Wasps v Leinster

First topic message reminder :

As Wasps are now fairly accessible for us I have just booked tickets for my son and me for the big European clash against Leinster. From what I can make out tickets seem to be selling fast with only space in the corners and ends now available. Are any fellow 606ers going along? Also, does anyone know if Leinster have a big travelling support like Munster? I'm guessing that they will be well supported as most Irish teams seem to be. Looking forward to a cracking match - hopefully with a great atmosphere too.

Leinster are out now regardless. No hope of winning away from home.

The difference between Simpson and Boss in getting the ball away is massive.

neilthom7 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:if he is not in front, there is no requirement for the wasps player to allow a clear path to varndell. obstruction involves accidental contact or an advantage conferred by a player in front of the ball carrier.

No it doesn't Quins obstruction as defined by the laws.
Blocking the tackler. A player must not voluntarily move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier

he did not voluntarily do anything. leinster defender voluntarily tackled the guy who he thought was going to receive the ball.

Kudos to Wasps but that was an awful 2nd half from Leinster

great game. fantastic last 30 minutes. both teams look out on their feet.

garces not great, and i didnt even see the first minute incident!

much cleaner play in the last half hour though. usually happens when neither team wants to give away cheap pens.

quinsforever wrote:

profitius wrote:

quinsforever wrote:garces is having a shocker. he is being conned by leinster preventing players rolling away, and that try should never have been disallowed. BoD was cracking up.

didnt see the first yellow from johnson but sounds like it should have been a red by garces's standards.

BOD was wrong. The Wasps forward was in front of Varndell.

i'll take BoD's opinion and my own over yours. he has to aim for impartiality now, wheres you clearly dont.

The Wasps forward ran in front of Varndell and blocked Fitzgerald from making the tackle. Isn't that what happened? If so it was 100% a Leinster penalty. A soft one to give away but a definite penalty.

So if Toulouse get a bp (they should) theyll be on 21 points. So we could be away to them

Very disappointing for Madigan to miss 4 penalties in a drawn game!

Hope he's got that out of his system since he's the last 10 standing for the start of the 6N.

Tigers have to beat Ulster by 50 (and that's points difference, not score) to go above Wasps (I think).

Exciting game even with shocking reffing. I'll never understand going to the drop goal while you're making good ground.

HammerofThunor wrote:Tigers have to beat Ulster by 50 (and that's points difference, not score) to go above Wasps (I think).

Exciting game even with shocking reffing. I'll never understand going to the drop goal while you're making good ground.

100% agree with that. especially as all wasps points came from making ground around the breakdown

quinsforever wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:if he is not in front, there is no requirement for the wasps player to allow a clear path to varndell. obstruction involves accidental contact or an advantage conferred by a player in front of the ball carrier.

No it doesn't Quins obstruction as defined by the laws.
Blocking the tackler. A player must not voluntarily move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier

he did not voluntarily do anything. leinster defender voluntarily tackled the guy who he thought was going to receive the ball.

Fitz didn't really tackle anyone, just ran into the wasps player standing alongside him with his arms up claiming he had no way to get a hand on varndell. It's not a plenalty, the block wasn't due to a wasps player moving into the way, it was founded on the angle Fitz came into the tackle (completely laterally). There's a rule to stop you from running in the way of the defence, but not to get out of the way of it. Fitz did well to get the referrees attention though

profitius wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

profitius wrote:

quinsforever wrote:garces is having a shocker. he is being conned by leinster preventing players rolling away, and that try should never have been disallowed. BoD was cracking up.

didnt see the first yellow from johnson but sounds like it should have been a red by garces's standards.

BOD was wrong. The Wasps forward was in front of Varndell.

i'll take BoD's opinion and my own over yours. he has to aim for impartiality now, wheres you clearly dont.

The Wasps forward ran in front of Varndell and blocked Fitzgerald from making the tackle. Isn't that what happened? If so it was 100% a Leinster penalty. A soft one to give away but a definite penalty.

i watched it live and the replay at half time. the forward was not in front of varndell, and fitzgerald was coming from the side to make the tackle. so yes the forward was in the way, but he wasnt offside and neither was it obstruction imo. and BoDs. and dayglos.

Leinster should have been out of sight at half time. Credit to Wasps for making a fist of it. The Leinster kicking game was appalling and the wheels came off with Reddan gone. Hope his injury is not serious.

Even worse was the lack of composure in the last quarter-panic, overcooked kicks, poor decision to go for the drop goal when they had Wasps going backwards and giving Goode two chances at a touchline conversion. Garces was dreadful but probably balanced.

kunu wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:if he is not in front, there is no requirement for the wasps player to allow a clear path to varndell. obstruction involves accidental contact or an advantage conferred by a player in front of the ball carrier.

No it doesn't Quins obstruction as defined by the laws.
Blocking the tackler. A player must not voluntarily move or stand in a position that prevents an opponent from tackling a ball-carrier

he did not voluntarily do anything. leinster defender voluntarily tackled the guy who he thought was going to receive the ball.

Fitz didn't really tackle anyone, just ran into the wasps player standing alongside him with his arms up claiming he had no way to get a hand on varndell. It's not a plenalty, the block wasn't due to a wasps player moving into the way, it was founded on the angle Fitz came into the tackle (completely laterally). There's a rule to stop you from running in the way of the defence, but not to get out of the way of it. Fitz did well to get the referrees attention though

agreed. in realtime its a tough one to call (even though i dont think it was offside). but given it led immediately to a try, why wouldnt garces use the tmo?

garces seemed keen to not use the tmo for tries apart from twice on the same leinster score. i applaud his ambition, but not if it leads to inaccurate decisions. thats what the tmo is for after all.

anyway. really enjoyed that one. even though from my personal point of view i wanted leinster to win!

I think that probably qualifies as the most poorly officiated game of the tournament?

I now hate Wasps and Leinster

Great match with Leinster really bossing the first half and Wasps fighting their way back into it in the second. Terrible start for Wasps though with Johnsons card - I think he must have been overly pumped up or something - certainly wasn't thinking that's for sure. Would have been good to see Goode get a last gasp drop goal but there you are.

Heaf wrote:I think that probably qualifies as the most poorly officiated game of the tournament?

Garces was very poor imo.

Notch wrote:Very disappointing for Madigan to miss 4 penalties in a drawn game!

Hope he's got that out of his system since he's the last 10 standing for the start of the 6N.

Thought he was generally poor. Kicks from hand out on the full, ignoring overlaps that were all but stroll-in tries. Needs to shape up for Italy.

Were Wasps fans impressed with Goppereth?

So for Leinster to get a home quarter, (I think) we need Scarlets to beat Toulon, or Toulouse to fail to get a TBP against Montpellier, as well as Bath not getting a TBP. Could be wrong with that though.

So if my calculations are correct, we need Montpeillier to prevent Toulouse the TBP and Glasgow to do the same for Bath.

Golden. Bath can still only get 20pts. It comes down to head to head for Bath and Toulouse if Bath win with a tpb and Toulouse win without one, leaving both on 20 (adv. Bath). A Glasgow win is irrelevant.

Then I think it comes down to tries scored - I haven't a clue who has scored most. Other than Wasps have 18 For us we just need Clermont to beat Sarries with no match points for Sarries, to go through.

Sure, we'll have Toulon or Racing away, but we haven't lost in France for a while

Don Alfonso wrote:

Notch wrote:Very disappointing for Madigan to miss 4 penalties in a drawn game!

Hope he's got that out of his system since he's the last 10 standing for the start of the 6N.

Thought he was generally poor.  Kicks from hand out on the full, ignoring overlaps that were all but stroll-in tries. Needs to shape up for Italy.

I was thinking about how poor he was playing, then he suddenly did something really good. then back to poor.

Certainly BOD sounded distinctly unimpressed with him both on the day and overall as a player.

Wasn't impressed with BOD. Talk about bland. The usually BT people around that game were lacklustre. Worsley however I thought did the best of them and he only had a minute at half time (if anything Craig cut him off because his analysis was showing up the others!). BOD distinctly unimpressive.

Chances are Leinster away to Toulouse (not what they once were) or away to Bath (at a ground where they have performed decently in the past).

Getting out of the pool is probably where Leinster are at this season. They will have to consider themselves very fortunate that they don't play ASM or Toulon next (which would both be routs). They'd have a (slim) chance against Toulouse or Bath and they might have a couple of 'names' (you know those injured guys they don't want to mention but use them as an excuse in every single interview) back at that stage.

Well, Toulouse getting beaten by Montpellier works for both our teams. Leinster should have a home q/f and Wasps go through.

A great game yesterday and a great comeback by Wasps in the second half. 25,000 at the Ricoh and a real good atmosphere. If that carries on and Wasps can build on their success there so far they are on to a winner.

Didn't think a draw was going to be good enough but the results have gone our way. Ulster beating Leicester was a bit of a surprise but definitely didn't see Montpellier beating Toulouse.

Toulouse look to be going out. They need Clermont to beat Sarries by 35.

Well done Leinster - some vintage stuff in the first half but well outplayed after the break. Either way I fancied Wasps so to get the draw and home QF is a great result.

I thought some of the work at the breakdown was top drawer although the handling and timing just isn't what it was under Schmidt, hence the failure to puts Wasps away with so much possession in the first half.

Thought Fitzgerald was solid at 13, but no more than that - McFadden impressed me much more and Murphy was Leinsters stand out player overall. Heaslip had an impressive game before he went off.

Madigans performance with the boot will worry Schmidt, especially with Keatleys poor show for Munster.

I don't understand how Wasps fans are having a go at the ref. Johnson should have been sent off in the 1st minute. This for me, it was worse than Jared Payne's red. He looked up and saw Dave in the air and actually went to tackle him. Also, it was a kick off, he must know that there are plenty of bodies waiting to catch the ball. At the end of the day, when you kick to the 22, you are not contesting the kick, you are looking to tackle the catcher as soon as he has the ball.

That was the worst call of the entire game. The ref by bottling that, kept wasps in game as they had an additional 70 min to play with 15 when they shouldn't have.

Haskel was unlucky though. Also a shocking call.

rodders wrote:Well done Leinster - some vintage stuff in the first half but well outplayed after the break. Either way I fancied Wasps so to get the draw and home QF is a great result.

I thought some of the work at the breakdown was top drawer although the handling and timing just isn't what it was under Schmidt, hence the failure to puts Wasps away with so much possession in the first half.

Thought Fitzgerald was solid at 13, but no more than that - McFadden impressed me much more and Murphy was Leinsters stand out player overall. Heaslip had an impressive game before he went off.

Madigans performance with the boot will worry Schmidt, especially with Keatleys poor show for Munster.

Do you think McFadden might make it to a wing position for Ireland if Madigan doesn't show improvement in kicking? Fergus hasn't kicked in games for a while but is a very accurate kicker.

I think McFadden is probably in the frame for the wing anyway, certainly he may make the bench.

I also wonder if starting Keatley at 10 and Madigan at 12 may have been considered for Italy but for Keatleys mixed bag against Sale.

Madigan is a %85+ kicker, he had a bad day on Saturday but no need to push the panic button yet.

the-goon wrote:I don't understand how Wasps fans are having a go at the ref. Johnson should have been sent off in the 1st minute. This for me, it was worse than Jared Payne's red. He looked up and saw Dave in the air and actually went to tackle him. Also, it was a kick off, he must know that there are plenty of bodies waiting to catch the ball. At the end of the day, when you kick to the 22, you are not contesting the kick, you are looking to tackle the catcher as soon as he has the ball.

That was the worst call of the entire game. The ref by bottling that, kept wasps in game as they had an additional 70 min to play with 15 when they shouldn't have.

Haskel was unlucky though. Also a shocking call.

Johnson was dumb, and lucky not to be sent off. Looking up though he would have missed it with his hair in the way however. If he had any sense he would have run into the 3 blocking men in front to try and milk a penalty that way.

Ashley Johnson has been banned for 3 weeks (reduced from 6 for a good record, remorse for his actions, etc.)

The citing officer ruled that the offence warranted a red card, and therefore an automatic ban. Leinster management and fans will be aggrieved that the decision could not be reached on the field at the time.

I couldn't actually see the match so can't comment on the incident or final sanction from an objective pov. However, I think that we are all getting thoroughly fed up that, having extended the TMO review system to include foul play, how can four officials with multiple replay angles not reach a correct decision.

'Correct' is always a subjective thing, and there were earlier comments on here that the challenge was reckless, but did not warrant a red card because the player didn't land on his head or neck. It should be simple:-

1. Has an offence been committed (player taken beyond the horizontal? Yes.
2. Did the tackler bring the tackled player back to ground safely? No.
3. How did the tackled player land? If on the head or neck it's a red card. Anything else is a yellow under current guidelines.

Anyway, I wish Dave Kearney a speedy and full recovery.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Ashley Johnson has been banned for 3 weeks (reduced from 6 for a good record, remorse for his actions, etc.)

The citing officer ruled that the offence warranted a red card, and therefore an automatic ban. Leinster management and fans will be aggrieved that the decision could not be reached on the field at the time.

I couldn't actually see the match so can't comment on the incident or final sanction from an objective pov. However, I think that we are all getting thoroughly fed up that, having extended the TMO review system to include foul play, how can four officials with multiple replay angles not reach a correct decision.

'Correct' is always a subjective thing, and there were earlier comments on here that the challenge was reckless, but did not warrant a red card because the player didn't land on his head or neck. It should be simple:-

1. Has an offence been committed (player taken beyond the horizontal? Yes.
2. Did the tackler bring the tackled player back to ground safely? No.
3. How did the tackled player land? If on the head or neck it's a red card. Anything else is a yellow under current guidelines.

Anyway, I wish Dave Kearney a speedy and full recovery.

I disagree with where the player lands being a deciding factor. The offence was tackling the player in the air but after contact ceases you are not in control of where/how he lands. In theory, if Kearney was hit in the air with enough force that he somersaulted and landed on his knees that should only be a yellow card? I believe it should be the offense and severity of the offense that dictates the colour of the card, not the result of the offense that can sometimes come down to luck.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Ashley Johnson has been banned for 3 weeks (reduced from 6 for a good record, remorse for his actions, etc.)

The citing officer ruled that the offence warranted a red card, and therefore an automatic ban. Leinster management and fans will be aggrieved that the decision could not be reached on the field at the time.

I couldn't actually see the match so can't comment on the incident or final sanction from an objective pov. However, I think that we are all getting thoroughly fed up that, having extended the TMO review system to include foul play, how can four officials with multiple replay angles not reach a correct decision.

'Correct' is always a subjective thing, and there were earlier comments on here that the challenge was reckless, but did not warrant a red card because the player didn't land on his head or neck. It should be simple:-

1. Has an offence been committed (player taken beyond the horizontal? Yes.
2. Did the tackler bring the tackled player back to ground safely? No.
3. How did the tackled player land? If on the head or neck it's a red card. Anything else is a yellow under current guidelines.

Anyway, I wish Dave Kearney a speedy and full recovery.

It actually made absolutely no difference in the end,had we won the seedings wouldn't have changed for the quarter finals,I know that isn't really the point but thankfully for us that's how it worked out.Harlequins fans however must be livid.

Funny that when it's a high profile team, the bans come in. Scarlets can feel pretty hard done-by (again) after the Tigers game.

The Saint wrote:Funny that when it's a high profile team, the bans come in. Scarlets can feel pretty hard done-by (again) after the Tigers game.

Missed that, what happened? Any link?

Stewie15 wrote:

The Saint wrote:Funny that when it's a high profile team, the bans come in. Scarlets can feel pretty hard done-by (again) after the Tigers game.

Missed that, what happened? Any link?

The two swinging arms from Mulipola on Jon Barclay. Very dangerous play, Barclay apparently burst an ear drum.

The Saint wrote:

Stewie15 wrote:

The Saint wrote:Funny that when it's a high profile team, the bans come in. Scarlets can feel pretty hard done-by (again) after the Tigers game.

Missed that, what happened? Any link?

The two swinging arms from Mulipola on Jon Barclay. Very dangerous play, Barclay apparently burst an ear drum.

Thanks, I'll go see if I can find a clip!

Ok I've found a link to the tackle, via an SA publication!!!

My view is under the guidelines it's a yellow card. If I felt AJ should have got red I would say so.

However there have been so many contentious incidents in the last year that a clearer approach needs to be taken. And I agree with stewie that it's the recklessness of the challenge, and not the consequences of it that should be punished.

The approach is similar to a risk assessment and the 'worst case scenario'. Where a player makes a challenge that causes another player to leave the ground above waist height, there is the risk of significant injury (or worse) to the tackled player. Unless the tackler ensures that the tackled player is put down safely this challenge should warrant a red card based on the potential for serious injury.

In a similar way to a tackler lifting a player through the horizontal and driving a player head first into the ground is an automatic red card.

It would make players think twice before charging headlong into an opposition player and launching him into the air.

There was a time not all that long ago when the main contentious issue was 'gouging'.  So these issues seem to come in waves.  The gouging 'era' seemed to just keep repeating 'gouging events' over and over and everyone that was anyone in rugby circles had their eyes glued to the TV replays looking for the guys who never seemed to get the message.

But I remember my frustration and that of others was always that very point.  Here was an issue that was getting feverish headlines, here were players getting red cards and suspensions and here were players STILL actively and openly putting their hands in areas of the face they knew were classed as gouge territory but they just couldn't seem to help themselves.  The incidents kept happening and we kept wondering at how dumb a player or coach has to be for the truth not to sink in - stay away from an opponent's face with your fingers or you risk time away from the game - the cameras can see you!

That episode settled down somewhat and now it seems to have been replaced with this "talking a player out in the air" epidemic.  And we're all back watching the replays intently to try to find where 'intent' or 'plain awkwardness' was the culprit.

But again, I'm left wondering how dumb do these players and their coaches have to be to keep doing or allowing these moments of madness?   If an issue has become repetitive, then if you're smart you draw back from continuously repeating the move as you should be aware that the public and refs are watching more closely and you're risking reds and suspensions.

So maybe this new 'on the edge of legal' craze will die down in time like the gouging period did.  But I'd choose to blame coaches more than players.  Players are being coached to intimidate catchers, to make catchers second guess what's coming, to take their attention off the catch and hopefully get them to fluff more ball because of the uncertainty.  And I believe that's all coached on the training field.  So coaches should be warned to pull back in the techniques before someone actually does get Seriously injured.

I also know some teams and some players mightn't like the 'softy' rules and hanker for a much more confrontational game...but the game is dangerous enough.  We want rugby, not blood sports.  We want all players walking off a field healthy - both in the present and into their futures.  Rules are there to protect players from their instincts when battle blood is up.  Coaches need to be told to rein in some of their methods for gaining an edge.

I agree with that Fly. Coaches, and senior players, revving up the team before the match. "Get into them hard lads." "Don't let them settle."

Phrases that a player can easily take to mean 'clatter the first opposition player anywhere near the ball. Before you know it you've got a player out injured and another sent off.

Ya gotta think guys about the consequences of your actions guys.