biased or a dope?

I thought you guys used the metric system?

I think most refs judge knocks ons to have happened if the ball falls and the player is pointing forward (towards the opponent's end of the field). I think a lot of refs just blow by watching player position when ball is dropped.

If the player is at any other angle, they then feel safer in 'judging' the truthfulness of a knock on.

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:How many inches should a forward pass be allowed to ...pass forward...before the fans should climb on a ref's back and complain that he's either biased or a dope?

I thought you guys used the metric system?

They do... I don't. I still think in Miles...which is dangerous when you travel around looking at kilometre speed signs

I want refs to be good at spotting forward passes - but most of all I want consistency. and I wouldn't mind the use of replay on marginal tries.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

SecretFly wrote:How many inches should a forward pass be allowed to ...pass forward...before the fans should climb on a ref's back and complain that he's either biased or a dope?

I thought you guys used the metric system?

They do... I don't. I still think in Miles...which is dangerous when you travel around looking at kilometre speed signs

Ah Jaysus. I am in km and I'm so old I can remember pounds shillings and pence.

Imperialbigdave wrote:Agree that youve got to have a clear definition of "forward", otherwise where do refs draw the line?

What annoys me more though, is fumbles that dont really go forward being called as knock ons. Sometimes it feels like that unless the ball goes backwards by at least 2m, it just gets called a knock on, even if it didnt go forwards. However, like passing, if the rules were relaxed, thered be far less consistency. It might be frustrating at the moment, but at least theres not wildly different interpretations of it.

Nah I disagree there dave.

Knock ons are a big no-no, the result of poor concentration and/or skills. By contrast there's a lot of complex neurological, physiological, biomechanical, meteorlogical as well as astral and quantum physical factors at play when executing a perfectly timed pass at the highest level.... refs need to cut some slack on the latter but punish the bollix out of the former in my view.

http://www.rugby365.com/article/53665-law-discussion-forward-passes

Here's a good article on forward passes and how they're supposed to be judged.It seems that it's almost imposible to throw pass without the ball moving forward if you're running flat out and it's not an offense if you're genuinely trying to throw it backward.

When concorde was around it could travel at Mach 2. Now if a passenger threw an apple towards the rear of the aircraft as it travelled at Mach 2, would the apple be going forward at just slightly under twice the speed of sound? - or would it be going backwards at perhaps 50MPH?

Well, whatever the truth is, it's all relative to what you want to talk about. The apple can be either described as going backwards or forwards depending on your position and perspective.

A player should never be held responsible for the physics of motion as he's trying to play a game of rugby!! What he should be responsible for is passing a ball behind him as he advances toward the opponent's line. That's the bit he controls and that's the bit the refs should judge.

Did the player throw the ball forward, flat or to his rear.

The silly confusion happens when fans look at how the ball moves through the air whilst in motion (using replays to assist them!) A player isn't/shouldn't be responsible for that.

Apart from the fact the laws clearly state the ball must not TRAVEL forwards relative to the try line. so the fans are not silly.

TJ wrote:Apart from the fact the laws clearly state the ball must not TRAVEL forwards relative to the try line. so the fans are not silly.

The Law is silly...and the fans are silly for thinking it a good law...and the lawmakers are silly for thinking that a rugby player should be able to work out the dymanics of motion as he tries the play a game of rugby, at high speed.

The law as it stands asks a player not just to pass the ball behind/flat to him relative to the tryline, the law as it stands asks the player to work out precisely his speed, the speed and position of the player he's about to pass to, the speed of the air around them, the pressure of the air acting on him and thrown ball as they move through it, the precise angle required to throw the ball at that would have it go backwards in relation to the tryline and in relation to the speed he is running at. Precision of the highest order.

In a word - bullshhit. The player can only be responsible for throwing the ball behind him relative to the length of the pitch. The ref should watch the player not the ball.

Imperialbigdave wrote:Agree that youve got to have a clear definition of "forward", otherwise where do refs draw the line?

What annoys me more though, is fumbles that dont really go forward being called as knock ons. Sometimes it feels like that unless the ball goes backwards by at least 2m, it just gets called a knock on, even if it didnt go forwards.

That is annoying. It's not advisable to drop the ball, obviously, but as long as it doesn't go forwards off you, it should be play on.

TJ wrote:Apart from the fact the laws clearly state the ball must not TRAVEL forwards relative to the try line. so the fans are not silly.

There is not a single law in the rule book that states that.

red_stag wrote:

TJ wrote:Apart from the fact the laws clearly state the ball must not TRAVEL forwards relative to the try line. so the fans are not silly.

There is not a single law in the rule book that states that.

Thanks Ref. I thought I was going mad for a while there. "Travel backwards out of the hands" I thought.