Scarlets vs Harlequins

by The Saint Sun 19 Jan - 13:23

First topic message reminder :

Didn't see a thread on his, which is surprising as it has the potential to be the game of the weekend. Both teams are chasing a place in Amlin Challenge Cup (better than a kick in the teeth).

Scarlets: Aled Thomas, Kristian Phillips, Gareth Maule, Scott Williams, Jordan Williams, Rhys Priestland, Gareth Davies, Phil John, Emyr Phillips, Samson Lee, George Earle, Jake Ball, Aaron Shingler, John Barclay, Rob McCusker (c)

Replacements: Ken Owens, Rob Evans, Jacobie Adriaanse, Johan Snyman, Josh Turnbull, Rhodri Williams, Adam Warren, Gareth Owen

Harlequins: Mike Brown, Ollie Lindsay-Hague, Matt Hopper, Tim Molenaar, Ugo Monye, Nick Evans, Karl Dickson; Joe Marler, Dave Ward, Will Collier, Nick Kennedy, George Robson, Luke Wallace, Chris Robshaw (C), Nick Easter

Replacements: Joe Gray, Mark Lambert, Paul Doran Jones, Charlie Matthews, Tom Guest, Sam Stuart, Ben Botica, Tom Williams

Referee: Jerome Garces (France)

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 8:15

ChequeredJersey wrote:Bad luck Scarlets, good match. I'd ignore Luck of the Irish, he won't be here long. Good luck in the RABO

Shame the breakdown didn't go well, but in the end, the best team won- Scarlets should have been down to 14 all match, and missed kicks are part of the game. It's a shame but we've also lost games due to them so we know what that feels like

Really? Same could be said for Quins with the shoulder to the face of Gareth Davies in the early part of the game, which didn't even get a pen. I really didn't think Shinglers was too bad, just a bit stupid.

by HammerofThunor Mon 20 Jan - 8:33

Shingles was as bad as Botha's on A Jones in the Lions. He was banned which means red. So...

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 8:54

Thunor/Chequered -: From where I was, on the opposite side of the pitch, it looked a silly pen, possible card at most. But that said have not seen it on TV, and so I am willing to admit that with my one-eye I could well not have seen it as clearly as most, and it could have been far worse.

Yappy - to be fair even if those kicks had been hit, Quins would have most likely gone to the line and rolled over in the dying minutes instead of kicking the three, a fair more heart in mouth ending, was what I was getting at.

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 8:57

yappysnap wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Gutted with the result, thought a tmo/reversed pen was in order, but hard to tell where I was sat. I can't fault the Scarlets, we gave it everything, if Priest land had managed to squeeze that second conversion attempt in, and I though he had for a second, or if Jordan had hit one of those long range attempts, it would have set up a real grandstand finish.

Congratulations to Quins for the win, and to their travelling suooort , who were in fine voice.

But you can't go into ifs and buts when one Scarlets player should probably have been red carded and the Shingler try was dodgy to say the least.

What about Quins 2nd try which was scored against 14 Scarlets, with Maule having a potentially dangerous neck injury?

And in the rabo they don't penalise physical play like Shingler's charge or du Preez's rucking against Munster.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 8:58

at what point in the game does the Shingler hit come - anyone tell me? I want to have a look and the game is now on youtube

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 9:00

Around the 10 minute mark, stopped Scarlets momentum, basically.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:01

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:14

Just seen it. Definite yellow. Straight in the side, no arms or binding. Nothing dodgy about the decision. Edit - a maul not a ruck as well. a player must come in from behind the back feet and must bind on.

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 9:18

TJ wrote:Just seen it. Definite yellow. Straight in the side, no arms or binding. Nothing dodgy about the decision. Edit - a maul not a ruck as well. a player must come in from behind the back feet and must bind on.

What do you think of Du Preez rucking yesterday, do you think that deserved a yellow too?

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:21

Not as obvious - he came in from a legal position and did bind with his arms - however the officials judged he led with his head. Hard to see on TV from what I saw. It was a ruck as well.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:23

I am happy for the refs to take a tough stance on dangerous play

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 9:26

Too often we see these kind of play not even penalised, thats why i have a problem with yesterday's yellows.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:27

OK - had another look at the Du Preez one. seems reasonable. Tucked his right arm out of the way, didn't really bind. O'Connnel was in a very vulnerable position and Du Preez was reckless - so yellow seems right. Not deliberate so not a red

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:29

Vince have another look at the Shingler one. Its bad - the main issue is he comes in illegally at the side and makes no attmpt to bind - just sholder into the ribs - he hits the man well behind the ball in a maul and does not even attempt to bind.

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 9:32

TJ wrote:OK - had another look at the Du Preez one. seems reasonable. Tucked his right arm out of the way, didn't really bind. O'Connnel was in a very vulnerable position and Du Preez was reckless - so yellow seems right. Not deliberate so not a red

Had to look at it again too, ref was ok with it, it was right in front of Barnes, It was Munster's players whining which led to a TMO review.

I had another look at Shingler's, yes 50/50, in my opinion, it's not obvious he is from the side, he is running a straight line i think, some ref would have let it go.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:46

I think either the touch judge or the TMO alerted the ref. Shingler hit the man behind the ball carrier - obviously from the side.

by VinceWLB Mon 20 Jan - 9:49

Yeah, thinking about it, Shingler hit the wrong player, has he done that to Quins' 5 it could have been ok.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not for dirty play, i just want our game not becoming a sport for softies.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 9:51

Even then it would have been from the side but yes - less obviously so. Still no binding as well

by propdavid_london Mon 20 Jan - 10:18

I've only seen the highlights, will try and watch the whole game tonight.
The one thing I would like to comment on was Shinglers try! How was that allowed? He dove over the ruck and put hands on the ball when it was clearly still inside the back foot.
If the scrum half had hands on I would have said fair enough - But I still cant understand how that was awarded after it went to TMO?
Can anyone fill me in on that one?

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 10:20

Things like scrums etc don't really exist past the try-line. Anything behind the line is automatically onside

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 10:23

propdavid_london wrote:I've only seen the highlights, will try and watch the whole game tonight.
The one thing I would like to comment on was Shinglers try! How was that allowed? He dove over the ruck and put hands on the ball when it was clearly still inside the back foot.
If the scrum half had hands on I would have said fair enough - But I still cant understand how that was awarded after it went to TMO?
Can anyone fill me in on that one?

No offside line over the tryline.

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 10:26

ChequeredJersey wrote:Things like scrums etc don't really exist past the try-line. Anything behind the line is automatically onside

Exactly what I was about to say. I think it happened in another game this weekend too, so it was actually very good knowledge of the rules. A bit like when Martyn Williams scored the try against France against the post as opposed to grounding it over the line.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 10:28

Dickson obviously forgot too, because otherwise he would have got the ball out and cleared it

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 10:32

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
ChequeredJersey wrote:Things like scrums etc don't really exist past the try-line. Anything behind the line is automatically onside

Exactly what I was about to say. I think it happened in another game this weekend too, so it was actually very good knowledge of the rules. A bit like when Martyn Williams scored the try against France against the post as opposed to grounding it over the line.

Glasgow game. the ball was clearly out of the ruck in that case tho

by propdavid_london Mon 20 Jan - 10:39

OK - thanks guys.
Might have to remember that one next time I get close enough to the try line.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 10:42

Our coach always used to emphasise try line rules. Touch in goal is a fun one, can score several completely legal types of try that most spectators would be screaming at being illegal

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 14:34

Watched the Shingler yellow again. How anyone could think it wasn't a card, I will never ever ever understand. If Shingler were a south african, v2 would have been screaming blue murder. To all intents and purposes it was an off the ball cheap shot looking to cause hurt if not damage. Canny try though

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 14:45

No issue with the lack of off-side line in the in-goal area but shouldn't he still have started his move from an on-side position? - looked to me like he was standing alongside the ruck not behind it when the ball popped out.

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 14:46

No offside line when the ball is in the ingoal area

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 14:48

Heaf wrote:No issue with the lack of off-side line in the in-goal area but shouldn't he still have started his move from an on-side position? - looked to me like he was standing alongside the ruck not behind it when the ball popped out.

Doesn't matter. Before he plays the ball his offsideness is irrelevant. Once the ball is on the floor, in no otrher player's hands and behind the try line, there is no offside

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 14:54

so if player A is behind player B and kicks the ball into the in-goal area, then player B walks over and presses it down it's OK?

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 14:56

Only so long as he retreats until the ball is in the in goal area otherwise he is offside from the kick before the ball goes over the line is the way I read it

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 14:57

But even chasing a kick from an offside position is a penalty, whilst standing offside is not

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 15:02

Aye - so the offside player has to retreat until the ball goes over the line

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 15:03

so what if he'd been just standing in the in-goal area - is that OK too?

I can understand that once the ball is there the usual offside at ruck rules etc don't apply (e.g. you can then come around the ruck) but it doesn't sound right to me that you can start the move from an offside position ....

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 15:05

Heaf wrote:so what if he'd been just standing in the in-goal area - is that OK too?

Nope - its the position of the ball that counts and when ahead of the kicker you have to retreat do you not - so he would be offside and the penalty given BEFORE the ball went over the line

Not certain on this tho

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:07

(c) Pushover try. A scrum or ruck cannot take place in the in-goal. If a scrum or ruck is pushed into the in-goal, an attacking player may legally ground the ball as soon as the ball reaches or crosses the goal line and a try is scored.

is the bit. If there is no ruck he can't be offside

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 15:08

Whilst you guys have got your legality heads on.

A lineout is thrown in, team A win and set up a maul, and team B stand off it. Then team A move the ball to the back of the maul and a player from team B comes around and takes out the man at the back. What is the call? From my point of view it is offside (maybe only accidental mind) by team A or even blocking.

and another one............

Player A hoofs the ball up the field and into touch, player B and C (on the same team) are retreating. The ball lands in touch. Players B and C stop retreating. A quick line is taken, and player B and C close down the man who has taken the quick line. Are they offside or not? I am between minds, as they were offside, however then the ball has gone into touch, so does that mean it is now a new play and a new offside line?

Both of these happened in the match yesterday, and I seriously questioned them. The first at the lineout was just a play on situation, and that play then lead to the first try in the second half. The second was given as offside, and had everyone around me bemused with the decision, but that may have been one-eyed during the game live syndrome.

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 15:09

take an extreme example - say at Murrayfield where the in-goal area is deep ... Player A is standing right on the edge of the dead-ball line, player B kicks the ball from say 20m out into the in-goal area - player A is retreating - which actually means he's running towards the ball and by the time they meet the ball is in the in-goal area and he touches down for a try - can that really be allowed?

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:14

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Whilst you guys have got your legality heads on.

A lineout is thrown in, team A win and set up a maul, and team B stand off it. Then team A move the ball to the back of the maul and a player from team B comes around and takes out the man at the back. What is the call? From my point of view it is offside (maybe only accidental mind) by team A or even blocking.

IMO, as soon as the ball is at the back of the maul and it is not engaged by any member of the defence, it's a truck and trailer style offense, think Italy won a penalty like this in the 6N a few years ago

and another one............

Player A hoofs the ball up the field and into touch, player B and C (on the same team) are retreating. The ball lands in touch. Players B and C stop retreating. A quick line is taken, and player B and C close down the man who has taken the quick line. Are they offside or not? I am between minds, as they were offside, however then the ball has gone into touch, so does that mean it is now a new play and a new offside line? I think no, play has ended when the ball went out and you cannot be offside.

Both of these happened in the match yesterday, and I seriously questioned them. The first at the lineout was just a play on situation, and that play then lead to the first try in the second half. The second was given as offside, and had everyone around me bemused with the decision, but that may have been one-eyed during the game live syndrome.

I didn't think Scarlets backed off the maul completely but I can look. The second shouldn't have been offside IMO

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 15:14

PS do you think we should copyright these questions for a ref exam?

by TJ Mon 20 Jan - 15:15

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Whilst you guys have got your legality heads on.

A lineout is thrown in, team A win and set up a maul, and team B stand off it. Then team A move the ball to the back of the maul and a player from team B comes around and takes out the man at the back. What is the call? From my point of view it is offside (maybe only accidental mind) by team A or even blocking.

its obstruction. Its not a maul unless team b players are in it. Italy used this as a tactic a few years ago and got given the penalty for obstruction. the offense occurs as soon as the ball is passed to the back so the tackling player is irrelevant. However its not always given so is a high risk strategy

and another one............

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Player A hoofs the ball up the field and into touch, player B and C (on the same team) are retreating. The ball lands in touch. Players B and C stop retreating. A quick line is taken, and player B and C close down the man who has taken the quick line. Are they offside or not? I am between minds, as they were offside, however then the ball has gone into touch, so does that mean it is now a new play and a new offside line?

Both of these happened in the match yesterday, and I seriously questioned them. The first at the lineout was just a play on situation, and that play then lead to the first try in the second half. The second was given as offside, and had everyone around me bemused with the decision, but that may have been one-eyed during the game live syndrome.

not sure but I would think its a new play and a new offside line - but maybe they never got onside?

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 15:17

CJ, cheers for that. The second one caught me by surprise when he signalled offside, and then I worked out why, but wasn't sure.

As for the line, if the Scarlets hadn't backed off fully then it should have been a pen against them for coming around the side of the maul.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:18

Heaf wrote:take an extreme example - say at Murrayfield where the in-goal area is deep ... Player A is standing right on the edge of the dead-ball line, player B kicks the ball from say 20m out into the in-goal area - player A is retreating - which actually means he's running towards the ball and by the time they meet the ball is in the in-goal area and he touches down for a try - can that really be allowed?

I really don't know. But I think he can actually just stay out of play behind the deadball line and then just put pressure on the ball in the goal area if it reaches him as long as he doesn't carry. It's a legal way to score from off the pitch and if you aren't on the pitch you can't be offside?

Just saw the 50m run from Scarlets own line which was ruled out before a potential try for a forward pass. Which it was but the blatant blatant block in Scarlets own 22 should have meant a penalty on the Scarlets try-line that was missed!

by Heaf Mon 20 Jan - 15:20

ChequeredJersey wrote:(c) Pushover try. A scrum or ruck cannot take place in the in-goal. If a scrum or ruck is pushed into the in-goal, an attacking player may legally ground the ball as soon as the ball reaches or crosses the goal line and a try is scored.

is the bit. If there is no ruck he can't be offside

but before the ball popped out the ruck wasn't in the in-goal area and he was standing in an offside position so would it have been OK if he'd been standing in the in-goal area too when the ball popped out?

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 15:22

CJ, I think we are decided that Garces was not on his best form last night, however he seemed to make a balanced amount of frock ups. Shingler and the bloke who wasted Gareth Davies, both possibly lenient, a few blocks missed both ways, and not turning the pen over for the punch up furious

. But all in all it was a great match to watch, and a real example of how to play attacking rugby, even in dire conditions.

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:22

The ruck was always finishing in the in goal area no?

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:22

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Whilst you guys have got your legality heads on.

A lineout is thrown in, team A win and set up a maul, and team B stand off it. Then team A move the ball to the back of the maul and a player from team B comes around and takes out the man at the back. What is the call? From my point of view it is offside (maybe only accidental mind) by team A or even blocking.

The TV view looks like there were always scarlets players in the maul

by ChequeredJersey Mon 20 Jan - 15:23

The referee even says same maul and was playing penalty advantage to Quins

by ScarletSpiderman Mon 20 Jan - 15:24

ChequeredJersey wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:Whilst you guys have got your legality heads on.

A lineout is thrown in, team A win and set up a maul, and team B stand off it. Then team A move the ball to the back of the maul and a player from team B comes around and takes out the man at the back. What is the call? From my point of view it is offside (maybe only accidental mind) by team A or even blocking.

The TV view looks like there were always scarlets players in the maul

I was directly in front of me, and I can promise you there were no Scarlets in the maul, but ce la vie, it is one of those high risk things that rarely pays off. In pre-season v London Welsh we did it, and Wayne Barnes gave our lad a yellow for coming in at the side.

If the ref said maul, then it is a maul, even though he was wrong Whistle

by Sponsored content