Ulster vs Glasgow

First topic message reminder :

                      
Ulster Rugby v Glasgow Warriors
Saturday 11 October 2014
KO 17:05
Kingspan Stadium

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Nigel Owens(WRU, 114th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Nigel Correll, Paul Haycock (IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Murray White (IRFU)
TMO: Simon McDowell (IRFU)

A. Teams:

Ulster Rugby

15 Louis Ludik
14 Andrew Trimble
13 Jared Payne
12 Stuart McCloskey
11 Tommy Bowe
10 Ian Humphreys
9 Paul Marshall

1 Andrew Warwick
2 Rory Best (Captain)
3 Wiehahn Herbst
4 Alan O’Connor
5 Franco van der Merwe
6 Robbie Diack
7 Chris Henry
8 Nick Williams

16 Rob Herring
17 Callum Black
18 Bronson Ross
19 Lewis Stevenson
20 Roger Wilson
21 Michael Heaney
22 Stuart Olding
23 Craig Gilroy

Glasgow Warriors

15. Peter Murchie
14. Sean Maitland
13. Mark Bennett
12. Peter Horne
11. Tommy Seymour
10. Finn Russell
9. Henry Pyrgos

1. Gordon Reid
2. Fraser Brown
3. Euan Murray
4. Tim Swinson
5. Leone Nakarawa
6. Rob Harley
7. Chris Fusaro
8. Josh Strauss (Captain)

16. Dougie Hall
17. Jerry Yanuyanutawa
18. Zander Fagerson
19. Jonny Gray
20. Adam Ashe
21. Niko Matawalu
22. James Downey
23. Sean Lamont

B. Form - head to head:

29 Played 29
15 Wins 13
13 Losses 15
1 Draws 1
49 Tries 47
31 Conversions 33
78 Penalties 68
2 Drop Goals 7
547 Points 526
26 Avg. Age 26

C. Form - last season:

Friday 13 September 2013  
Ulster Rugby 12 - 13 Glasgow Warriors
Ravenhill Stadium

Friday 18 April 2014
Glasgow Warriors 27 - 9 Ulster Rugby
Scotstoun Stadium

Obviously I have only seen the match footage so I am speculating here.

Just before the coverage cuts away from the crowd/Payne you can hear Owens ask ? the TJ if something is alright or words to that effect. It is possible the tackle which lead to the maul was actually high and this could be seen in footage which has not been aired publically.

If this makes players more aware of how dangerous it is to hold someone by their neck then I think it is a price worth paying.

If that maul had not ended when it did the consquences could have been devastating.

That is not to say that O'Connor had any idea of what was going on but you can not allow players to be put at that risk when their arms are potentially pinned in a mauk and they have no way of extracating themselves. We need players to understand that there are very good reasons for staying away from the neck area.

Munchkin wrote:Raaymaker is in Belfast now. To early for the Leicester game, but a chance at making the bench for the Toulon game?

He's not in our European squad. He injured himself in his last game for Counties remember?

Not unless they named him in the European squad. Can't remember if they did

They haven't

Our locks are

Henderson (injured)
Donnan (available)
McComb (available)
Stevenson (available)
VDM (available)
O'Connor (suspended)

Tuohy wasn't even registered which doesn't bode well

There is no way O'Connor would have deliberately committed this act yet he is being punished as if he did so. If he acted maliciously then ban the lad accordingly but an accident such as this does not mean his record should be marked forever. It simply maddens me that accidental acts are being treated as malicious at every citing and now we are threadbare in the second row department.

Notch wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Raaymaker is in Belfast now. To early for the Leicester game, but a chance at making the bench for the Toulon game?

He's not in our European squad. He injured himself in his last game for Counties remember?

Notch are the European squads final though? The talk of Armitage to Bath this week would surely mean theres an opportunity to make changes

Notch wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Raaymaker is in Belfast now. To early for the Leicester game, but a chance at making the bench for the Toulon game?

He's not in our European squad. He injured himself in his last game for Counties remember?

According to others he is fit and ready to go. Having him penned into the squad shouldn't be an issue. It just means dropping a name already there. Assuming he isn't already. I can't remember

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Ovxu6KHY0

This footage would seem to indicate Fusaro had a big part to play in what happened, he's attempting to drag Bennett down

They would have just named him if he was going to be fit. He was signed before we named the squad, the squad was named after he got injured.

I don't think Ulster knew if he was going to be fit in time for the games. There's also the fact that even if fit, he wouldn't have made it over here any sooner than he has. They can still pen him in though.

Notch wrote:They would have just named him if he was going to be fit. He was signed before we named the squad, the squad was named after he got injured.

And he might have still been back in NZ though with Counties in the ITM had they made it through

Notch wrote:

cakeordeath wrote:

Notch wrote:Seemingly ludicrous decision based on what is in the public domain. Hope Glasgow are happy with themselves and hope Ulster appeal.

But I knew he would be banned rightly or wrongly. I can't remember the last time a player was cited and not banned. Pretty much every player who gets cited gets banned because when you go through any incident you can find a reason to ban.

We now go into the two most important games of our season so far with only two second rows available, one of whom hasn't started a competitive game this year. Cheers Glasgow. You vindictive *****.

Well maybe one of your second row shouldn't have done something which caused him to get banned for 3 weeks, none of this is Glasgow's fault.

Oh give over, the guy is 20 years old, tackling a smaller player, and has to react in an instant. It's not like he attacked him. We've had two players banned this season- a guy who got one week for punching and a complete rookie who got three weeks for an accident. How is that work? An intentional violent act is worse than this?

Young players make mistakes. The way Glasgow have gone after him for it is disgusting.

Do you have no faith in the disciplinary system at all? Niko Matawalu was cited for an alleged biting offence and was cleared and I am sure they have been others.

At the end of the day he did make a mistake and is paying a relatively small price for it. Rugby is policed these days with TV cameras, that is the nature of the professional game these days, mistakes will get found out and all professional players know that they are responsible for others safety within the laws of the game.Would you rather it went back to the brutality and thuggery of yesteryear. Citing's and disciplinary measures have been good for the game and you sometimes have to accept that even when you don't agree with the result. The process has to be seen as sound and everyone has to accept and move on.

Unless you're Callum Clark... I don't think any rugby player would have intended for this to have happened. But what should come out of this is that players have to be more careful or else there could be a much, much worse outcome in the future.

How Callum Clark is still playing I do not know:

Not sure that Glasgow are to blame here, and I certainly don't think Glasgow's behaviour has been disgusting (other than the lack of hygene more generally in the City).

A player was choked. Glasgow asked for it to be looked into. The citing officer looked into it and reached a conclusion.

Not really a biggie when you consider what happened in the rugby league.

funnyExiledScot wrote:Not sure that Glasgow are to blame here, and I certainly don't think Glasgow's behaviour has been disgusting (other than the lack of hygene more generally in the City).

A player was choked. Glasgow asked for it to be looked into. The citing officer looked into it and reached a conclusion.

Not really a biggie when you consider what happened in the rugby league.

Exactly, a sense of perspective is required here. Ultimately there is still a lingering sense of injustice over the Jarred Payne incident and I am sure this is what is driving the conspiracy theories here.

I would bet just about anything that if an Ulster player had been choked unconscious then Ulster would have asked for the citing officer to look at that as well. If that was the case and it was found against them, then as a Glasgow fan I would accept that and not blindly defend that player. As I previously said, I don't think there was anything malicious in the incident, but it was potentially very serious.

BigGee wrote:Do you have no faith in the disciplinary system at all? .

Well, of course not! The whole thing is a mess. It's wildly and completely inconsistent. It relies on citing, which means an unpunished incident can be more severe than one that is punished because the other side go after a less severe incident whereas a more serious incident may be ignored. It is influenced by outcome, not by intent. This is a perfect example of the ludicrousness of the system. If Bennett hadn't passed out I doubt the incident would have been mentioned at all, by anyone. If it happened exactly as it it did and Glasgow had won the game I doubt it would have been raised at all by either side. We're were we are not because of what O'Connor did. We're here because Townsend needed an excuse in the media after the game and needed to 'circle the wagons' in the week running up to the Bath game.

I've seen much worse than what happened get no punishment, I've also seen even more innocuous incidents than this one get longer bans. Of course I have no faith in the system. Alan O'Connor is just the unfortunate victim of this system. How can an incident where there is nothing malicious and it's the first ever offence result in a three week ban and a deliberate punch to the face, albeit with provocation/in retaliation, is one week?

My biggest problem with this is I've seen deliberate high tackles not get bans because they don't result in injury. And then an unfortunate accident get a ban because it does. How can that be right?

I do think we have to be careful with our language here.

I don't think Bennett was "choked". That is too emotive an expression.

But it has been adjudged that O'Connor tackled him in such a way as he lost consciouness. That can not be allowed and the fact that it was not intended is not enough to absolve him of responsibility.

As I frequently tell my kids, "I wasn't trying to do it!" is not the same as "I was trying not to do it!"

Notch wrote:

BigGee wrote:Do you have no faith in the disciplinary system at all? .

Well, of course not! The whole thing is a mess. It's wildly and completely inconsistent. It relies on citing, which means an unpunished incident can be more severe than one that is punished because the other side go after a less severe incident whereas a more serious incident may be ignored. It is influenced by outcome, not by intent. This is a perfect example of the ludicrousness of the system. If Bennett hadn't passed out I doubt the incident would have been mentioned at all, by anyone. If it happened exactly as it it did and Glasgow had won the game I doubt it would have been raised at all by either side. We're were we are not because of what O'Connor did. We're here because Townsend needed an excuse in the media after the game and needed to 'circle the wagons' in the week running up to the Bath game.

I've seen much worse than what happened get no punishment, I've also seen even more innocuous incidents than this one get longer bans. Of course I have no faith in the system. Alan O'Connor is just the unfortunate victim of this system. How can an incident where there is nothing malicious and it's the first ever offence result in a three week ban and a deliberate punch to the face, albeit with provocation/in retaliation, is one week?

Notch the fact is he did pass out and things like this have to be acted upon to prevent that or worse happening in the future.

Notch wrote:

BigGee wrote:Do you have no faith in the disciplinary system at all? .

Well, of course not! The whole thing is a mess. It's wildly and completely inconsistent. It relies on citing, which means an unpunished incident can be more severe than one that is punished because the other side go after a less severe incident whereas a more serious incident may be ignored. It is influenced by outcome, not by intent. This is a perfect example of the ludicrousness of the system. If Bennett hadn't passed out I doubt the incident would have been mentioned at all, by anyone. If it happened exactly as it it did and Glasgow had won the game I doubt it would have been raised at all by either side. We're were we are not because of what O'Connor did. We're here because Townsend needed an excuse in the media after the game and needed to 'circle the wagons' in the week running up to the Bath game.

I've seen much worse than what happened get no punishment, I've also seen even more innocuous incidents than this one get longer bans. Of course I have no faith in the system. Alan O'Connor is just the unfortunate victim of this system. How can an incident where there is nothing malicious and it's the first ever offence result in a three week ban?

So you did not feel that the system worked when the guy who eye gauged Stephen Ferris got a long ban?

Do you really think that rugby would be better without such a system?

No system like this is ever going to be perfect, not everything is going to be picked up clearly on camera but you should think very carefully about questioning the impartiality of the people making the judgements. I am happy that they make the best decisions they can based on the evidence they have in front of them. When I played rugby, we were taught from a very young age to respect the decision of the ref. Like it or not we also have to respect the decisions of the disciplinary panels. Rugby is a much better sport for that.

Notch

You're showing yourself up a wee bit here fella.

You weren't in the maul so you cannot possibly say whether it was an accident or not.

As fES says, it's been looked at in great detail by an impartial panel and they have reached the conclusion that O'Connor's actions justified a ban. They undoubtedly had more evidence to go on than a couple of youtube clips.

Scotland have lost a seriously promising young player in Thom Evans before due to a neck injury and could have lost another one at the weekend.

It's not 'disgusting' and Glasgow aren't '*****'. No Glasgow fans on here have called for blood (unlike some Irish posters did after the ROG 'choke' incident).

Just accept it and move on mate.

BigGee wrote:So you did not feel that the system worked when the guy who eye gauged Stephen Ferris got a long ban?

Do you really think that rugby would be better without such a system?

I think you are drawing equivalence between two completely different things. That to me is appalling that you are using acts of violence like gouging to make your point. This is just not the same. We would all gladly see violence outside the normal violence implicit in the rules of the game eradicated.

Of course I think intentional acts like gouging need punished. The emphasis is on intentional- I would not red card anyone for unintentionally causing injury to another player, no matter how severe the injury, because ultimately accidents happen on the pitch in a split second.

The fact you compare this incident to gouging... is utterly beyond me. If anything its much more similar to the Nathan Hines incident, where O'Gara got trapped in the bottom of the maul and Hines' pressure on his throat caused him to pass out. Why should Hines be punished for that? Why should O'Connor be punished? All they are guilty of is trying to help their team and then things went wrong. If they apologise and explain after the game, can't it just be settled with a handshake? These things happen sometimes. They are part of the risk of taking part in this incredibly dangerous sport.

My point was about the validation of the disciplinary process, which you have stated that you have no faith in. I was not comparing the events, though it has to be said that the differences in the length of the bans does suggest that the panel took the appropriate view on the level of intent to injure for both events.

By the logic I am hearing, merely saying it was an accident, excuses pretty much any incident on a rugby pitch. That is not the case in law, nor should it be on a sports field. Some actions have consequences and merely saying that you did not mean those consequences to happen does not completely exonerate from them.

BigGee wrote:My point was about the validation of the disciplinary process, which you have stated that you have no faith in. I was not comparing the events, though it has to be said that the differences in the length of the bans does suggest that the panel took the appropriate view on the level of intent to injure for both events.

By the logic I am hearing, merely saying it was an accident, excuses pretty much any incident on a rugby pitch. That is not the case in law, nor should it be on a sports field. Some actions have consequences and merely saying that you did not mean those consequences to happen does not completely exonerate from them.

But in a context of a rugby game where you accept the risk of serious injury when you step onto the pitch, and accept that the other team is going to be out to try and physically dominate you and you must physically dominate the other team, it mainly does in all but the most completely reckless acts. You also implicitly accept that in the attempt to legally do this sometimes mistakes are made. This is not a normal context. Now, intentionally acting with an intent to harm is not acceptable. But an injury doesn't mean an offence has been committed, and if it has it doesn't necessarily mean the offence is severe enough to merit severe punishment behind what the referee can hand out on the pitch.

The disciplinary process may be better than no disciplinary process, that does not mean it is not deeply and structurally flawed. So thats a straw man. Even with gouging there are vast inconsistencies in the lengths of bans handed out.

Do you think a red card would have been justified in this instance? I think a penalty would have been justified. I would have been very, very annoyed with a yellow card and I maintain that a yellow would have been very harsh after watching it again and again but could accept that is the severe end of the interpretation.

I can accept that the disciplinary process is inconsistent and that is frustrating for fans. Everyone is the victim of this though, not just Ulster. Glasgow had a very soft red card against them a few weeks a go, which could have had a significant effect on the game. At the end of the day I did not agree with that but I accepted it. As you say an imperfect system is better than no system. The question I would ask you is how would you improve it, who would you like to decide what is accidental and what is not. I am old enough to have played rugby in the true amateur era when things were sorted out over a pint in the bar, or if not in the next game!

We are now in a very different era. This is professional sport, played in front of large TV audiences. Players and fans, know and understand the risks they take but there are laws and the point on which he was found guilty was that he broke the laws on tackling around the neck.

It is very difficult to say what should have happened at the time. I was watching live and had no idea what had happened, nor had the commentators and I presume as the refs took no sanctions, neither did they. I am sure if they had seen it then it would have been sanctioned and it probably would be inconsistently by different refs. I also accept that like in the JP incident, the consequences of the act plays a part in the sanction.

Refs are human beings at the end of the day and they are also subjective, as are we all. This board would have no purpose if we all agreed on everything. To me though it is understandable that the end result does influence the decision, it actually tells me that the refs are human beings instead of robots. I know who I prefer as a ref, which s why I am always happy for Nigel to be our ref.

Yeah, Nigel did a very good job of it. Was happy with his restraint vis a vis the challenge on Ludik in particular.

Weegie Warriors are moaning it wasn't dealt with at the severe end of the scale....and Rory Best pulls wings of Butterflies  and kicks puppy dogs

Bunch of numpties

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:What a joke.

We may as well change the whole sport to tag rugby wrapped in bubble wrap.
Accidents happen in every walk of life let alone a physical contact sport.

Utterly laughable.

Thats a bit harsh considering the one angle seen on tv was pretty poor so the reasoning behind the judgement may not be fully understood

Hardly, if he's guilty of foul play then hit him with a severe ban, if not then drop it but this idiotic three week ban which serves nobody shows how half-witted the citing panels actually are.

Munchkin wrote:Weegie Warriors are moaning it wasn't dealt with at the severe end of the scale....and Rory Best pulls wings of Butterflies  and kicks puppy dogs

Bunch of numpties

It's ludicrous isn't it. What annoys me is if the same people weren't similarly screaming for the blood of Nathan Hines after the incident with O'Gara. It's either wrong or right regardless of where your allegiance lies.

They also went a bit nuts when Munster beat them at Scotstoun last season. Mad as a box of frogs, but thoroughly entertaining

MrsP wrote:Obviously I have only seen the match footage so I am speculating here.

Just before the coverage cuts away from the crowd/Payne you can hear Owens ask ? the TJ if something is alright or words to that effect. It is possible the tackle which lead to the maul was actually high and this could be seen in footage which has not been aired publically.

If this makes players more aware of how dangerous it is to hold someone by their neck then I think it is a price worth paying.

If that maul had not ended when it did the consquences could have been devastating.

That is not to say that O'Connor had any idea of what was going on but you can not allow players to be put at that risk when their arms are potentially pinned in a mauk and they have no way of extracating themselves. We need players to understand that there are very good reasons for staying away from the neck area.

Nigel was asking if the dropout and subsequent regathering of the 22 was legal.

This whole thing is ludicrous. 3 weeks for an accident, my word.

Notch wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Weegie Warriors are moaning it wasn't dealt with at the severe end of the scale....and Rory Best pulls wings of Butterflies  and kicks puppy dogs

Bunch of numpties

It's ludicrous isn't it. What annoys me is if the same people weren't similarly screaming for the blood of Nathan Hines after the incident with O'Gara. It's either wrong or right regardless of where your allegiance lies.

As you know Notch there are numpties on every forum, this one included. Fortunately most rugby folk are still objective enough to see things as they are and there are more than enough open minded people on this forum to make it a place worth coming to. The great majority of people commenting on this issue, from both sides, have been measured and reasonable about it and the one thing they are all agree on is that they are happy that Mark Bennett emerged from the incident unscathed. At the end of the day that is all that is what matters most.

I agree with Notch that the Citing process is ludicrous in its inconsistency. I also agree that this incident was a lot like the Hines/O'Gara one in the 6N. O'Sullivan came out after that game to deflect media attention away from the performance, and even though ROG lost consciousness there was no citing so obviously no consistency between then and now.

None of the public domain footage of this incident is clear so the debate on what the decision is actually based on is futile. If there is some message the Citing Commission are trying to convey then they should release the footage to demonstrate their decision - and get the message across. As it is we don't know what message they're sending. It could be anything from:
1. Nearly choking someone to death gets a 6 week ban
to
2. Making any tackle that accidentally becomes high gets a 6 week ban
Most people would reckon 1. was too light a punishment and 2. was too harsh so are the players any clearer as to how they should modify their behaviour?

The citing process is undoubtedly flawed but that doesn't mean it should be scrapped, in fact the opposite should happen - it should be improved. The process should not attempt to send messages unless they are very clear and supported with clear examples because far from improving behaviour they just end up confusing the game. For me the process should simply review each individual incident and punish accordingly based on the evidence, and they really shouldn't elaborate to the media any more than that with meaningless guff such as "high end", or mention their view of a player's record.

Thanks for the clarification JmD.

Was there anything to suggest that Hindes had committed a foul though?

If O'Connor tackled Bennett high then it was fair to cite him and the consquences should be taken into account in deciding the sanction though not the guilt or innocence.

If there is no foul there should be no sanction no matter what the consquence. I actually feel more hard done by in the Payne incident as I am still not convinced there was a foul by the Laws as they were then.

Notch, if O'Connor has his arms around Bennett's neck then he has committed foul play.

Plus, this incident is nothing like the O'Gara Hines incident, that happened in a ruck with players being trapped on top of each other, as O'Gara has said himself.  Whereas this was a maul, with one side actively trying to keep players off the ground and if O'Connor has done this by holding Bennett by the neck then there's a problem.

I find it astonishing how angry you are that Glasgow wanted the incident reviewed because one of their players was left unconscious.

This thread has deteriorated into name calling now. You know who you are, and you aren't Glasgow fans.

cakeordeath wrote:This thread has deteriorated into name calling now. You know who you are, and you aren't Glasgow fans.

numpties?