Munster 2013/14

First topic message reminder :

Some news of players leaving Munster.

Doug Howlett has announced his retirement.

Other departures from the current squad - besides Peter Stringer who remains with Bath, Marcus Horan who announced his retirement recently, Sean Scanlon (Rotherham Titans) and Sean Henry (Connacht) - include Wian du Preez who returns to his native South Africa, Scott Deasy and Christy Condon.

BJ Botha will continue on with Munster having signed a two year contract extension while Danny Barnes has not been re-contracted but is understood to have negotiated an opportunity to play abroad and news of that will be confirmed in the coming weeks.

Might be heresy to mention it on the Munster thread, but there's another big game on here; http://www.bbc.co.uk/tv/bbcalba/live

  

Just switched on to tg4. Who scored the first try for Leinster Notch?

Was a good game for the first three quarters then it got very scrappy.

Hurley is not an IC, seemed all at sea in the first half but improved as the game went on. Van Den Heever needs some catching practice - not all the passes were sympathtic, but a couple should have been picked up without knocking on.

Scarlets have improved significantly in the past couple of seasons. They have become a very nuggety team and are difficult to beat. They also play some really good rugby as we saw in the first half.

Gretgael1 wrote:Just switched on to tg4. Who scored the first try for Leinster Notch?

Noel Reid ?? (I haven't seen the Leinster team and I don't recognise him but I think that's what the BBC Alba commentator said)

Kia, Keatley should have moved to IC when JJ came on, Hurley didn't offer much at centre. VDH really should have held on to at least on of the passes he dropped, they were 7 pointers.

Agree Gretgael. I wasn't sure (still not) why Hurley was picked at IC. And I would have assumed the substitution you mention. Also wondered why Ronan O'Mahoney wasn't brought on. Some of the play from Munster in the middle of the 2nd half was lovely even if it didn't result in tries. However, Scarlets were also wasteful, especially in the first half.

I think one of the more costly injuries is that of Cathal Sheridan. He had really overtaken Williams as 2nd SH and we are missing him now. Murray will have to look after himself over the next few months as he will have to play a lot of rugby.
I also thought Casey was better today around the park. I am not saying he is the real deal, but he is getting better.

Yes it was Reid.

If you're gonna play Hurley at IC get him to move onto ball from deep and let him run straight and hard, he's a big unit. But, as you've alluded to, we've Williams at scrumhalf today, not helping the cause whatsoever. I'd agree with you about Sheridan, we're in big trouble if Murray gets injured.
Casey put in another good shift today, really impressed with him. Again, Foley looked aggressive when he came on. Botha should have been on earlier.

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Notch wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Notch wrote:Taff, he kicked a guy in the face!

With absolutely no intent!

His intent was to illegally kick the ball out of the Munster players hands! Come on mun   

He was not yellow carded but merely warned for that.Card for the accidental contact with face.Wrong.

I thought the officials got the ruling on Turnbull spot on. He illegally kicked the ball out of the scrum half's hands = Penalty. And his boots came into contact with a player on the floor = Dangerous Play = Yellow card.

Watching it on Skyplus Turnbull's boot struck the Munster players chest not face, so what was he doing clutching his eyes in apparent agony?

What's the short with Luke o dea? Has he been injured all season or does Penney just not rate him?

Seagultaf wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Notch wrote:

Taffineastbourne wrote:

Notch wrote:Taff, he kicked a guy in the face!

With absolutely no intent!

His intent was to illegally kick the ball out of the Munster players hands! Come on mun   

He was not yellow carded but merely warned for that.Card for the accidental contact with face.Wrong.

I thought the officials got the ruling on Turnbull spot on. He illegally kicked the ball out of the scrum half's hands = Penalty. And his boots came into contact with a player on the floor = Dangerous Play = Yellow card.

Watching it on Skyplus Turnbull's boot struck the Munster players chest not face, so what was he doing clutching his eyes in apparent agony?

That's funny, so I'm guessing William's nose was just bleeding for no reason? Did you not see him afterwards? The boot caught him in the face. Watch it again.

Golden wrote:What's the short with Luke o dea? Has he been injured all season or does Penney just not rate him?

He was injured - from Munster Site (28th Jan)

Luke O'Dea has started to resume limited training - non-contact initially - as he continues to recover from the broken thumb injury he sustained playing for Munster A away to Plymouth Albion in December.

KiaRose wrote:

Golden wrote:What's the short with Luke o dea? Has he been injured all season or does Penney just not rate him?

He was injured - from Munster Site (28th Jan)

Luke O'Dea has started to resume limited training - non-contact initially - as he continues to recover from the broken thumb injury he sustained playing for Munster A away to Plymouth Albion in December.

Oh right thanks. I dont remember seeing him at all this season.

Is Zebo going to be considered at fullback for Munster on a long term basis?  The commentators mentioned it with Van Der Heever on one wing, and Earls on the other.  I think he looks very good at 15 personally.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is Zebo going to be considered at fullback for Munster on a long term basis?  The commentators mentioned it with Van Der Heever on one wing, and Earls on the other.  I think he looks very good at 15 personally.

I don't think so, Felix is nailed on starter at 15.

Luke O'Dea has had a lot of injury problems - it has been one thing after another.

I think getting Zebo, Earls and VDH into the back three is much more threatening than having Jones back there.

Sin é wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Is Zebo going to be considered at fullback for Munster on a long term basis?  The commentators mentioned it with Van Der Heever on one wing, and Earls on the other.  I think he looks very good at 15 personally.

I don't think so, Felix is nailed on starter at 15.

Luke O'Dea has had a lot of injury problems  - it has been one thing after another.

Plus for all the hype Earls and VDH are bloody useless.

Give me Johney "the invisible man" Murphy, Conway or Denis Hurley any day...at least they can chew gum and walk in a straight line at the same time....

OK Rods, you must be bored, so an example of VDH hype please?

(I'm sort of busy today, so I won't be able to get stuck in!)  

Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

Sin é wrote:OK Rods, you must be bored, so an example of VDH hype please?

(I'm sort of busy today, so I won't be able to get stuck in!)  

Looks fairly average to me, made a meal of a couple of chances and should have had a hat trick given the chances Lualua (Munster's best back by miles) created for him, Even Horgan seemed embarrassed by the commentary team waxing lyrical about the intercept he scored as any man and his dog could have scored it.

Seems the Irish media, particularly Lenihan, have a habit of overhyping anyone in Munster with a half decent turn of pace into the fastest mammal on two legs.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:OK Rods, you must be bored, so an example of VDH hype please?

(I'm sort of busy today, so I won't be able to get stuck in!)  

Looks fairly average to me, made a meal of a couple of chances and should have had a hat trick given the chances Lualua (Munster's best back by miles) created for him, Even Horgan seemed embarrassed by the commentary team waxing lyrical about the intercept he scored as any man and his dog could have scored it.

Seems the Irish media, particularly Lenihan, have a habit of overhyping anyone in Munster with a half decent turn of pace into the fastest mammal on two legs.

I don't think anyone has hyped him as you are saying so. The only hype he is getting is about his pace, which is a fact - he is very fast. (His nickname from SA is Shadow).

So I've heard. He certainly disappeared at times during the game so its an appropriate nick name all right  .

Literally the only hype I've heard about VDH since his arrival was from the commentary team on Saturday.

Hardly a reason for anyone to get their knickers in a twist.

And do you really think Earls is "useless"?

Personally I don't think he has become the player everyone hoped he would but "useless"??

I'm just yanking your chain lads, looks like he's got plenty of gas and could be a decent signing....just reminds me a bit of Fionn Carr.....

Looking at Munster now compared to early in the season, I'm wondering if they are making a mistake with Penney as their attacking patterns are finally starting to click after looking disjointed for a the last few seasons.

The backs and forwards are really combining well, the backline alignment and running lines have improved and the speedsters Munster have out wide are starting to get the opportunity to shine.

rodders wrote:I'm just yanking your chain lads, looks like he's got plenty of gas and could be a decent signing....just reminds me a bit of Fionn Carr.....

Looking at Munster now compared to early in the season, I'm wondering if they are making a mistake with Penney as their attacking patterns are finally starting to click after looking disjointed for a the last few seasons.

The backs and forwards are really combining well, the backline alignment and running lines have improved and the speedsters Munster have out wide are starting to get the opportunity to shine.

I agree with that assessment Rodders. I was very disappointed when it was announced that Penney was going. I wasn't so sure about Mannix, but like most Munster fans I saw the Penney project as a two year one. Last year we had at times an almighty shambles as players brought up to play one way syddenly found themselves trying to implement a very different style of play. Also, the coach did not seem to be particularly au fait with the province's DNA which encouraged the shambles. Just occasionally we saw one or the other coming t light in the middle of a game and things looked promising.

This season though, we have seen some fine passages of Penney-style play. This has been allied to the old-style Munster play and the result has been very promising. there were sonme very fine passages of passing interplay on Saturday against Scarlets. I was disappointed with the outcome of the game (which Munster fan wasn't) but I was not overly surprised. As I said previously, Scarlets have been improving over the season. Easterby seems to be turning out to be a good coach.

There are concerns as we come to the business end of the season. Casey is improving at hooker, but we are very thin there; Williams is hardly a provincial quality SH and with Sheridan out for however long, we have to hope Murray keeps fit. Earls doesn't seem to have developed to the extent we might have hoped. However, for all the criticism of him, Keatley is becoming a fairly reliable OH. VDH did make a mess of a couple of try chances but we have but to hope that these were aberrations rather than a comment on his abilities.

There has been a lot of talk about JJ including "why is he not on the Ireland radar?". I think this has been answered. But just to clarify for anyone who may have missed it, last year he was completing his degree at the University of Limerick and therefore had limited time for Mnuster. This year, at the beginning of the season, both Penney and Mannix said they were keen to develop his all-round game and to manage him so that he would not be exposed above the level of his competence / confidence. I believe this has been a sound policy and much as I would like to see him take the world by storm, I would far rather that he comes into international selection consideration when his game is solid and well developed rather than as happened to many players in the past. Too often we have seen young players picked for an international (not just Ireland) then find themselevs all at sea and dropped never to be heard of again when, given time to develop, they could well have become good or even great players.

MunsterMac wrote:Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

GunsGerms wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

Not quite so, Guns. The only thing you can tell for sure from the footage is that the ball came out of Williams's hands. Whether he dropped it (and thus a knock on) OR it was knocked out of his hands accidently by a Munster player OR on purpose by a Scarlets player cannot be said with any certainty. Immediately after the ball came out of Williams's hands he held both arms out in an apparent appeal to the ref, suggesting that he either thought it was taken out of his hands deliberately (penalty to Munster) or he foolishly dropped it and was looking for a penalty to cover his foolishness up.

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

Actually if you look properly at the slow mo you can clearly see a hand come out of the ruck and grab Williams wrist and pull it. It's 4:02 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Nm0fE7i7xs&list=PLclPnIJd8nRvdLEVKStSkvT7C92YnFKc2&feature=c4-overview-vl

Fair play to the Scarlets player whoever he was but how did the TMO not see that?

And one of the replays on Saturday night clearly showed that Davies DID NOT ground the ball for the Scarlets 1st 'try'.

Munster should still have won though. They had the opportunities.

KiaRose wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

Not quite so, Guns.  The only thing you can tell for sure from the footage is that the ball came out of Williams's hands.  Whether he dropped it (and thus a knock on) OR it was knocked out of his hands accidently by a Munster player OR on purpose by a Scarlets player cannot be said with any certainty.  Immediately after the ball came out of Williams's hands he held both arms out in an apparent appeal to the ref, suggesting that he either thought it was taken out of his hands deliberately (penalty to Munster) or he foolishly dropped it and was looking for a penalty to cover his foolishness up.

If the ball comes out of your hands it is a knock on? Unless the TMO can see something to suggest it was slapped out it has to be a knock on. Maybe harsh but correct decision.

You cant award penalties based on player protestation or probability. Nothing is clear from the video.

Guns

Look at my last post.

It's very clear on the video.

GunsGerms wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

Guns you really do hate Munster don't you if it were Leinster you would have different view fact. Any way once again you are wrong surprise surprise I've copied the rules for you!

If the ball is slapped out of the scrum-half's hands, it is not necessarily a knock-on. It may be a penalty, if the player slapping the ball is off his feet or in an offside position. If the player is on his feet and onside, it may also be a scrum, if the player slapping the ball hits it forward from the scrum-half's hands relative to his position.

In other words, the following calls are possible in that scenario:

1. Knock-on by Williams, Scarlets scrum.
2. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an offside position, penalty Munster.
3. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player off his feet, penalty Munster.
4. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an offside position and off his feet, penalty Munster.
5. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an onside position and on his feet but travels forward, scrum Munster.
6. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an onside position and on his feet and travels backward, play continues.

My suspicion is that option 4 is what happened, but it's impossible to say. Equally, it's impossible to say that option 1 is definitely what happened. But that is what the TMO ruled to be the case, as if a knock-on in such a situation were the default call. It's not. It was a massive and decisive officiating error.

MunsterMac wrote:Guns

Look at my last post.

It's very clear on the video.

At no point can you see a Scarlets hand on the video knocking the ball out of the Munster 9s hands. Dont doubt there was one but TMOs dont operate on the basis probability or protestation.

Correct call. No question at all.

BlueMuff wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

MunsterMac wrote:Line of the weekend from the TMO:

"There's nothing conclusive but it's definitely a knock on".

In fairness the only thing you caould tell for sure from the footage was that it was a knock on. Correct call.

Guns you really do hate Munster don't you if it were Leinster you would have different view fact. Any way once again you are wrong surprise surprise I've copied the rules for you!

If the ball is slapped out of the scrum-half's hands, it is not necessarily a knock-on. It may be a penalty, if the player slapping the ball is off his feet or in an offside position. If the player is on his feet and onside, it may also be a scrum, if the player slapping the ball hits it forward from the scrum-half's hands relative to his position.

In other words, the following calls are possible in that scenario:

1. Knock-on by Williams, Scarlets scrum.
2. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an offside position, penalty Munster.
3. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player off his feet, penalty Munster.
4. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an offside position and off his feet, penalty Munster.
5. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an onside position and on his feet but travels forward, scrum Munster.
6. The ball is slapped out of Williams' hands by a player in an onside position and on his feet and travels backward, play continues.

My suspicion is that option 4 is what happened, but it's impossible to say. Equally, it's impossible to say that option 1 is definitely what happened. But that is what the TMO ruled to be the case, as if a knock-on in such a situation were the default call. It's not. It was a massive and decisive officiating error.

TMOs arent given a remit to base decisions around "suspicion". You admit yourself you dont know what actually happened and there is no video evidence therefore the only conclusion the ref or TMO can safely come to is that it was a knock on because the ball drops out of Williams hands.

Correct decision.

Have to agree with Guns here. You cannot say it is a Scarlets hand. Of course everyone knows it is and it's a bit of injustice (hand of backesque but less obvious) against Munster but the TMO called it right for me. Munster still had more than enough to win that game anyway with just a few final passes not going to hand

If you apply the same logic you can't see Williams knocking it on you just see the ball going forward so how can you penalise Williams

BlueMuff wrote:If you apply the same logic you can't see Williams knocking it on you just see the ball going forward so how can you penalise Williams

because the ball was in his hands. Those are the rules Bluemuff.

You can see the ball go forward from Williams hands. Hence a knock on. It's bloody harsh if you ask me but you can't prove that a Scarlets hand impeded it because you can't see the jersey.

A more pertinent one that was on ATH was the Barclay (in at the side) penalty on the line. It was given and it was an automatic yellow. If that had been given I have no doubt Munster would have got over

Ridiculous.

First of all there was without doubt a hand:



And of course it was a Scarlet hand.

The only other option is that a renegade Munster player deliberately grabbed Williams by the wrist and pulled it towards the Scarlets tryline.

I don't think there's any rule that states that you have to conclusively prove it was a Scarlets hand.

The reason it was given as a knock on was because the incompetent TMO didn't see any hand and assumed that Williams just knocked it on.

What's the excuse for the non grounding of the try??

That because the TMO didn't see the ball being grounded he had to assume it was a try?

The question asked by the ref was 'any reason why we can't award that try please'.

The answer should have been 'Yes, the ball wasn't grounded'.

MunsterMac wrote:Ridiculous.

First of all there was without doubt a hand:



And of course it was a Scarlet hand.

The only other option is that a renegade Munster player deliberately grabbed Williams by the wrist and pulled it towards the Scarlets tryline.

I don't think there's any rule that states that you have to conclusively prove it was a Scarlets hand.

Of course there is because if he just drops it or hits his own player its a knock on. If there's deliberate interference then its a penalty but genuinely I couldn't see that from the video so knock on, scrum defence was a fair call, which is a shame because it was a really good try by Munster and it had a big impact on the result.

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:OK Rods, you must be bored, so an example of VDH hype please?

(I'm sort of busy today, so I won't be able to get stuck in!)  

Looks fairly average to me, made a meal of a couple of chances and should have had a hat trick given the chances Lualua (Munster's best back by miles) created for him, Even Horgan seemed embarrassed by the commentary team waxing lyrical about the intercept he scored as any man and his dog could have scored it.

Seems the Irish media, particularly Lenihan, have a habit of overhyping anyone in Munster with a half decent turn of pace into the fastest mammal on two legs.

You couldn't be more wrong, he's a fantastic talent and a big loss for SA rugby. Of course you're right about the commentators overhyping him on a pretty average performance. But that doesn't change the fact he's a seriously talented guy- for years every little thing BOD did was highlighted as evidence of his genius whether it was or wasn't, because pundits and the media see what they want to see and very often their 'analyses' have more to do with reputation than performance. He's still a really dangerous, talented player.

One thing I will say about VDH, he'd be better off in Super Rugby where he'd be on harder ground, get the ball more often and have more license to run. He'll never be as good a player up here in NH winter.

Ah rodders the ball bounced up from Williams hands when he was facing out to pass. I actually dont think it would be physically possible for the ball to jump up the way he was facing.

The non yellow card was another bad ball and the grounding was not even looked at. I think he just looked at the foot in touch.

All that said you do just have to roll with it like we did for the last maul in Ulster that was a terrible decision. Scarlets destroyed us in the first half and if anything it was a great advert for the Rabo.

We will regain top spot when we beat the ladies in the Aviva     

MunsterMac wrote:Ridiculous.

First of all there was without doubt a hand:



And of course it was a Scarlet hand.

The only other option is that a renegade Munster player deliberately grabbed Williams by the wrist and pulled it towards the Scarlets tryline.

I don't think there's any rule that states that you have to conclusively prove it was a Scarlets hand.

The reason it was given as a knock on was because the incompetent TMO didn't see any hand and assumed that Williams just knocked it on.

What's the excuse for the non grounding of the try??

That because the TMO didn't see the ball being grounded he had to assume it was a try?

The question asked by the ref was 'any reason why we can't award that try please'.

The answer should have been 'Yes, the ball wasn't grounded'.

Your arrow is pointing to Williams' own hand.

Of course there is because if he just drops it or hits his own player its a knock on. If there's deliberate interference then its a penalty but genuinely I couldn't see that from the video so knock on, scrum defence was a fair call, which is a shame because it was a really good try by Munster and it had a big impact on the result. .

You'll have to trust me Rodders it's very clear on the video exactly what happened I just dont have the technical ability to extract the relevant bit in slow mo and post it.

It wasn't a knock on it was interference by a Scarlets player off his feet.

MunsterMac wrote:

Of course there is because if he just drops it or hits his own player its a knock on. If there's deliberate interference then its a penalty but genuinely I couldn't see that from the video so knock on, scrum defence was a fair call, which is a shame because it was a really good try by Munster and it had a big impact on the result. .

You'll have to trust me Rodders it's very clear on the video exactly what happened I just dont have the technical ability to extract the relevant bit in slow mo and post it.

It wasn't a knock on it was interference by a Scarlets player off his feet.

Its not clear at all because you are the only person that can see a hand.

Your arrow is pointing to Williams' own hand..

Click on 'Click to see fullsize' and you'll see it isn't Williams hand it's another hand grabbing his wrist from the ruck.

Unless of course you've already decided what you want to see which I suspect is the case.

I did already click on fullsize image. There is nothing there. On both camera angles I have seen a player steps in the way just as the hand if there was one goes out and blocks the view. There was no evidence of a hand in the ruck so the TMO made the right call.

Notch wrote:

rodders wrote:

Sin é wrote:OK Rods, you must be bored, so an example of VDH hype please?

(I'm sort of busy today, so I won't be able to get stuck in!)  

Looks fairly average to me, made a meal of a couple of chances and should have had a hat trick given the chances Lualua (Munster's best back by miles) created for him, Even Horgan seemed embarrassed by the commentary team waxing lyrical about the intercept he scored as any man and his dog could have scored it.

Seems the Irish media, particularly Lenihan, have a habit of overhyping anyone in Munster with a half decent turn of pace into the fastest mammal on two legs.

You couldn't be more wrong, he's a fantastic talent and a big loss for SA rugby. Of course you're right about the commentators overhyping him on a pretty average performance. But that doesn't change the fact he's a seriously talented guy- for years every little thing BOD did was highlighted as evidence of his genius whether it was or wasn't, because pundits and the media see what they want to see and very often their 'analyses' have more to do with reputation than performance. He's still a really dangerous, talented player.

One thing I will say about VDH, he'd be better off in Super Rugby where he'd be on harder ground, get the ball more often and have more license to run. He'll never be as good a player up here in NH winter.

So I could be more wrong then because you agree that he's been overhyped by commentators but yet despite comparing him to the best back of his generation (overhyping?) you suggest he's probably better off sticking to the harder soils where he'll be a better player.

New footage has actually surfaced on the internet of the Scarlets hand grabbing Williams hand. Looks like you lads were right after all.

Hand:

Munster robbed again by the hand of Back;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAfepsoVPtQ