Specsavers Fair Play League Pro12

First topic message reminder :

Congratulations to Connacht for topping the Specsavers Fair Play League For the Pro12

http://www.pro12rugby.com/statzone/specsavers_fair_play_league.php#VfuHYYLg0807Jke9.97

LordDowlais wrote:

Notch wrote:Well discipline has clearly been a problem for us, but I don't think intentional dirty play has been

What about Nick Williams on Patchell, and didn't one of your players punch John Barcley at PYS during the season, I would say that there is a case for intentional dirty play.

Deccie Fitz punching the Italian lock was in response to having that lock eye gouge him. It was stupid, but then an understandable reaction in the heat of the moment.
Big Nicks was a cheap shot. No excuse and fully deserved his ban.
Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:he made a play for the ball and timed it badly and caught Barclay

He punched him.

How can that be an accident, if he hit him with an open hand I would have some sympathy, but it was a clenched fist to the face FFS.

LD you accuse Ulster fans of bias yet fail to accept the possibility of it being an accident, is that not showing bias?

marty2086 wrote:LD you accuse Ulster fans of bias yet fail to accept the possibility of it being an accident, is that not showing bias?

I am not being biased, I am believing what my own eyes are seeing, you do not tackle people with your fists clenched, he swung his arm with a clenched fist and hit Barclay in the face, how can that be an accident ?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

I think that argument was more down to semantics, Scarlets. I even agreed to disagree with LD on that one

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD you accuse Ulster fans of bias yet fail to accept the possibility of it being an accident, is that not showing bias?

I am not being biased, I am believing what my own eyes are seeing, you do not tackle people with your fists clenched, he swung his arm with a clenched fist and hit Barclay in the face, how can that be an accident ?

He wasn't trying to tackle anyone! He went for the ball. Clumsy but an accident.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD you accuse Ulster fans of bias yet fail to accept the possibility of it being an accident, is that not showing bias?

I am not being biased, I am believing what my own eyes are seeing, you do not tackle people with your fists clenched, he swung his arm with a clenched fist and hit Barclay in the face, how can that be an accident ?

Maybe because he had the ball in one hand held against the side of his head

He punched him, with a clenched fist, you only make a clenched fist when you want to punch somebody, if his fist was not clenched I would have some sympathy, but it was not, he threw a punch, and caught him in the face, unless you are saying that tackling with a fist is the norm, are you saying that ?

LordDowlais wrote:He punched him, with a clenched fist, you only make a clenched fist when you want to punch somebody, if his fist was not clenched I would have some sympathy, but it was not, he threw a punch, and caught him in the face, unless you are saying that tackling with a fist is the norm, are you saying that ?

Again, it wasn't an attempt at a tackle! It was an attempt at knocking the ball away.

Good grief....

Notch wrote:It's so frustrating. And I think it's 90% just players having less confidence in the structures at the breakdown and doing stupid things as a result. Like McCloskeys red card. Dangerous play, deserved a red, but it all came out of poor coaching of that area. Not being coached in how to clear out a breakdown properly ends up in players doing things like this.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/guinness-pro12/vine-stuart-mccloskey-redcarded-but-gallant-ulster-hang-on-to-beat-edinburgh-31009681.html

I'm not saying that didn't deserve a red card at all, just that the coaching of how we approach the breakdown as a team isn't there so you get all kinds if stupid infringements. If the coaches have drilled ruck technique into him, he makes a better and much more legal contribution there. He doesn't know what he's meant to be doing when he's clearing that ruck. Not all the cards we've had have been like that, but I just don't know why the other forms of indiscipline have happened. We haven't traditionally been a dirty team, we've been up and around the top of the fair play league for a long stretch before this year, which makes it even harder to explain. We've just done so many things that you think are completely stupid and it's unbelievably frustrating.

I reckon it's fairly easy to explain. First of all I don't think the cards and bannings are a sign that Ulster are a "dirty" team, although the Fitz punch was a malicious act whatever the provocation, and deserved a red.

McCloskey was obviously trying his best and had no malice but his technique let him down. That's because he's inexperienced in that situation, but was forced into it with Ulster's backrow issues.

Even the Williams incident IMO had no malice in it. The outcome looked really bad but on close inspection he goes in to break RP's bind and of course catches his head, so cast iron red card. Why did it happen - because he didn't have Muller on the pitch calming him down. In that game you knew sooner or later he would do something stupid - I thought it would be the back of his head would butt someone in a maul. He was reckless and didn't have a master to rein him in. The Henderson incident had no malice either but aside from that being a ruck and the Williams one a maul there was very little difference in the two incidents.

The Wilson incident again was a mistimed attempt to get the ball - happens all the time and Barclay wasn't the first to get a bloody nose. IIRC it was interesting that JB didn't really complain at all, whereas if he had done a Niko, Wilson could easily have been carded on the spot.

The O'Connor and Marshall bans were for accidents so I can't see how there was any malice involved there either.

I find it interesting too the Herring was cited for a stamp (that wasn't) when Madigan isn't cited for his action in the BaaBaas game that actually looked far worse.

So the drop from hero to zero in one year demonstrates clearly that the citing process works like an insurance policy - if you draw on it then the premium rises rapidly. The Payne red card was the blue touch paper that challenged the process, and let's face it no one likes their process being challenged. Such a high profile incident and the interpretation of it is locked away in everyone's mind, but the underlying association is Ulster - red card.
I think that had a bearing this season on both the AOC and SMcC hearings and as the season went on the citings for Wilson and Marshall were notable in their harshness (for accidents), and by the culmination of the season the commissioners were citing incidents that shouldn't even have been lodged.

Ulster badly need a Muller-type leader who will tell the players to calm down when it's needed and has the presence on the pitch to make them listen. It's easy to explain just hard to fix.

LordDowlais wrote:He punched him, with a clenched fist, you only make a clenched fist when you want to punch somebody, if his fist was not clenched I would have some sympathy, but it was not, he threw a punch, and caught him in the face, unless you are saying that tackling with a fist is the norm, are you saying that ?

Speak for yourself but I've used it many times to free a ball, having played Gaelic football its something that's taught to players as you generate more force

The Great Aukster wrote:

Notch wrote:It's so frustrating. And I think it's 90% just players having less confidence in the structures at the breakdown and doing stupid things as a result. Like McCloskeys red card. Dangerous play, deserved a red, but it all came out of poor coaching of that area. Not being coached in how to clear out a breakdown properly ends up in players doing things like this.

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/guinness-pro12/vine-stuart-mccloskey-redcarded-but-gallant-ulster-hang-on-to-beat-edinburgh-31009681.html

I'm not saying that didn't deserve a red card at all, just that the coaching of how we approach the breakdown as a team isn't there so you get all kinds if stupid infringements. If the coaches have drilled ruck technique into him, he makes a better and much more legal contribution there. He doesn't know what he's meant to be doing when he's clearing that ruck. Not all the cards we've had have been like that, but I just don't know why the other forms of indiscipline have happened. We haven't traditionally been a dirty team, we've been up and around the top of the fair play league for a long stretch before this year, which makes it even harder to explain. We've just done so many things that you think are completely stupid and it's unbelievably frustrating.

I reckon it's fairly easy to explain. First of all I don't think the cards and bannings are a sign that Ulster are a "dirty" team, although the Fitz punch was a malicious act whatever the provocation, and deserved a red.

McCloskey was obviously trying his best and had no malice but his technique let him down. That's because he's inexperienced in that situation, but was forced into it with Ulster's backrow issues.

Even the Williams incident IMO had no malice in it. The outcome looked really bad but on close inspection he goes in to break RP's bind and of course catches his head, so cast iron red card. Why did it happen - because he didn't have Muller on the pitch calming him down. In that game you knew sooner or later he would do something stupid - I thought it would be the back of his head would butt someone in a maul. He was reckless and didn't have a master to rein him in. The Henderson incident had no malice either but aside from that being a ruck and the Williams one a maul there was very little difference in the two incidents.

The Wilson incident again was a mistimed attempt to get the ball - happens all the time and Barclay wasn't the first to get a bloody nose. IIRC it was interesting that JB didn't really complain at all, whereas if he had done a Niko, Wilson could easily have been carded on the spot.

The O'Connor and Marshall bans were for accidents so I can't see how there was any malice involved there either.

I find it interesting too the Herring was cited for a stamp (that wasn't) when Madigan isn't cited for his action in the BaaBaas game that actually looked far worse.

So the drop from hero to zero in one year demonstrates clearly that the citing process works like an insurance policy - if you draw on it then the premium rises rapidly. The Payne red card was the blue touch paper that challenged the process, and let's face it no one likes their process being challenged. Such a high profile incident and the interpretation of it is locked away in everyone's mind, but the underlying association is Ulster - red card.
I think that had a bearing this season on both the AOC and SMcC hearings and as the season went on the citings for Wilson and Marshall were notable in their harshness (for accidents), and by the culmination of the season the commissioners were citing incidents that shouldn't even have been lodged.

Ulster badly need a Muller-type leader who will tell the players to calm down when it's needed and has the presence on the pitch to make them listen. It's easy to explain just hard to fix.

Well put lads!!
It's a shame it won't stop the usual Ulster hunt by the usual suspects. The ones who think they are 'holier than thou' and live in glass houses with many stone holes.

Pete330v2 wrote:
Well put lads!!
It's a shame it won't stop the usual Ulster hunt by the usual suspects. The ones who think they are 'holier than thou' and live in glass houses with many stone holes.

And their mentions of Marshall Kilgore too while ignoring Hodges and his dodgy decision in favour of Cardiff against Connacht

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD you accuse Ulster fans of bias yet fail to accept the possibility of it being an accident, is that not showing bias?

I am not being biased, I am believing what my own eyes are seeing, you do not tackle people with your fists clenched, he swung his arm with a clenched fist and hit Barclay in the face, how can that be an accident ?

You got the wrong game, you got the wrong player.

If I were you, I'd ask for a second opinion on anything your eyes report.

Just an aside. Carry on.

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

I think that argument was more down to semantics, Scarlets. I even agreed to disagree with LD on that one

Semantics is usually all these arguments ever are. 'Dirty' could be changed to 'not technical' then we would all agree.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

I think that argument was more down to semantics, Scarlets. I even agreed to disagree with LD on that one

Semantics is usually all these arguments ever are.  'Dirty' could be changed to 'not technical' then we would all agree.

Can't agree. It wasn't really an argument of whether Matawala play acted or not. All, or at least most, agreed that he did. It was how each interpreted a dive, with some claiming a dive can only be a dive when done so without contact from another player. So at the very least we were all agreed he faked it. The argument about Henry isn't one of semantics. It is about intention. Did he intend to strike, or not? He didn't. It was an accident.

No - to argue a bit more sematics - he did not fake it at all - a bigger man than him tried to take his head off. He did fall more dramatically than he might have done. Its all semantics

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

I think that argument was more down to semantics, Scarlets. I even agreed to disagree with LD on that one

Semantics is usually all these arguments ever are.  'Dirty' could be changed to 'not technical' then we would all agree.

Can't agree. It wasn't really an argument of whether Matawala play acted or not. All, or at least most, agreed that he did. It was how each interpreted a dive, with some claiming a dive can only be a dive when done so without contact from another player. So at the very least we were all agreed he faked it. The argument about HenryWilson isn't one of semantics. It is about intention. Did he intend to strike, or not? He didn't. It was an accident.

Don't be accusing him of striking someone with a World Cup coming up, he's got a dodgy ticker you know

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Chris Henry didn't intend to strike Barclay. He was aiming for a loose ball and caught Barclay. I think it's obvious that it was an accident, but those with one-eye are never going to see it that way.

I am sorry, but it is only the Ulster fans that see it like that, with one eye. As I said earlier if Chris Henry had caught him with an open hand then I would have some sympathy, but he hit Barclay with a clenched fist, to the face, how can that be an accident ?

Why would it matter if he hit him with a clenched fist? He was trying to knock the ball away. Did you actually see this clenched fist or did you just make that up?

It was an accident, and obviously so. The ball went loose from a poor line-out and he tried to knock it. To accuse a player of dirty play I think you would need strong evidence. You don't have any. You are happy to stick the knife into a players reputation for no other reason than bias.

P.s The citing panel didn't believe it was intentional either.

Sounds similar to what people were saying about diving on another thread.

I think that argument was more down to semantics, Scarlets. I even agreed to disagree with LD on that one

Semantics is usually all these arguments ever are.  'Dirty' could be changed to 'not technical' then we would all agree.

Can't agree. It wasn't really an argument of whether Matawala play acted or not. All, or at least most, agreed that he did. It was how each interpreted a dive, with some claiming a dive can only be a dive when done so without contact from another player. So at the very least we were all agreed he faked it. The argument about HenryWilson isn't one of semantics. It is about intention. Did he intend to strike, or not? He didn't. It was an accident.

Don't be accusing him of striking someone with a World Cup coming up, he's got a dodgy ticker you know

oops. Sorry Henry

TJ wrote:No - to argue a bit more sematics - he did not fake it at all - a bigger man than him tried to take his head off.  He did fall more dramatically than he might have done.  Its all semantics

He did fake it. Matawalu dived, and after he dived he feigned injury in the hope of having Luttion carded. Matawalu is all class.

Lutton wasn't even close to taking Matawalu's head off. I understand the use of hyperbole to emphasise a point, but really...

I'm not arguing any more about this. It's been done to death, and we are never going to agree.

Let's leave it there

Sorry - he did not feign injury at all. Lutton made a very dangerous tackle and was lucky not to get a carde. all Niko did was fall dramatically when fouled by a dangerous head high takle. IT WAS NOT A DIVE

ok

Fair enough - I never know when to leave it alone

You and me both

A common failing on discussion boards

TJ wrote:No - to argue a bit more sematics - he did not fake it at all - a bigger man than him tried to take his head off.  He did fall more dramatically than he might have done.  Its all semantics

Even with all the bilge that was spewed all weekd about Matawalu not diving that little nugget really takes the biscuit TJ. Tried to take his head off? Really? You'd be better off watchng the tiddlywinks if you think that incident was in any way overly physical or dangerous.

Anyway, as has been said, it's been done to death and the same bitter anti-Ulster brigade will alway argue against even the slightest Ulstercentric comment. These are the same posters who call Irish fans disgusting. We may well be but that's for us to decide

Pete330v2 wrote:

TJ wrote:No - to argue a bit more sematics - he did not fake it at all - a bigger man than him tried to take his head off.  He did fall more dramatically than he might have done.  Its all semantics

Even with all the bilge that was spewed all weekd about Matawalu not diving that little nugget really takes the biscuit TJ. Tried to take his head off? Really? You'd be better off watchng the tiddlywinks if you think that incident was in any way overly physical or dangerous.

Anyway, as has been said, it's been done to death and the same bitter anti-Ulster brigade will alway argue against even the slightest Ulstercentric comment. These are the same posters who call Irish fans disgusting. We may well be but that's for us to decide

I've never seen any such comments. Have you got any examples?

Pete - the ref thought it foul / dangerous play which is why he gave the pen. A head high tackle is always dangerous. No bitter anti ulster from me. I commend them on the way they have played. Its only a couple of posters who have this odd anti irish thing - funnily enough the same folk who call me anti welsh :-) Even the weegie fans hate me *sobs*

From the IRB
"Dangerous tackles (high tackles)
February 2011
Memorandum

The specific provisions of Law 10.4(e) in relation to High Tackles are as follows:

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play."

So under the laws of the game it was a dangerous tackle but not one of the worst hence the penalty but no more as it was neither as stiff or swinging arm which gets a card but just a grab which hit the neck. correct decision.

TJ wrote:Pete - the ref thought it foul / dangerous play which is why he gave the pen.  A head high tackle is always dangerous.  No bitter anti ulster from me.  I commend them on the way they have played.  Its only a couple of posters who have this odd anti irish thing - funnily enough the same folk who call me anti welsh :-)  Even the weegie fans hate me *sobs*

Apologies TJ, you have not been deemed anti-irish. I am still being overly defensive after a long and fruitless battle with the terrible twosome on here. I hereby retract my tiddlywinks allegations

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

TJ wrote:No - to argue a bit more sematics - he did not fake it at all - a bigger man than him tried to take his head off.  He did fall more dramatically than he might have done.  Its all semantics

Even with all the bilge that was spewed all weekd about Matawalu not diving that little nugget really takes the biscuit TJ. Tried to take his head off? Really? You'd be better off watchng the tiddlywinks if you think that incident was in any way overly physical or dangerous.

Anyway, as has been said, it's been done to death and the same bitter anti-Ulster brigade will alway argue against even the slightest Ulstercentric comment. These are the same posters who call Irish fans disgusting. We may well be but that's for us to decide

I've never seen any such comments. Have you got any examples?

I never thought chunkles would give me a chuckle, yet here we are.....

He is a funny little cove isn't he?

Poorly disciplined start to the season 9 yellow cards in the first round (a third of those being picked up by the Scarlets).

What happened? Were all justified - foul play or persistent infringements - bad calls by the officials?

I know the one for the Ospreys was harsh but within the letter of the Law.

4 cards in the game in total. Glasgow was a 'dangerous tackle', it looked bad but to be honest the player came down on his back etc (IMO a bit of a Bearman card). The ones for the Scarlets were all in the last 5 mins, deemed to be dropping the scrum three or four times each time being reset, warned and then carded. And the other two came for repeat offences.

Hold the press!

Welsh player (Bearman) yellow carded for lifting player above the horizontal, harsh.
Irish player yellow carded for same (last season)....ban him, he's a thug!!!!!!

Pete330v2 wrote:Hold the press!

Welsh player (Bearman) yellow carded for lifting player above the horizontal, harsh.
Irish player yellow carded for same (last season)....ban him, he's a thug!!!!!!

.

Have you got footage of both comparable incidents? Or even evidence of the quotes your claiming? Or is this just a display of class, bringing up old nonsence?

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Hold the press!

Welsh player (Bearman) yellow carded for lifting player above the horizontal, harsh.
Irish player yellow carded for same (last season)....ban him, he's a thug!!!!!!

.

Have you got footage of both comparable incidents?  Or even evidence of the quotes your claiming?  Or is this just a display of class, bringing up old nonsence?

Pot - Kettle.

Oh and congrats for being the first catch of the day.

Pete, take a look back at the post form yesterday where I say

"Poorly disciplined start to the season 9 yellow cards in the first round (a third of those being picked up by the Scarlets)."

Then an Irish (and Ulster) poster wrote

"I know the one for the Ospreys was harsh but within the letter of the Law"

So I am not too sure what has prompted your outburst, or you to believe I am fishing (seeing as I point out the Scarlets have a third of the leagues yellows this season).

Pete330v2 wrote:congrats for being the first catch of the day.

Got to love a self proclaimed troll.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:congrats for being the first catch of the day.

Got to love a self proclaimed troll.

High praise indeed from the master, thankyou sir

ScarletSpiderman wrote:Pete, take a look back at the post form yesterday where I say

"Poorly disciplined start to the season 9 yellow cards in the first round (a third of those being picked up by the Scarlets)."

Then an Irish (and Ulster) poster wrote

"I know the one for the Ospreys was harsh but within the letter of the Law"

So I am not too sure what has prompted your outburst, or you to believe I am fishing (seeing as I point out the Scarlets have a third of the leagues yellows this season).

Jeees, save the keyboard and look for a sense of humour will you or is this to be another headline ?

There we are then

As it stands so far -:

Benetton Treviso 1 yellow
Cardiff Blues 1 yellow
Ospreys 1 yellow
Leinster Rugby 1 yellow
Glasgow Warriors 2 yellow
Edinburgh Rugby 2 yellow
Zebre Rugby 4 yellow
Scarlets 6 yellow

ScarletSpiderman wrote:As it stands so far -:

Benetton Treviso 1 yellow
Cardiff Blues 1 yellow
Ospreys 1 yellow
Leinster Rugby 1 yellow
Glasgow Warriors 2 yellow
Edinburgh Rugby 2 yellow
Zebre Rugby 4 yellow
Scarlets 6 yellow

Dirty cheating blydi Terks.
Played 2 won 2 though and top of the table. Note to Wilson; cheat more.

Cardiff Dave wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:As it stands so far -:

Benetton Treviso 1 yellow
Cardiff Blues 1 yellow
Ospreys 1 yellow
Leinster Rugby 1 yellow
Glasgow Warriors 2 yellow
Edinburgh Rugby 2 yellow
Zebre Rugby 4 yellow
Scarlets 6 yellow

Dirty cheating blydi Terks.
Played 2 won 2 though and top of the table. Note to Wilson; cheat more.

See?

It's easy when you know how

SecretFly wrote:

Cardiff Dave wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:As it stands so far -:

Benetton Treviso 1 yellow
Cardiff Blues 1 yellow
Ospreys 1 yellow
Leinster Rugby 1 yellow
Glasgow Warriors 2 yellow
Edinburgh Rugby 2 yellow
Zebre Rugby 4 yellow
Scarlets 6 yellow

Dirty cheating blydi Terks.
Played 2 won 2 though and top of the table. Note to Wilson; cheat more.

See?

It's easy when you know how

Like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQlJ8K7XjQc

Yeah. Back would have a gay old time in Pro12.