Ulster vs Leinster; Official Opening of the New Ravenhill Stadium

by **Notch** Wed 30 Apr 2014, 5:48 pm

First topic message reminder :

Ulster play Leinster on Friday night on the very special official opening of Ulster Rugbys newly redeveloped home. More team news to follow later in the week but until then enjoy these photos from the construction of the original Ravenhill grandstand and the first ever game held at Ravenhill- the same fixture, Ulster vs Leinster, in January 1924. Ulster won, here's hoping for a bit of the spirit of 1924!

The stadium has a rich history having hosted Irelands decisive win against Wales which secured our first ever Grand Slam in 1948, a famous win for Ulster over Australia in 1984 and wins over Toulouse and Stade Francais by a semi-professional Ulster side en route to winning the European Cup in 1999.

This is the beginning of a new era for the stadium and for the team, and it's time for a new generation of players to write their own history- starting on Friday. There will be an opening ceremony at 7pm and the game kicks off at 7.30pm.

Photos from the Opening of Ravenhill, 1924:

Opening Ceremony Details:

The teams are up;

LEINSTER

15: Rob Kearney 14: Zane Kirchner 13: Brian O'Driscoll 12: Gordon D'Arcy 11: Dave Kearney 10: Ian Madigan 9: Isaac Boss
1: Cian Healy 2: Sean Cronin 3: Martin Moore 4: Devin Toner 5: Mike McCarthy 6: Rhys Ruddock 7: Shane Jennings 8: Jamie Heaslip (captain)

REPLACEMENTS: 16: Richardt Strauss 17: Jack McGrath 18: Mike Ross 19: Leo Cullen 20: Jordi Murphy 21: Luke McGrath 22: Jimmy Gopperth 23: Luke Fitzgerald

ULSTER

15: Ricky Andrew 14: Andrew Trimble 13: Jared Payne 12: Luke Marshall 11: Tommy Bowe 10: Paddy Jackson 9: Paul Marshall
1: Tom Court 2: Rob Herring 3: Andrew Warwick 4: Johann Muller (captain) 5: Iain Henderson 6: Roger Wilson 7: Chris Henry 8: Nick Williams;

REPLACEMENTS: 16: Niall Annett 17: Callum Black 18: Adam Macklin 19: Dan Tuohy 20: Sean Doyle 21: Michael Heaney 22: James McKinney 23: Darren Cave

At Ravenhill, 7.30pm. Live on RTE/ BBC NI

Referee: Luke Pearce (RFU, 1st competition game)
Assistant Referees: John Lacey, David Connolly (both IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Eugene Ryan (IRFU)
TMO: Dermot Molony (IRFU)

by **Notch** Thu 08 May 2014, 12:53 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:The Tigers used to have a policy not to cite anyone in their league. But then a central decision was made to have an independent citing official. And that imo was a correct decision and one which the P12 should follow.

I agree.

by **George Carlin** Thu 08 May 2014, 1:05 pm

by cakeordeath Thu 08 May 2014, 1:13 pm

George Carlin wrote:

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 08 May 2014, 1:56 pm

George Carlin wrote:

That it neither, kosher, halal nor humane, George.

Stop it immediately.

Plus it only encourages further debate as was demonstrated at post 50 of the original OP in your first act of inhumanity on dumb animals like me and Notch.

by **George Carlin** Thu 08 May 2014, 2:01 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
George Carlin wrote:

That it neither, kosher, halal nor humane, George.

Stop it immediately.

Plus it only encourages further debate as was demonstrated at post 50 of the original OP in your first act of inhumanity on dumb animals like me and Notch.

by The Great Aukster Thu 08 May 2014, 3:41 pm

Hound of Harrow wrote:Hi Pete. By all means debate whether the cards issued were correct for the offence that was penalised. Pearce clearly explained that he had no choice with Court's red card because Toner landed on his neck, and gave the impression that he didn't want to send him off. Similarly he explained that following the Ruddock/Kirchner challenge on Jackson merited only yellow because Jackson landed on his side and not his head or neck.

Notch created a thread about how the laws, and the IRB's guidelines, are interpreted. It was a well thought out argument because, as things stand, referees are given no choice in certain situations.

Any change needs to driven by the referees themselves, who may request that they be given more discretion when assessing the intent and cause and effect of aerial challenges and tip tackles.*

The Kearney head shot on Jackson did warrant a red card imo. Piufisi copped one for Gloucester against Bath recently for a similar challenge.

However, I was disappointed with the pundits at ht who were arguing for a penalty try; they clearly don't understand the law on when a PT can be awarded and were letting emotions get the better of them.

*Payne's red card v Sarries (hotly disputed I know) was akin to driving without due care and attention. Sure, you don't mean to cause an accident, but you greatly increase the risk of doing so if you're not looking where you are going.

Poorfour wrote:OK, giving you the benefit of the doubt, we may have been using the word "context" differently. "Context", to me, is very broad term meaning "anything and everything that might be relevant to the event." In particular, it includes what led up to the event. "Materiality" is narrow and specific: "did this event have any bearing on fairness or safety", which is different from "context" in my mind and even different from "outcome" (e.g. a no-arm tackle might not lead to an injury, but it is still dangerous and illegal)...

...If we are lucky, referees will apply the laws and directives using the leeway they are given through materiality.

I've quoted PF from the 'danger of jumping' thread as he is speaking from a referee's perspective. He is saying that referees have leeway to apply the laws through "materiality", so Pearce presumably still had this leeway when dealing with Court, despite him saying he had no option? Court was unfortunate but most observers would agree that by the common interpretation of the Law he should have seen red so that's fair enough.

The Kearney incident was different, because he deliberately took out Jackson high to stop him getting the ball down - dangerous play and therefore straightforward red.
Firstly the player gets carded for foul play yet there is no penalty awarded - how can that be right?
Secondly the Law is obviously flawed, in that Ulster were denied the benefit of a conversion in front of the posts because of opposition foul play. Worse than that the place kicker had just been clothes-lined so wasn't in the best shape to take the touchline attempt. The Law should be changed so that a Penalty Try should have been awarded as the penalty offence happened before the try was actually scored (or not). The Law should also simply award 7 points automatically to the score, rather than go through the motions of a kick in front of the posts.
That shortcoming in the Laws changed the result of the game, which in turn denied Ulster any chance at improving their seeding this weekend and the (slim) chance of a big game windfall.

Jackson being taken out in the air, should also be taken in context with Bowe being taken out in the air and the incident between two Leinster players. In all three cases a player on the ground took out a player in the air, yet in only one was a penalty/yellow card awarded. In light of the Payne/Goode incident why were the grounded players not red carded for 'reckless' play? Why wasn't Kirchener even penalised for taking Bowe out? There is a case for three penalties, three yellows or three reds but it is the inconsistency with the application that is ruining the game.

There were a couple of incidents relating to the Laws which someone may know the answers to:
1. Ricky Andrew standing in touch attempted to catch a ball to make it out on the full, but it was given as a knock-on. If he is already in touch then does he not just have to touch the ball rather than catch it?
2. Leinster mauled over the Ulster line but were held up - scrum 5 blue. In an out-field position this would be turnover ball, so why the inconsistency?

by BelfastDickVet Thu 08 May 2014, 3:43 pm

Score.ie reporting Court has received a two week ban and so will miss the Semi-final.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 08 May 2014, 3:48 pm

Quite right. And Kearney should miss the final too imo.

(see above re: for Notch's revelations)

by BelfastDickVet Thu 08 May 2014, 3:53 pm

No word on any Leinster player being in front of the citing commissioner.

by **rodders** Thu 08 May 2014, 4:02 pm

I seem to be on my own here in thinking that Red, red and yellow were probably the right calls for Payne, Court and Kearney.

Players have to be protected in the air, whether they are lifted or jump and there shouldn't be grey areas imo.

High tackles are a yellow card offence for me the game will be ruined if red cards are thrown out for head high shots and punches in all but the most severe cases. Accidental should be a penalty and deliberate yellow.

The anomaly is whether Jackson would have scored under the posts - I don't think you can give the penalty try when a player has made the line - maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward - so a potential 10 points to deter infringements to prevent the try.

by MunsterMac Thu 08 May 2014, 4:07 pm

maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward

I don't think so. That would be the same as allowing a team benefit from an advantage AND give them the original penalty.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 May 2014, 4:16 pm

rodders wrote:I seem to be on my own here in thinking that Red, red and yellow were probably the right calls for Payne, Court and Kearney.

Players have to be protected in the air, whether they are lifted or jump and there shouldn't be grey areas imo.

High tackles are a yellow card offence for me the game will be ruined if red cards are thrown out for head high shots and punches in all but the most severe cases. Accidental should be a penalty and deliberate yellow.

The anomaly is whether Jackson would have scored under the posts - I don't think you can give the penalty try when a player has made the line - maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward - so a potential 10 points to deter infringements to prevent the try.

Can't agree with you on Payne,tip tackles are a red because the tackler puts the player in the air and therefore is responsible for ensuring he safely returns to ground.When a player jumps for the ball he does so of his own free will and must be willing to accept some risk,obviously they must be given protection from late and dangerous hits but this new interpretation removes the ability of anyone on the ground to compete for the ball.I'd prefer to see jumping outlawed than this farce where players now have to jump just to protect themselves from the whims of the law book.

by marty2086 Thu 08 May 2014, 4:20 pm

rodders wrote:I seem to be on my own here in thinking that Red, red and yellow were probably the right calls for Payne, Court and Kearney.

Players have to be protected in the air, whether they are lifted or jump and there shouldn't be grey areas imo.

High tackles are a yellow card offence for me the game will be ruined if red cards are thrown out for head high shots and punches in all but the most severe cases. Accidental should be a penalty and deliberate yellow.

The anomaly is whether Jackson would have scored under the posts - I don't think you can give the penalty try when a player has made the line - maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward - so a potential 10 points to deter infringements to prevent the try.

rodders the Kearney one should have been a red because he went high to prevent Jackson scoring and if the result adds to punishment as is the case with the tackling in the air and spear tackles then it should be the case here

by MunsterMac Thu 08 May 2014, 4:25 pm

It can get a bit ridiculous alright when you see Leinster employing the tactic of lifting a player at the lineout and keeping him up long after he has secured the ball just to extract a penalty for the opposition touching him while he was in the air!

Brilliant but just a little bit too 'cute hure-ish'.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 May 2014, 4:28 pm

MunsterMac wrote:It can get a bit ridiculous alright when you see Leinster employing the tactic of lifting a player at the lineout and keeping him up long after he has secured the ball just to extract a penalty for the opposition touching him while he was in the air!

Brilliant but just a little bit too 'cute hure-ish'.

Yeah that was very clever but ultra cynical,Kearney also jumped in a ridiculous situation against NZ in November and bought a penalty when he was touched in the air.It's a farce of a ruling with no common sense.

by asoreleftshoulder Thu 08 May 2014, 4:31 pm

marty2086 wrote:
rodders wrote:I seem to be on my own here in thinking that Red, red and yellow were probably the right calls for Payne, Court and Kearney.

Players have to be protected in the air, whether they are lifted or jump and there shouldn't be grey areas imo.

High tackles are a yellow card offence for me the game will be ruined if red cards are thrown out for head high shots and punches in all but the most severe cases. Accidental should be a penalty and deliberate yellow.

The anomaly is whether Jackson would have scored under the posts - I don't think you can give the penalty try when a player has made the line - maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward - so a potential 10 points to deter infringements to prevent the try.

rodders the Kearney one should have been a red because he went high to prevent Jackson scoring and if the result adds to punishment as is the case with the tackling in the air and spear tackles then it should be the case here

This is yet another example of the farcical nature of this ruling,the result doesn't add to the punishment in this situation nor should it since if that's a red card then I have no interest in the game any more,however the result should never add to the punishment,the offense is what should be punished.

by **rodders** Thu 08 May 2014, 4:33 pm

MunsterMac wrote:
maybe an additional penalty kick after the try is awarded is the way forward

I don't think so. That would be the same as allowing a team benefit from an advantage AND give them the original penalty.

No I don't think so MM - advantage encompasses subsequent phases of play and gives the attacking team the option of continuing to play. A foul that takes place in the act of scoring itself could still be dealt with post awarding the try - didn't they do that in RL?

by MunsterMac Thu 08 May 2014, 4:47 pm

A foul that takes place in the act of scoring itself could still be dealt with post awarding the try

Yes and that's exactly what happened in Kearney's case.

The try was scored and Kearney was given a yellow afterwards.

There's nothing in the rules at present that allows for a post score penalty and in my opinion nor should there be.

A foul that is committed before the act of scoring is just like a foul committed at any other stage of a match while the ball is in play and should be sanctioned as such.

In fairness I think Union compares very favourably with most other sports when it comes to this area of the game.

I remember in the last soccer WC a player took a shot on goal which was going in and an opponent deliberate handled to prevent the goal.

The player was sent off but the only option the ref had was to award a penalty which was subsequently missed and the sent off player's team went on to win.

How they could have used a 'penalty goal' rule!

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 08 May 2014, 4:59 pm

George Carlin wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:
George Carlin wrote:

That it neither, kosher, halal nor humane, George.

Stop it immediately.

Plus it only encourages further debate as was demonstrated at post 50 of the original OP in your first act of inhumanity on dumb animals like me and Notch.

George.

Are you following this?

That poor old pre-burger is going to run and run and run...

by **Notch** Thu 08 May 2014, 5:49 pm

Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Quite right. And Kearney should miss the final too imo.

(see above re: for Notch's revelations)

No, he won't.

by Portnoy's Complaint Thu 08 May 2014, 6:25 pm

Notch wrote:
Portnoy's Complaint wrote:Quite right. And Kearney should miss the final too imo.

(see above re: for Notch's revelations)

No, he won't.

What is writ is writ, Notch.

Unless one has a magic eraser.

by **Notch** Thu 08 May 2014, 6:52 pm

No he would need to be cited. Ulster won't cite him.

by Cyril Thu 08 May 2014, 7:58 pm

Given Ulster's recent disciplinary record they should get citing.

by **Notch** Thu 08 May 2014, 8:01 pm

It's unsportsmanlike to go out of your way to try and get a player cited for such an incident. He was coming across full speed to tackle a player who was ducking- nothing in it really. As for our recent disciplinary record even with the Tom Court card;

http://www.rabodirectpro12.com/statzone/specsavers_fair_play_league.php

We're in with a shot of winning the fair play prize for having the best disciplinary record in the league.

by Cyril Thu 08 May 2014, 8:07 pm

I said recent.

Maybe it's just the fans on 606v2 then. Fair play to the province.

by The Great Aukster Thu 08 May 2014, 10:07 pm

MunsterMac wrote:
A foul that takes place in the act of scoring itself could still be dealt with post awarding the try

Yes and that's exactly what happened in Kearney's case.

The try was scored and Kearney was given a yellow afterwards.

There's nothing in the rules at present that allows for a post score penalty and in my opinion nor should there be.

A foul that is committed before the act of scoring is just like a foul committed at any other stage of a match while the ball is in play and should be sanctioned as such.

The foul was committed before the score, it wasn't sanctioned as such because there was no penalty.

by MunsterMac Fri 09 May 2014, 9:48 am

The foul was committed before the score, it wasn't sanctioned as such because there was no penalty.

There obviously was a penalty and in the normal course of events the ref would play an advantage and deal with the offence afterwards but in this case it happened so fast Jackson had the try scored before anyone could react.

Then the TJ gave his take, it went to the TMO to confirm and Kearney was sanctioned (yellow carded) for his offence.

by The Great Aukster Fri 09 May 2014, 10:38 pm

MunsterMac wrote:
The foul was committed before the score, it wasn't sanctioned as such because there was no penalty.

There obviously was a penalty and in the normal course of events the ref would play an advantage and deal with the offence afterwards but in this case it happened so fast Jackson had the try scored before anyone could react.

Then the TJ gave his take, it went to the TMO to confirm and Kearney was sanctioned (yellow carded) for his offence.

I'm not sure what service you watched the game on but both the RTE and BBC coverage missed the penalty award.

How can the referee card a player for foul play without an associated match penalty? That inconsistency is something that shouldn't be tolerated in the Laws.

by ME-109 Fri 09 May 2014, 10:43 pm

Here lads...do you think you could all move on. In fairness its starting to sound like whining now and nothing else. The debate has been had etc.

The yellow card was given due to the penalty happening just before or during the course of scoring. This happens on numerous occasions. Secondly the penalties given after a try has been scored (i.e the penalty from the halfway line) are given when a penalty has occured after the act of scoring...,...

There is no inconsistency...just move on now like a good bunch of lads.

by **Notch** Fri 09 May 2014, 11:07 pm

The advantage was played and resulted in us scoring the try.

by The Great Aukster Sat 10 May 2014, 9:27 am

No penalty was awarded, no hand went up from the referee, there was no call of 'advantage' from him. Advantage is different for a law infringement compared to foul play. In this case there was obviously foul play hence the card, yet no Penalty was awarded in the game. The Laws don't allow for the award of a card without the award of a Penalty, yet that happened in this instance ergo inconsistency again.

by **Notch** Sat 10 May 2014, 10:28 am

No, but when reviewing the incident we clearly had the advantage. Given the foul play occurred before scoring the try his only option would have been to take play back for the penalty instead of allowing the try to stand. That's what I mean when I say we had the advantage, the reason no penalty was awarded was because it would have disadvantaged us! A shot at 3 points instead of 5 guaranteed points. If the foul was committed after the try was scored we would have had a penalty restart. If Paddy dropped the ball we would have had a penalty try. But neither of those things were the case so it was the correct call.

It's a very frustrating loophole but it wasn't a mistake by any means.

by The Great Aukster Sat 10 May 2014, 6:07 pm

I agree it wasn't a mistake based on the current Laws - but I think the current Laws are worth debate.

To me it doesn't matter whether a try is scored or not - foul play to stop or attempt to stop a try should be a penalty try. Further than that the award of a penalty try should mean 7 points on the board - no need to go through the motions of a kick in front of the posts.

by MunsterMac Mon 12 May 2014, 10:03 am

There's nothing wrong with the current laws of Union.

Many other sports look on enviously at how things are done in RU.

You'll never cover everything in the rulebook and while many Ulster fans were frustrated by the way things happened around the Jackson try most understood and accepted that that's just the way it is.

by The Great Aukster Wed 14 May 2014, 12:56 pm

If there's nothing wrong currently with the Laws - why are they in a constant state of flux as directed by the IRB?

by clivemcl Wed 14 May 2014, 1:00 pm

MunsterMac wrote:There's nothing wrong with the current laws of Union.

Many other sports look on enviously at how things are done in RU.

You'll never cover everything in the rulebook and while many Ulster fans were frustrated by the way things happened around the Jackson try most understood and accepted that that's just the way it is.

Since when has "thats just the way it is" been an acceptable reason to ignore potential development and change?

You either agree that the situation warranted an extra 2 points or you don't.

I think the offence prevented a try under the posts and so should be punished with a conversion under the posts.

i see no reason why the IRB couldn't look at this example and ammend the laws.

by MunsterMac Wed 14 May 2014, 1:24 pm

Since when has "thats just the way it is" been an acceptable reason to ignore potential development and change?

I never said 'thats just the way it is' quotation marks or not, nor do I think potential development and change should be ignored.

However I do think that this particular incident was handled correctly and while it was frustrating for Ulster fans that had things happened slightly differently they would have gotten 7 points instead of 5 I think the rules in question work perfectly well 99.99% of the time.

Nor do I think that the offence prevented a guaranteed try under the posts as there were Leinster players including Heaslip, Ruddock and McCarthy getting back.

by Portnoy's Complaint Wed 14 May 2014, 1:37 pm

Ahem.

"Re: Ulster vs Leinster; Official Opening of the New Ravenhill Stadium

Post by MunsterMac on Mon May 12, 2014 10:03 am
There's nothing wrong with the current laws of Union.

Many other sports look on enviously at how things are done in RU.

You'll never cover everything in the rulebook and while many Ulster fans were frustrated by the way things happened around the Jackson try most understood and accepted that that's just the way it is.

MunsterMac

Posts: 346
Join date: 2011-05-05
Age: 46
Location: Munster

View user profile Send private message

Back to top"

by The Great Aukster Wed 14 May 2014, 2:36 pm

If a team attempt to stop a Try by purposely infringing, the referee has to decide whether a Try would have been scored or not. If he decides that it would have been then he can award a penalty Try under the posts. Having it under the posts guarantees 7 points.

Suppose a team has a MAUL that is being pulled down before the Tryline. If the referee thinks they otherwise would have gone over he awards a PT and effectively 7 points. What is the difference if he has already seen the penalty and the attacking team still score? In this case he knows for certain the outcome i.e. a Try, but it's still a penalty and should still be under the posts. Currently if the attacking team score they are penalised for doing so by having a much more difficult conversion (and the defending team are rewarded for being inept), which is patently unfair.

If anything the current Law encourages teams to stop short of the line when they know a PT is coming and they get a guaranteed 7 points rather than 5.

by MrsP Wed 14 May 2014, 2:50 pm

Maul.

by Pete330v2 Wed 14 May 2014, 3:13 pm

Well spotted MrsP, the laws of physics itself forbid the pulling down of a ruck as you can't pull down what's already down Smile

by clivemcl Wed 14 May 2014, 3:59 pm

It really is pretty simple. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly making up plackards to go picket the IRB on this, but for Munster Mac to say its not a flaw in the laws comes across as anti-ulster.

by Pete330v2 Wed 14 May 2014, 4:10 pm

There are flaws in the laws (this is not a rap protest song).
It really is and always has been the way of it.
Laws are by their very nature flawed in that they can be interpreted very differently and therefore circumvented by cute hoors who spot loopholes etc.

Ulster have been on the rather unlucky receiving end of some of these ambiguities so therefore by karma's reckoning I believe we are due a bit of luck very soon.
SATURDAY WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DELIVER KARMAAAAAA!!!!!

by Sponsored content