ERCC Round 3, Ulster vs Scarlets

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday, 7 December
Venue: Ravenhill, Belfast
Kick-off: 19:45 GMT
Referee: Luke Pearce (England)

Ulster

15 Louis Ludik
14 Tommy Bowe
13 Darren Cave
12 Stuart Olding
11 Craig Gilroy
10 Ian Humphreys
9 Ruan Pienaar

1 Callum Black
2 Rory Best (capt)
3 Wiehahn Herbst
4 Dan Tuohy
5 Franco van der Merwe
6 Robbie Diack
7 Roger Wilson
8 Nick Williams

16 Rob Herring, 17 Andy Warwick, 18 Declan Fitzpatrick, 19 Alan O’Connor, 20 Clive Ross, 21 Paul Marshall, 22 Stuart McCloskey, 23 Michael Allen

Scarlets

15 Liam Williams
14 Harry Robinson
13 Regan King
12 Scott Williams (capt)
11 Michael Tagicakibau
10 Rhys Priestland
9 Aled Davies

1 Rob Evans
2 Emyr Phillips
3 Samson Lee
4 Jake Ball
5 Johan Snyman
6 Aaron Shingler
7 James Davies
8 Rory Pitman

16 Kirby Myhill, 17 Phil John, 18 Rhodri Jones, 19 George Earle, 20 Lewis Rawlins, 21 Rhodri Williams, 22 Steven Shingler, 23 Gareth Owen

2ndtimeround wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I know I wanted to move on, but just to point out to the accusers of Ulster being a Dirty team.

2012-13 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby
2013-14 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby + Connacht Rugby

That fits in really well with my earlier post that was aimed at questioning the impartiality of referee's that are required to officiate games in an environment as intimidating as Ulster, lots of mind games really, but the penalty count without researching it always seems heavily stacked in Ulster favour at home. Though I for one have never noticed them to play a particularly clean or error free game.

Even if we go with your theory, only half the games played are at Ravenhill.

An average team even with a home bias would only expect to finish in the top 1/4, not the very top. A dirty team with home bias would finish about the middle.

Conclusion, we are either a clean team with home bias, (which doesn't benfit us much as we are clean anyway) or just a clean team?

Kingshu wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I know I wanted to move on, but just to point out to the accusers of Ulster being a Dirty team.

2012-13 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby
2013-14 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby + Connacht Rugby

That fits in really well with my earlier post that was aimed at questioning the impartiality of referee's that are required to officiate games in an environment as intimidating as Ulster, lots of mind games really, but the penalty count without researching it always seems heavily stacked in Ulster favour at home. Though I for one have never noticed them to play a particularly clean or error free game.

Even if we go with your theory, only half the games played are at Ravenhill.

An average team even with a home bias would only expect to finish in the top 1/4, not the very top. A dirty team with home bias would finish about the middle.

Conclusion, we are either a clean team with home bias, (which doesn't benfit us much as we are clean anyway) or just a clean team?

Having a set of officials weary of risking a questionable decision against a team for 50% of the games would put them in a position far higher than just the top 1/4. I'm no statistician but even I can see the maths on that would obviously be wrong.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I know I wanted to move on, but just to point out to the accusers of Ulster being a Dirty team.

2012-13 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby
2013-14 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby + Connacht Rugby

2011-12 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Scarlets

Good it was a struggle to even find last years,
Scarlets currently 3rd Ulster about 7/8th

Anyway, their is no ill will from me, if Scarlets had won last week, I would have hoped that they would beat us in Parc y Scarlets this week and go on and qualify.

Think regional rugby would benefit from a team going on a good run.

Anyway that didn't happen and now I don't want you to beat us this weekend.

This is going to be a tough ask for Ulster, ok we won last week, but we do have some serious disadvantages this week, 4/5 starting players missing (1/3 of the team), and away from home this time.

At least you have an Irish referee!!!  

This one maybe

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/30398575

Unfortunately not,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Doyle

2ndtimeround wrote:

Kingshu wrote:

2ndtimeround wrote:

Kingshu wrote:I know I wanted to move on, but just to point out to the accusers of Ulster being a Dirty team.

2012-13 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby
2013-14 SPECSAVERS FAIRPLAY AWARD - Ulster Rugby + Connacht Rugby

That fits in really well with my earlier post that was aimed at questioning the impartiality of referee's that are required to officiate games in an environment as intimidating as Ulster, lots of mind games really, but the penalty count without researching it always seems heavily stacked in Ulster favour at home. Though I for one have never noticed them to play a particularly clean or error free game.

Even if we go with your theory, only half the games played are at Ravenhill.

An average team even with a home bias would only expect to finish in the top 1/4, not the very top. A dirty team with home bias would finish about the middle.

Conclusion, we are either a clean team with home bias, (which doesn't benfit us much as we are clean anyway) or just a clean team?

Having a set of officials weary of risking a questionable decision against a team for 50% of the games would put them in a position far higher than just the top 1/4. I'm no statistician but even I can see the maths on that would obviously be wrong.

Not really, average team would expect to finish midtable, if half the games are biased, this would result in a 50% improvement, meaning top 1/4.

If a team that is clean and would usually finish in the top 1/4, has home bias, then they would have a good chance of winning it. Important point is that its a clean team in the first place to stand a chance of winning it with or without bias.

Winning two years in a row, you would have to say either Ulster are a clean team with a home bias, or Ulster are just a clean team.

Either way Ulster are a clean team.

That'll be the Daz then.

Since the majority of Williams' cards this season were at PYS, could it be his own fans that are winding him up?

The Great Aukster wrote:Since the majority of Williams' cards this season were at PYS, could it be his own fans that are winding him up?

Why won't those horrible, cruel, taunting Welsh fans leave poor Liam alone? In fairness, they have previous. Didn't they boo poor Priestland?

ETC ETC

Rumour has it, Liam Williams doesn't like playing in Ireland because of the death threats he received from Irish fans on twitter... Now where else have we seen this with those Irish before?

Wasn't there a rumour that someone found a double decker bus on the moon?

The Great Aukster wrote:Wasn't there a rumour that someone found a double decker bus on the moon?

That's no rumour, it was in a highly reputable newspaper.

The Great Aukster wrote:Since the majority of Williams' cards this season were at PYS, could it be his own fans that are winding him up?

It isn't the fans winding him up, its the raw red meat we force feed him as he walks through the car park to the locker room.

In fairness, I heard we are looking at signing Darth Vader for the secondrow and Hannibal Lector at hooker, if his cruciate issue clears up.

It does kind of point to a culture at the club of Pure, Incalculable Evil.

I've just realised the acronym for that is PIE.
Beer and PIE, anyone?

SUFTBAP! !

The Great Aukster wrote:Wasn't there a rumour that someone found a double decker bus on the moon?

Was Boris Johnson driving it?

rodders wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Wasn't there a rumour that someone found a double decker bus on the moon?

Was Boris Johnson driving it?

Now you're being just daft...





it was Elvis.

Chunky Norwich wrote:I'd prefer Liam Willaims to be a niggly hot headed fool than a  racist.

Seems like LW is just as much of a racist as any of the Ulster players!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-30568658

Not really the same as wearing chains, but still stupid.

I agree it was stupid but I don't believe any of them are racist.

MrsP wrote:I agree it was stupid but I don't believe any of them are racist.

They may not be racist but they're certainly not bright.
Anyone who 'blacks up' and poses for pictures without any foresight on how it'll be received and reacted to, once they go viral, practically deserves any bad press they get.
"Duh, if I rubs dis bwack makeup on muh face and takes a photogwaph, why would people interpwet it negatives duhh...duuuhhhh"

Pretty dull thing to do, even with Wilfred's blessing to do it.

The Daily Mail ran the picture in their article ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2882518/International-rugby-player-sparks-fury-blacking-fancy-dress-costume-Premier-League-footballer.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 ) where he is shown with his four team mates including Michael Tagicakibau......um guessing not a full racist then?

Scarlets have issued an apology already, as has Liam
http://www.scarlets.co.uk/eng/news/7312.php

Just thinking, is Tagi going to need to issue an apology for his outfit? And Priest is in the wrong costume, after reading posts during the international games he should be in the costume next to him.

Oh I don't think any of them are racists. I just thought it was ironic that Chunky had posted that on this thread in defense of LW.

MrsP wrote:Oh I don't think any of them are racists. I just thought it was ironic that Chunky had posted that on this thread in defense of LW.

Too true, come the next game against Ulster that's one less argument we can use against you lot.

Funny I just been on the Scarlets fans forum and the thread is a mirror image of when Paddy Jackson (was it?) did the same. Numerous posts of he is naughty and it is disgraceful, half a dozen posts of White Chicks, Little Britain etc, and a fair few saying so what.

I do think there's a lot of over sensitivity at times. Yes, dressing as a famous sex offender is clearly wrong. As is dressing as a war criminal. As is mocking slavery, etc, etc.

However, for me fancy dress to include copying the skin colour of another human being is not racist or indeed wrong. It's imitation in the same way a copying someone's clothes, mannerisms, etc. I fail to see where the offence is? Would it not be discrimination if white people never considered dressing as a black person when choosing fancy dress? Should fancy dress shops ban people of different colour from hiring/purchasing outfits related to the 'opposite' colour?

If I was to dress as Bob Monkhouse and tan myself up would that be ok because it is a different shade as opposed to a different race? Would there be any sanctions on Wilfred Bony for doing the opposite and going as Liam Williams??? I doubt it.

Griff -are you saying that technically Liam was standing up against racism, and showing equal equal opportunities for fancy dress?

Also, not stirring, but genuine question. Is it wrong to wear a Obama/Ali/Mandela mask for fancy dress if your white? Is that not the same as 'blacking up'?

I was being a bit facetious, but yes in is it not a bit of a compliment choosing to go as Bony?!

Yes, I would have thought that wearing a black mask is just the same.

You have to consider the wider cultural and historical context. 'Blacking up' was once a highly derogatory and stereotypical practice. Now I'm aware that motives for doing it today aren't so often malicious as silly and that not everyone of any skin colour reads very much into it any more (Bony apparently gave his blessing). Sensitivity on the issue may very well be on the decline. As much as it pains me to admit it, Nigel Farage probably isn't entirely wrong when he refers to such factors.

It just annoys me when people do it without any forethought of how certain parties inevitably interpret these things. Some people do still take negative messages from that type of behaviour. And to those who do, it's parties like Williams and Jackson who look arrogant and desensitised. Some sensibility on the matter is always desirable. And where it does happen, an apology to any offended parties is always appropriate, rather than wave it off with statements like "I didn't mean anything by it" or "I'm not a racist".

There's a difference between racist and insensitive.

I don't think that makes you a racist, prejudging people because of their skin colour/ethnicity etc. makes you racist. Abusing them because of this, or attacking them or favouring others because of the colour of their skin makes you racist.

Blacking up can be a racist act if done to demean and mock though it need;t be racist. But even if not it's insensitive given the cultural history... seriously how hard is it to not do it? To just consider the potential hurt or offence it could cause and just... not do it. That would be the mature and sensible path that 99% of people take.

I'm not saying its wrong, I'm not saying its right to over-react, but my god is it stupid and insensitive.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

MrsP wrote:Oh I don't think any of them are racists. I just thought it was ironic that Chunky had posted that on this thread in defense of LW.

Too true, come the next game against Ulster that's one less argument we can use against you lot.

Funny I just been on the Scarlets fans forum and the thread is a mirror image of when Paddy Jackson (was it?) did the same.  Numerous posts of he is naughty and it is disgraceful, half a dozen posts of White Chicks, Little Britain etc, and a fair few saying so what.

I am fairly sure you will find plenty of other's to replace it!

MrsP wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

MrsP wrote:Oh I don't think any of them are racists. I just thought it was ironic that Chunky had posted that on this thread in defense of LW.

Too true, come the next game against Ulster that's one less argument we can use against you lot.

Funny I just been on the Scarlets fans forum and the thread is a mirror image of when Paddy Jackson (was it?) did the same.  Numerous posts of he is naughty and it is disgraceful, half a dozen posts of White Chicks, Little Britain etc, and a fair few saying so what.

I am fairly sure you will find plenty of other's to replace it!

Fingers crossed, going to be boring between now and then with nobody to really argue with