Ulster Rugby v Munster Rugby, 9 May

First topic message reminder :

             
Ulster Rugby v Munster Rugby
Saturday 9 May 2015
KO: 14:40
Kingspan Corporate Sellout Stadium Ravenhill, Belfast

Live on Sky Sports

Referee: Nigel Owens (WRU, 124th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Dudley Phillips, Nigel Correll (both IRFU)
Citing Commissioner: Murray Whyte (IRFU)
TMO: Kevin Beggs (IRFU)

A. Head to Head

26 Played 26
13 Wins 13
13 Losses 13
0 Draws 0
47 Tries 53
30 Conversions 41
54 Penalties 52
1 Drop Goals 5
460 Points 518
27 Avg. Age 27

B. Form

Fri 28 Nov 2014 - Munster Rugby 21 - 20 Ulster Rugby

Sat 10 May 2014 - Munster Rugby 17 - 19 Ulster Rugby

Fri 3 Jan 2014 - Ulster Rugby 29 - 19 Munster Rugby

C. Teams

Ulster Rugby

L Ludik; T Bowe, J Payne, D Cave, P Nelson; P Jackson, R Pienaar; C Black, R Best (capt), W Herbst, D Tuohy, F van der Merwe, I Henderson, C Henry, R Wilson.

Replacements: R Herring, A Warwick, B Ross, R Diack, C Ross, P Marshall, I Humphreys, S McCloskey

Munster Rugby

F Jones; K Earls, A Smith, Denis Hurley, S Zebo; I Keatley, C Murray; D Kilcoyne, E Guinazu, S Archer; D Ryan, P O'Connell; P O'Mahony (capt),T O'Donnell, CJ Stander.

Replacements: Duncan Casey, John Ryan, BJ Botha, Billy Holland, Jack O'Donoghue, Duncan Williams, JJ Hanrahan, Ronan O'Mahony.

VinceWLB wrote:Henderson went off his feet flying leading with his forearm but did accidentally hit Murray with the head, clear yellow and given Ulster's form this season the red was justified for reckless and dangerous play, shame it was Henderson who paid the price and not Williams though.

That is nonsense. You can't decide the colour of the card based on the reputation of the team, that would be completely ridiculous. The incident itself should be the only factor.

clivemcl wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:Henderson went off his feet flying leading with his forearm but did accidentally hit Murray with the head, clear yellow and given Ulster's form this season the red was justified for reckless and dangerous play, shame it was Henderson who paid the price and not Williams though.

So you are allowed to make contact with the head if you stay on your feet? Genuinely not being pedantic, but I think this lack of exact clarity is why cardable offences keep happening.

No but because he went totally off his feet just made it worse and was probably the difference between a yellow and a red.

VinceWLB wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

VinceWLB wrote:Henderson went off his feet flying leading with his forearm but did accidentally hit Murray with the head, clear yellow and given Ulster's form this season the red was justified for reckless and dangerous play, shame it was Henderson who paid the price and not Williams though.

So you are allowed to make contact with the head if you stay on your feet? Genuinely not being pedantic, but I think this lack of exact clarity is why cardable offences keep happening.

No but because he went totally off his feet just made it worse and was probably the difference between a yellow and a red.

The difference between the yellow or red was quite clearly heard to be the contact of heads, something that didn't even happen. The red card was simply a dick move from Owens, a rare mistake from him. It made no difference in the end with a draw doing neither side any favours. Still, it adds to Ulster's red card tally this season.

Excellent game to watch,pity the red card will dominate the discussion instead of the rugby.

Henderson on this form has to be starting for Ireland.Drop Toner or PoM I don't care which but get him on from the start.Jackson will be benching for the WC as long as his form doesn't drop off a cliff,he's playing great stuff and if he keeps progressing (as I'm sure he will,injury permitting) he'll be putting real pressure on Sexton in a year or two.

neilthom7 wrote:Iain Henderson you sir are an idiot, you just don't do that, there was absolutely no need, you forced him into a decision, you are an idiot and it is so typical of our players this year doing stupid unnecessary stuff that cost us the game

But he's world class!

Great result.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:Iain Henderson you sir are an idiot, you just don't do that, there was absolutely no need, you forced him into a decision, you are an idiot and it is so typical of our players this year doing stupid unnecessary stuff that cost us the game

But he's world class!

Great result.

Quite right.

Even though Henderson did alright in the first half except for the sublime offload he was easily handled and was anonymous in the second except for the unfortunate incident. There are two reasons Joe won't start him. One Joe believes the percentages in the lineout are better with toner and secondly he is ineffectual at the breakdown. Also Joe doesn't like offloads

More importantly its a pity the wc is too soon for stander. Sooner we get him in for J'aime the better

ME-109 wrote:More importantly its a pity the wc is too soon for stander. Sooner we get him in for J'aime the better

He certainly is a stander out player.

This result today definately benefits neither side involved. It's looking like the O's and Weegies will be travelling to Raverspan for a final. From what we saw last night the O's are yet again peaking at just the right time.
I don't fancy our chances in Weegieland next week with yet another player banned as the citing cowards never go against a ref's decision. Doak has tweeted that he'll be appealing the decision.

Pete330v2 wrote:

ME-109 wrote:More importantly its a pity the wc is too soon for stander. Sooner we get him in for J'aime the better

He certainly is a stander out player.

This result today definately benefits neither side involved. It's looking like the O's and Weegies will be travelling to Raverspan for a final. From what we saw last night the O's are yet again peaking at just the right time.
I don't fancy our chances in Weegieland next week with yet another player banned as the citing cowards never go against a ref's decision. Doak has tweeted that he'll be appealing the decision.

I wouldn't worry too much, Pete.

Given current injuries, our backline will comprise three octagenarian Glaswegian alkies, Richie Vernon, my Uncle Dougie, Lee Jones and an old, rusty birdcage that Gregor Townsend found in a skip out the back.

I don't even think it was a yellow. Penalty and a stern talking too. What's the story with points difference. Good try's by Ulster but I would bawl the Munster players out for the inept defence both times..amateurish.

Am I right in saying if Glasgow had won yesterday they would have had a home semi in the bag given todays result? And so its feasible they might have opted to rest players against us before the semi? ah well!

Plus keatley does my head in

ME-109 wrote:Even though Henderson did alright in the first half except for the sublime offload he was easily handled and was anonymous in the second except for the unfortunate incident. There are two reasons Joe won't start him. One Joe believes the percentages in the lineout are better with toner and secondly he is ineffectual at the breakdown. Also Joe doesn't like offloads

This has become one of his major strengths.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Even though Henderson did alright in the first half except for the sublime offload he was easily handled and was anonymous in the second except for the unfortunate incident. There are two reasons Joe won't start him. One Joe believes the percentages in the lineout are better with toner and secondly he is ineffectual at the breakdown. Also Joe doesn't like offloads

This has become one of his major strengths.

He's not a poacher but I've seen him demolish a few rucks,there was one at the end of the 1st half that stood out,he looked like he was playing against an u16 team the way he manhandled the Munster guys.He has really added an extra dimension to his game since his return from injury,I think he has just upped the aggression levels and the fact that he's such a phenomenal athlete means the sky is the limit for him.

didnt see the game.

but no you cant make contact with the head of an opponent in the ruck with your arm or hand if you stay on your feet. if heads bang and you are still on your feet then by definition there shouldnt be much momentum behind it so very unlikely to be dangerous.

if you dive off your feet and hit head on head thats foul play.

if you stay on feet and hand/arm hits opposition rucking player's head, it could be a penalty or worse, totally up to the ref's discretion as to how bad the contact was and whether it was reckless or deliberate or dangerous.

ME-109 wrote:I don't even think it was a yellow. Penalty and a stern talking too. What's the story with points difference. Good try's by Ulster but I would bawl the Munster players out for the inept defence both times..amateurish.

Yeah, it was a pretty incomprehensible decision and will be a real shame if he misses the semi-final.

We should have scored at least one more try- we opened them up and didn't kill them off, Munster are too good a team to let off the hook. Given that, a draw is very disappointing but probably the fairest outcome for a very even and high quality game. If that's the standard of all the playoffs this year, neutrals are in for a treat. Well done to Munster.

quinsforever wrote:didnt see the game.

but no you cant make contact with the head of an opponent in the ruck with your arm or hand if you stay on your feet. if heads bang and you are still on your feet then by definition there shouldnt be much momentum behind it so very unlikely to be dangerous.

if you dive off your feet and hit head on head thats foul play.

if you stay on feet and hand/arm hits opposition rucking player's head, it could be a penalty or worse, totally up to the ref's discretion as to how bad the contact was and whether it was reckless or deliberate or dangerous.

http://balls.ie/rugby/286040-iain-henderson-red-card/

The initial contact was with the chest, not the head. Hit him on the chest with his forearm and as he's fallen over it's slipped up to his neck.

It was not, ever, leading with the head at all. We need to bring intent back into the equation, because that was a terrible decision. I'm just now reviewing it and I'm in shock because he's so obviously leading with the arm into the chest and it's not like Owens to get a big decision so terribly wrong. Accidental clash of heads should never be a red card. Penalty for going into the clear out leading with the forearm I can accept, yellow for that harsh but fair. But it's pretty galling to see that described as leading with the head as it's, well, not.

quinsforever wrote:didnt see the game.

but no you cant make contact with the head of an opponent in the ruck with your arm or hand if you stay on your feet. if heads bang and you are still on your feet then by definition there shouldnt be much momentum behind it so very unlikely to be dangerous.

if you dive off your feet and hit head on head thats foul play.

if you stay on feet and hand/arm hits opposition rucking player's head, it could be a penalty or worse, totally up to the ref's discretion as to how bad the contact was and whether it was reckless or deliberate or dangerous.

If you didn't see it why are you typing out a short novel on the incident?

asoreleftshoulder wrote:

Rory_Gallagher wrote:

ME-109 wrote:Even though Henderson did alright in the first half except for the sublime offload he was easily handled and was anonymous in the second except for the unfortunate incident. There are two reasons Joe won't start him. One Joe believes the percentages in the lineout are better with toner and secondly he is ineffectual at the breakdown. Also Joe doesn't like offloads

This has become one of his major strengths.

He's not a poacher but I've seen him demolish a few rucks,there was one at the end of the 1st half that stood out,he looked like he was playing against an u16 team the way he manhandled the Munster guys.He has really added an extra dimension to his game since his return from injury,I think he has just upped the aggression levels and the fact that he's such a phenomenal athlete means the sky is the limit for him.

Strangely, given his height, he actually is a poacher and this season I would argue he has made as many vital steals as any other back row in the competition. This season he has really come on leaps and bounds and is the complete player.

Notch wrote:

quinsforever wrote:didnt see the game.

but no you cant make contact with the head of an opponent in the ruck with your arm or hand if you stay on your feet. if heads bang and you are still on your feet then by definition there shouldnt be much momentum behind it so very unlikely to be dangerous.

if you dive off your feet and hit head on head thats foul play.

if you stay on feet and hand/arm hits opposition rucking player's head, it could be a penalty or worse, totally up to the ref's discretion as to how bad the contact was and whether it was reckless or deliberate or dangerous.

The initial contact was with the chest, not the head. Hit him on the chest and as he's fallen over it's slipped up to his neck.

It was not, ever, leading with the head at all. We need to bring intent back into the equation, because that was a terrible decision. I'm just now reviewing it and I'm in shock because he's so obviously leading with the arm into the chest.

From what I remember, on closer inspection with slow motion, the initial contact was with Murray's face. It looked like a flying headbutt and that is what Nigel was given to work with.

However, if anyone saw the dreadful Leinster game last night, Richardt Strauss flew straight off his feet into a ruck, hitting a player already on the ground, and received a yellow. Well, O'Brien received the yellow as they mixed up the players, but still. That incident was far, far worse and it warranted a yellow.

Which is why I am begging for a shred of consistency.

No, I'm sorry but it didn't look like that. Not at the ground, not on the big screen, not on the replay afterwards. Leading with the head means you go in head-first. He goes in illegally- because he's leading with the forearm and off his feet. So far, so illegal, so a routine penalty. An accidental clash of heads muddies the waters but leading with the head implies intent to make contact with that part of your body. There was none, and going into the challenge his arm is front of his body, he's stuck it out and braced for impact, he's leading with his arm. If his head makes contact first it's because Murray is not upright. And it's very important because if someone actually does try and headbutt an opposition player- thats going to be treated the same way. So you're putting, essentially, an illegal clear-out on the same level as violent play. Seems bizarre.

But if you go into the ruck and the first contact you make is the player's face with your own head, and you are flying into the ruck at a high speed, you are always going to get at the very least a yellow card for reckless play. Whether or not you put your arm out first is irrelevant, he still made contact with Murray's face with his own head. That is dangerous play, especially given the amount of concussion incidents throughout the year.

At first viewing I thought it was absolutely fine and that they should just play on. When I heard Nigel ask for a red, I thought I was hearing things until they reviewed it from a different angle, in slow motion and with a much closer view. I think a red card was harsh, but it was pretty difficult to argue with it.

Notch wrote:No, I'm sorry but it didn't look like that. Not at the ground, not on the big screen, not on the replay afterwards. Leading with the head means you go in head-first. He goes in illegally- because he's leading with the forearm and off his feet. So far, so illegal, so a routine penalty. An accidental clash of heads muddies the waters but leading with the head implies intent to make contact with that part of your body. There was none, and going into the challenge his arm is front of his body, he's stuck it out and braced for impact, he's leading with his arm. If his head makes contact first it's because Murray is not upright. And it's very important because if someone actually does try and headbutt an opposition player- thats going to be treated the same way. So you're putting, essentially, an illegal clear-out on the same level as violent play. Seems bizarre.

That is why it will be reviewed by a citing commission who will decide the length of the ban. A clear cut act of violence will receive a large ban, and hopefully if common sense prevails this will be a very short one.

Notch wrote:No, I'm sorry but it didn't look like that. Not at the ground, not on the big screen, not on the replay afterwards. Leading with the head means you go in head-first. He goes in illegally- because he's leading with the forearm and off his feet. So far, so illegal, so a routine penalty. An accidental clash of heads muddies the waters but leading with the head implies intent to make contact with that part of your body. There was none, and going into the challenge his arm is front of his body, he's stuck it out and braced for impact, he's leading with his arm. If his head makes contact first it's because Murray is not upright. And it's very important because if someone actually does try and headbutt an opposition player- thats going to be treated the same way. So you're putting, essentially, an illegal clear-out on the same level as violent play. Seems bizarre.

I think he's desperately unlucky that Ludik has managed to throw Murray backwards and so has moved the target he was aiming at.If Murray hadn't been spun backwards then Henderson connects with him and just blows through him legally.As it is it's like tackling a bag where the guy behind it just side steps and suddenly there's no resistance where you expected it to be.The result is you fall forward with no way of stopping it.

I've seen it multiple times and I think it's honestly ludicrous. I think the classy thing for Owens to do know would be to testify in Henderson's favour at the subsequent disciplinary hearing.

Red card all day long. Reckless and dangerous. 1 or 2 weeks rest.

https://twitter.com/KMcGillicuddy86/status/597071791547359232

Notch wrote: I think the classy thing for Owens to do know would be to testify in Henderson's favour at the subsequent disciplinary hearing.

What makes you think he has now changed his mind?

Didn't get to see the game but that looks red to me. Intent is neither here nor there, I just think the ref has no option on that.

Imagine Liam Williams did that to the ginger Ulster fella. They'd be buying rope in Belfast.

Pete330v2 wrote:

quinsforever wrote:didnt see the game.

but no you cant make contact with the head of an opponent in the ruck with your arm or hand if you stay on your feet. if heads bang and you are still on your feet then by definition there shouldnt be much momentum behind it so very unlikely to be dangerous.

if you dive off your feet and hit head on head thats foul play.

if you stay on feet and hand/arm hits opposition rucking player's head, it could be a penalty or worse, totally up to the ref's discretion as to how bad the contact was and whether it was reckless or deliberate or dangerous.

If you didn't see it why are you typing out a short novel on the incident?

because someone asked a technical question not related to the incident. so without having seen it i am much better placed to answer objectively than you. obviously.

SecretFly wrote:Didn't get to see the game but that looks red to me.  Intent is neither here nor there, I just think the ref has no option on that.

This for me is what is wrong at the core with the entire process. Intent is always important. A physical game played at 100 miles an hour, stuff happens. There are accidents. If we lump genuine mistakes that into the same category as violent play, it diminishes the latter. I'm not saying it goes unpunished, but the punishment has to be proportionate to what happened.

With this incident, a proportionate response wouldn't have influenced the game at all if it was a strict interpretation. It was one of those incidents that is very much on the borderline between being a penalty only or being a yellow card. With seven minutes remaining, a yellow card would have had exactly the same effect on the game as red. But in terms of principle, I just can't stomach the idea that someone throwing a punch or a headbutt or an elbow at someone's head is adjudged to be the same thing as an accidental collision. A guy trying to clear the ruck is clearly belongs in a different category to a guy attacking someone- especially when you see the latter go unpunished.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Didn't get to see the game but that looks red to me.  Intent is neither here nor there, I just think the ref has no option on that.

This for me is what is wrong at the core with the entire process. Intent is always important. A physical game played at 100 miles an hour, stuff happens. There are accidents. If we lump genuine mistakes that into the same category as violent play, it diminishes the latter. I'm not saying it goes unpunished, but the punishment has to be proportionate to what happened.

With this incident, a proportionate response wouldn't have influenced the game at all if it was a strict interpretation. It was one of those incidents that is very much on the borderline between being a penalty only or being a yellow card. With seven minutes remaining, a yellow card would have had exactly the same effect on the game as red. But in terms of principle, I just can't stomach the idea that someone throwing a punch or a headbutt or an elbow at someone's head is adjudged to be the same thing as an accidental collision. A guy trying to clear the ruck is clearly belongs in a different category to a guy attacking someone.

I'm going on how these events are judged in general.  It's pointless trying to rewrite rules as we go.  If that happened in any other game in any other part of the world we'd be saying perhaps unfortunate for the red carded player but it's a red.
Refs aren't psychologists, they're refs.  They make a judgement based on intent but they can't prove it - obviously this was judged to be reckless and dangerous.

Clive, I think he was reckless the way he just launched into the ruck off his feet. Niall Ronan's career was finished with a similar type of launch into a ruck.

Notch wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Didn't get to see the game but that looks red to me.  Intent is neither here nor there, I just think the ref has no option on that.

This for me is what is wrong at the core with the entire process. Intent is always important. A physical game played at 100 miles an hour, stuff happens. There are accidents. If we lump genuine mistakes that into the same category as violent play, it diminishes the latter. I'm not saying it goes unpunished, but the punishment has to be proportionate to what happened.

With this incident, a proportionate response wouldn't have influenced the game at all if it was a strict interpretation. It was one of those incidents that is very much on the borderline between being a penalty only or being a yellow card. With seven minutes remaining, a yellow card would have had exactly the same effect on the game as red. But in terms of principle, I just can't stomach the idea that someone throwing a punch or a headbutt or an elbow at someone's head is adjudged to be the same thing as an accidental collision. A guy trying to clear the ruck is clearly belongs in a different category to a guy attacking someone.

For me this goes in the same bin as the Payne red card,neither is even a penalty.Both players made a genuine effort to play within the laws,Payne went for the ball and Henderson tried to clear out Murray.Payne didn't see Goode jumping and was perfectly within his rights to go for the ball and Henderson didn't realise that Ludik would roll Murray into a position where he couldn't hit him legally.

The real issue is that we're being told that they are trying to improve safety and clean up these areas yet these are the red cards we get.Twice this year Garces issued yellows for worse tackles than Paynes yet nothing is done about this and there have been far more dangerous clear outs where players are trapped in a ruck and smashed with no attempt to move them,just an attempt to hurt them.A Leinster player did something much worse yesterday yet because of comically bad officiating he got away with it.If they were actually punishing the bad incidents and these were just harsh reds I could live with it but the fact that they are missing all the serious foul play and giving cards in these situations is a bad joke imo.

I think you can very obviously judge intent in many cases, in this case it must  be said that if a player is going into contact with his arm outstretched in front of him he's not doing a very good job of leading with his head. There were a number of things that needed to be taken into account that were not, chief among them the body position of Murray. Secondly, the position of Henderson's feet. Thirdly, his balance as he goes into contact.

Well done to Munster on the draw.

Ulster shouldn't have played Pienaar when he was so obviously unfit.

Pity about Henderson - that looks like his season (and Ulster's) is now over. Judging by the cumulative bans issued by the Commission against Ulster he could be in diffs for the RWC as well.

Notch wrote: But in terms of principle, I just can't stomach the idea that someone throwing a punch or a headbutt or an elbow at someone's head is adjudged to be the same thing as an accidental collision. .

It's not. Because he should get 2 weeks holiday instead of 8.

Great game, but disappointing result for both sides. More so for Ulster.

I don't believe Henderson deserved a red card at all. Marginal Yellow for me. Owen's cited one of the reasons for red was because Henderson was leading with the head, as did the TMO. They both got it wrong. Henderson was leading with the elbow and it was the elbow that first made contact. If Henderson did make contact with the head, it was both accidental and slight.

A home semi is out of our hands now. Come on Connacht!

Ulster would have won if it was Friday night. They need to play on Friday night more.

The Great Aukster wrote:Well done to Munster on the draw.

Ulster shouldn't have played Pienaar when he was so obviously unfit.

Pity about Henderson - that looks like his season (and Ulster's) is now over. Judging by the cumulative bans issued by the Commission against Ulster he could be in diffs for the RWC as well.

Was pienaar unfit, cos Murray looked streets ahead of him at times

I thought Conor Murray was in total control of the game. He really is outstanding at times, very tricky to play against. When he speeds up his service from the ruck, he will be perfect.

Thought of Murray and Jackson together is pretty mouthwatering.

Maybe paddy will come to Munster.

Not a hope, ME, but we might be willing to send Nick Williams back to you in exchange for Stander.

It's only fair

We're prepared to take either of your coaches in exchange for ours???
Any takers?

No?

F**K yis!

SecretFly wrote:We're prepared to take either of your coaches in exchange for ours???
Any takers?

No?

F**K yis!

See the game on Friday night? I can see why none of the Leinster fans here had anything to say about it.

I saw something on Friday, Rory. I wouldn't insult the sport of Rugby Union by calling it a game......

ME-109 wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Well done to Munster on the draw.

Ulster shouldn't have played Pienaar when he was so obviously unfit.

Pity about Henderson - that looks like his season (and Ulster's) is now over. Judging by the cumulative bans issued by the Commission against Ulster he could be in diffs for the RWC as well.

Was pienaar unfit, cos Murray looked streets ahead of him at times

He was wearing an orthopedic boot last weekend and it was noticeable how he didn't kick all game.