Leinster vs Edinburgh - Friday 15 April 2016

by Nematode Sun 10 Apr 2016, 8:53 pm

First topic message reminder :

Leinster (1) vs Edinburgh (7)

RDS ARENA

Friday 15 April 2016

Live on: BBC ALBA

Kickoff: 1935

LEINSTER

EDINBURGH
Players not considered due to injury: Mike Coman (calf), Jack Cuthbert (knee), Nathan Fowles (shoulder), Grant Gilchrist (arm), Will Helu (pectoral), Nasi Manu (neck), Fraser McKenzie (neck), Matt Scott (arm), Jade Te Rure (knee).

Edinburgh Rugby v Leinster, Friday 15 April 2016, RDS Dublin, kick-off 7.35pm

15. Blair Kinghorn

14. Damien Hoyland

13. Chris Dean

12. Phil Burleigh

11. Tom Brown

10. Jason Tovey

9. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne

1. Alasdair Dickinson

2. Ross Ford (captain)

3. WP Nel

4. Anton Bresler

5. Ben Toolis

6. Jamie Ritchie

7. John Hardie

8. Cornell Du Preez

Substitutes

16. Stuart McInally

17. Rory Sutherland

18. John Andress

19. Alex Toolis

20. Magnus Bradbury

21. Hamish Watson

22. Sean Kennedy

23. Mike Allan

Leinster (63)

Playing For: Home Playoff

Run in: Ulster (A), Treviso (H)

Edinburgh (52)

Playing for: Top 6 Qualification

Run in: Munster (A), Cardiff (H)

Outlook

It's hard to see anything but a Leinster win here. This is an ideal opportunity for Leinster to get 5 points against an Edinburgh side that only mustered a try bonus point against Zebre in the final minutes. With a tough trip to Ulster the following week, this might be a good opportunity for Leinster to rest/not risk a few key players.

For Edinburgh, I don't think a top 6 place is vital. Of course it would be nice to see the likes of Toulon/Saracens/Wasps/Racing come to Murrayfield although it would not help to develop young players (or the whole team tbh). I'd like to see Edinburgh use the run-in to finish the season on a high and bring back the strong defence that has gone on holiday recently.

by Artful_Dodger Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:05 pm

My two cents on the tackle - It reminds me of Guirado on Dave Kearney in the 6N - which went completely unpunished (no penalty even). I think its at least a yellow card for McFadden.

by **Notch** Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:08 pm

RDW_Scotland wrote:What is very scary is that a few cm higher and that could have been a broken neck. Given the speed everything happened at it is incredibly good luck that he walked up from it.

So whatever people think about the technicalities, surely we can agree it was incredibly reckless (but not deliberate) and it is only down to luck that it wasn't much worse?

Yep I agree, but you know- this is the nature of rugby now. They put GPS on all the players at Ulster, and the G-Force of one (legal) Nick Williams tackle was measured as being higher than a car crash. The long-term effects of being subjected to such impacts on a regular basis are not yet understood. This generation of players are guinea pigs in a lot of ways.

At the highest level, I think it's now possible for careers to be ended and lives to be ruined by even things that are completely within the laws to the game and it makes me doubt my support of rugby. I question whether its sustainable. I suppose if things like MMA and Boxing carry on rugby will too. As it stands, If I had kids think I would encourage them to take up a different sport. I would not encourage them to play rugby despite my deep love of the game.

People probably look at me like I have two heads when I say that the fact he could have broken his neck isn't enough to say the other player was in the wrong or to say that he should be cited, but thats how I feel. To me it seems like hypocrisy to both suggest players have a duty of care and to coach them to impose their physicality on the game. The speed of the game, the size and strength of the players and the nature of competing means you're going to get this kind of incident even if players go out with the best will in the world and conduct themselves as true sportsmen. Of course players have a duty to stay within the laws of the game, but that doesn't guarantee safety and it doesn't rule out accidents.

This is a sport where the rules around tackling and contact where developed for normal-sized amateurs and in the era of super-conditioned giants the professional game is now not safe to play on a fundamental level.

by **RDW** Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:24 pm

Notch wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:What is very scary is that a few cm higher and that could have been a broken neck. Given the speed everything happened at it is incredibly good luck that he walked up from it.

So whatever people think about the technicalities, surely we can agree it was incredibly reckless (but not deliberate) and it is only down to luck that it wasn't much worse?

Yep I agree, but you know- this is the nature of rugby now. They put GPS on all the players at Ulster, and the G-Force of one (legal) Nick Williams tackle was measured as being higher than a car crash. The long-term effects of being subjected to such impacts on a regular basis are not yet understood. This generation of players are guinea pigs in a lot of ways.

At the highest level, I think it's now possible for careers to be ended and lives to be ruined by even things that are completely within the laws to the game and it makes me doubt my support of rugby. I question whether its sustainable. I suppose if things like MMA and Boxing carry on rugby sill too. As it stands, If I had kids think I would encourage them to take up a different sport. I would not encourage them to play rugby despite my deep love of the game.

People probably look at me like I have two heads when I say that the fact he could have broken his neck isn't enough to say the other player was in the wrong or to say that he should be cited, but thats how I feel. To me it seems like hypocrisy to both suggest players have a duty of care and to coach them to impose their physicality on the game. The speed of the game, the size and strength of the players and the nature of competing means you're going to get this kind of incident even if players go out with the best will in the world and conduct themselves as true sportsmen. Of course players have a duty to stay within the laws of the game, but that doesn't guarantee safety and it doesn't rule out accidents.

This is a sport where the rules around tackling and contact where developed for normal-sized amateurs and in the era of super-conditioned giants the professional game is now not safe to play on a fundamental level.

You make a good point eloquently put,but I just can't fathom in what universe that tackle can only be classed as a penalty in the laws of the game. If that really is the case then the laws need re-written. What will parents and kids think seeing that tackle and how it was treated in the eyes of the law?

It is farcical to think that a reckless tackle that was very close to being seriously dangerous is worthy of the same punishment as an accidental offside following a knock on...!

by **Notch** Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:34 pm

But thats just the issue; if thats going to be a red card offence, we can't just penalise that and stop there. It's not an individual one-off thing and its not a case of a player being malicious or even particularly reckless in my opinion. It's clumsiness in a game where even a slightly mistimed hit can be dangerous. If you look you'll actually see McFadden is so wrong footed he gets his head and neck in the complete wrong place and is actually lucky not to get injured himself. Reckless, or a wrong footed player trying to tackle a tricky winger who is running at full pelt? Fine line between the two I suppose.

If we want to cut that out we need to fundamentally change the laws surrounding contact, which form much of the basis for the game of rugby union. Players are coached to go high to stop the offload, to target the ball, and to hit the tackle with as much force as is humanly possible- and when you spend as much time in the gym as these guys do thats a lot of force. So 50/50s like this are inevitable. So whatever happens with McFadden, these tackles will keep happening because they are a product of the rules and of coaching as opposed to being dirty play. So in my view either we say thats the risk you take when you step onto the pitch or you say we need to re-evaluate the entire contact area to improve player safety. Those are the choices. Like the 'taking the man out in the air' debate, it sometimes seems like World Rugby are burying their head in the sand and passing the buck onto the shoulders of individual players instead.

On reflection I would quite like it if they said all tackles need to be around or below the waist, no choke tackle, no shoulder-high tackles- because suddenly the offload becomes incredibly potent, and I'd rather watch a game of creating space than a demolition derby.

by TJ Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:39 pm

Notch wrote:
TJ wrote:No one is claiming bias - but its a clear no arms tackle and high. no question at all.

I'm not sure how you can say there is no bias and still come to that conclusion, to be somewhat direct- I think in the cold light of day after the immediate poist-game emotions have cooled it won't be such a big deal. I've no dog in this fight myself. If they're going to cite him and ban him it'll only weaken them ahead of their visit to Ravenhill so its very much in my interest to be wrong about this and I won't mind if I am!

I can say that because it is clear. He hits him shoulder to chin and no attempt to grasp - so its both high and no arms according to the rules of the game. the arms flair around the player after the hit because of the force of the collision. Its really clear and obvious from that gif on twitter.

by Nematode Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:40 pm

I think what this showed was the lack of quality referees in the Pro12. If you consider what Nigel Owens would have done, he'd have watched the replay a few times and communicated CLEARLY with the TMO to ensure they were on the same wavelength. Mitrea rushed the decision and got it wrong. I would say though, and this complaint isn't specific to this case, TMOs must be more vocal and helpful. There is no point having them if they don't pipe up if their comment is misheard or the wrong decision is made.

How it was not at least a yellow card escapes me (in the 77th minute too...). In a culture where attention is being focused on safety/ player welfare, if making a tackle that is inches from career ending (broken neck) is only a penalty, well, rugby has an awful lot of catching up to do.

Overall some good signs from Edinburgh, thought Hoyland was good in open space and Tollis had a good came (CDP, Brown too) but I think the end of the season can't come soon enough.

The front row, dfn, is exhausted and it shows. Sutherland and McInally played better when they came on. Kennedy has some good aspects to his game but can be slower than a Tortoises' zimmer frame and makes some howlers. I think AS also made a selection mistake with Dean starting. Allen was good but Beard should have started.

by **Notch** Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:40 pm

TJ wrote:Its really clear and obvious from that gif on twitter.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.

by **profitius** Fri 15 Apr 2016, 11:57 pm

cakeordeath wrote:Initial contact looks pretty high to me

The wingers knee was almost touching the ground there. I'd say McFadden was expecting him to remind more upright so it wasn't a red card.

McFadden deserved a yellow though because it was still dangerous. McFadden is a bit of a kamikaze tackler and I've seen him hurt himself badly on numerous occasions.

by cakeordeath Sat 16 Apr 2016, 12:04 am

profitius wrote:
cakeordeath wrote:Initial contact looks pretty high to me

The wingers knee was almost touching the ground there. I'd say McFadden was expecting him to remind more upright so it wasn't a red card.

McFadden deserved a yellow though because it was still dangerous. McFadden is a bit of a kamikaze tackler and I've seen him hurt himself badly on numerous occasions.

The height/postion of the winger makes no difference.

by cakeordeath Sat 16 Apr 2016, 12:09 am

Anyway, I can see how the picture is open to interpretation. What's done is done. Leinster deserved the win and Edinburgh done well to get a LBP.

by Guest Sat 16 Apr 2016, 1:33 am

profitius wrote:
cakeordeath wrote:Initial contact looks pretty high to me

The wingers knee was almost touching the ground there. I'd say McFadden was expecting him to remind more upright so it wasn't a red card.

McFadden deserved a yellow though because it was still dangerous. McFadden is a bit of a kamikaze tackler and I've seen him hurt himself badly on numerous occasions.

That's a good point.

I have changed my opinion. McFadden should still be suspended for the next game though Whistle

.....

by **George Carlin** Sat 16 Apr 2016, 5:44 am

Pot Hale wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
Pot Hale wrote:
George Carlin wrote:
RDW_Scotland wrote:
George Carlin wrote:What was the tackle thingy?

https://twitter.com/Ltm67/status/721070203069718528

Unbelievably this guy is claiming the ref got it right
Ugly. Really ugly. An upward rising shoulder straight into the face when the defender had several seconds to shape on the attacking player. No arms. Why shouldn't that have been a red?

Because that's how you see it. Others see it differently.
Law 10.4(e) and (g) describes it very clearly.

Let's see if the Citing Commissionee agrees with the view that 'intending' to do something is naturally the same as 'attempting' to do it. I intend to lose some weight but am aware that it won't happen unless I actually attempt to do it.

I know the feeling.

by TJ Sat 16 Apr 2016, 7:34 am

bbc wrote:Leinster wing McFadden looked fortunate to avoid at least a yellow card for a high tackle on Edinburgh's Damien Hoyland.

by TheMildlyFranticLlama Sat 16 Apr 2016, 8:05 am

TJ wrote:
bbc wrote:Leinster wing McFadden looked fortunate to avoid at least a yellow card for a high tackle on Edinburgh's Damien Hoyland.

Ah come on now, things have gone pretty badly wrong if we're holding up the BBC as a font of rugby wisdom!

by **RDW** Sat 16 Apr 2016, 9:36 am

I didn't quite realise how badly messed up our backline became last night - we ended up with a winger in the centre, scrum half on the wing and a flanker on the wing for the last 10 minutes.

Yet despite all that we played some fantastic rugby - much better than the dross we saw in the first 40 (and indeed we've seen most of this season).

A similar thing happened Connacht at home - we fell behind on the scoreboard and in the last 20 minutes, with a very young team out, we played some fantastic rugby and managed to claw back a lbp. Sutherland, Watson and Allen turned the game last night

So it is clear that the experienced starting XV is serving up some absolute dross, and the young inexperienced players are playing some positive attacking rugby.

Solomons rates experience above all else and it is holding us back just now. I'm not sure what our gameplan actually is for the opening 40 minutes but it leads to some god awful rugby. I'd love to see him pick a team like the following and give them freedom to just play some rugby:

1 Sutherland
2 McInally
3 Nel
4 Bresler
5 Toolis
6 Bradbury
7 Watson
8 Du Preez

9 Hidalgo-Clyne
10 Tovey
11 Brown
12 Burleigh
13 Allen
14 Hoyland
15 Kinnghorn

Will never happen though!

by jimbopip Sat 16 Apr 2016, 10:20 am

Jeez lads, I watched the first 40 and decided that spending some time with MrsPip would be more riveting. Doh

McFadden should have been red carded, no debate no mitigating factors. He was not in the correct position to make a good tackle so he dropped his shoulder and drove it into the winger. No attempt at a tackle whatsoever. McFadden was unlucky, possibly, that he hit his man higher than he intended, possibly but we don't know. At best it was reckless and dangerous and should have been dealt with more severely.

Top marks to Hoyland for getting straight up and getting on with the game.

by alexgmacdonald Sat 16 Apr 2016, 10:42 am

Just asking the question

Did Hoyland not appeal because maybe he didn't think that there was anything wrong?

by **RDW** Sat 16 Apr 2016, 10:46 am

I would say it was more because he was trying to play on to get the try!

by Don Alfonso Sat 16 Apr 2016, 11:16 am

[quote="funnyExiledScot"

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.[/quote]

As an Irishman, I'd say McFadden should be cited. I don't know what his issue is, but it won't be the first act of dirty play he's committed this season.

But if you're going to be all indignant and righteous about fair play, I'd avoid using Stuart Hogg in your examples.

by eirebilly Sat 16 Apr 2016, 1:05 pm

McFadden's tackle was poor in every aspect and he could have seriously injured himself and Hoyland. I expected a yellow card at least (could easily have been a red) but in no way should it have been a penalty try.

unintentional but reckless and worth a citing.

by funnyExiledScot Sat 16 Apr 2016, 1:17 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:

One can only imagine the reaction had that been Stuart Hogg making a reckless high challenge on Lord Sexton. We'd still be talking about it in 2020.

Still, no grumbles at all over the outcome of the contest.

As an Irishman, I'd say McFadden should be cited. I don't know what his issue is, but it won't be the first act of dirty play he's committed this season.

But if you're going to be all indignant and righteous about fair play, I'd avoid using Stuart Hogg in your examples.

Not defending Hogg at all. I think all foul play should be dealt with properly.

by tigertattie Sat 16 Apr 2016, 1:51 pm

The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

by eirebilly Sat 16 Apr 2016, 1:55 pm

Agree there tigertattie, there needs to be a lot more consistency in the rulings.

Didn't spoil what I thought was a very good match though. How do the Leinster fans feel about Madigan's performance last night? I thought he was pretty poor to be honest.

by TJ Sat 16 Apr 2016, 2:13 pm

tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.
When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

by VinceWLB Sat 16 Apr 2016, 2:19 pm

eirebilly wrote:Agree there tigertattie, there needs to be a lot more consistency in the rulings.

Didn't spoil what I thought was a very good match though. How do the Leinster fans feel about Madigan's performance last night? I thought he was pretty poor to be honest.

I thought Madigan was very poor as shown with his intercept, as an Edinburgh fan i'm thankful it was him playing and not Sexton which allowed Edinburgh to get a LBP.

by TJ Sat 16 Apr 2016, 2:28 pm

Hardie was giving Madigan the treatment tho - really hustling him and got in a couple of good(lateish) hits. that would put anyone off their game. I didn't see madigan complaining tho which was nice to see.

by reallybored Sat 16 Apr 2016, 2:38 pm

That was an utterly dreadful tackle, ref bottled it.

by Nematode Sat 16 Apr 2016, 2:58 pm

I think this game really summed up Edinburgh this season. We really did see the good, the bad and the ugly.

In the first half, we saw Edinburgh's defence of old, in the second, it was non-existent. In phases there was good build up play and good decisions made, in other areas, some absolute howlers.

What is interesting to watch though is the changing of the guard happening in some areas. Sutherland & McInally brought real physicality when they came on and had a bigger impact on the game than Dickinson and Ford, who are in desperate need of a rest. Bradbury too seems to be comfortable at this level and is developing into a terrific player. For next season, I would expect they will all be pushing hard to be regular starters.

Player Ratings
15. Blair Kinghorn - 5: Some poor kicks and didn't offer much threat from the back.

14. Damien Hoyland - 7: The lead up to that incident showed just how exciting a prospect he can be. He needs to back himself far more though.

13. Chris Dean - 5: Little impact, slipped off tackles.

12. Phil Burleigh - 6: Little impact and silly penalty - has there been a change in tactic as he isn't kicking nearly as much?

11. Tom Brown - 7: Made a decent amount of breaks - should be at FB IMO.

10. Jason Tovey - 7: Should have found touch but a good pass to Brown/

9. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne - 7: Looking sharper, still not as good as last season.

1. Alasdair Dickinson - 6: Scrum wasn't as solid as I expected

2. Ross Ford (captain) - 6: Lineouts went ok, good defence of driving maul (for 1-5).

3. WP Nel - 7: Got a few turnovers but looks tired.

4. Anton Bresler - 5: Not very noticeable.

5. Ben Toolis - 7: Back to his usual self, carried and tackled harder.

6. Jamie Ritchie - 6: Few turnovers, silly yellow.

7. John Hardie - 5: I wasn't that impressed with him - a few unnecessary late shots, a complaint of eye gouging and often missed tackles. He might have had one eye on the darts...

8. Cornell Du Preez - 6: Decent few sit downs but could be involved in carrying more frequently.

Substitutes

16. Stuart McInally - 7: Real impact, great physicality, should start.

17. Rory Sutherland - 7: As 16

18. John Andress N/A

19. Alex Toolis N/A

20. Magnus Bradbury - 7: As 16

21. Hamish Watson

22. Sean Kennedy - 4: Shocking intercept pass and very slow service - really infuriating to watch. Is 3rd choice IMO.

23. Mike Allan - 7: Intelligent read of play - should have started in place of Dean.

by The Great Aukster Sat 16 Apr 2016, 3:00 pm

TJ wrote:
tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.
When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

by TJ Sat 16 Apr 2016, 3:07 pm

Which part of the laws would say it was an accident so should not incur sanction? I disagree with you - this was the laws wrongly applied not the laws not being clear - its just a reffing mistake - they happen all the time.

by reallybored Sat 16 Apr 2016, 3:11 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

Bollo©ks.

Anthony Watson taking Goode out in the air was more of an accident than McFadden's challenge.

At best it was incredibly reckless, he was inches away from hitting him square in the face and that would have done serious damage.

by Guest Sat 16 Apr 2016, 3:18 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
TJ wrote:
tigertattie wrote:The thing that has me confused is that the TMO is heard to say it's a no arm tackle. A no arm tackle is a dangerous tackle and as such is a yellow card. The ref then says he's only going to give a penalty and no card. Why doesn't the TMO say "no, I've already said its a no arm tackle. You need to card the player"

communication breakdown? Easily done in the heat of the moment with crowd noise, players shouting etc.
When people say that they wish for consistency that will always be hard to acheive as many of these decisions are a matter of opinion not fact

I do feel a bit sorry for Mitrea tho - I thought he had a good game and is becoming one of the top pro 12 refs - but this would appear to be a glaring blunder

Mitrea had looked at the screen himself (as Owens does) and said to the TMO that McFadden had made an attempt to use his arms. The TMO countered him saying it was a no arms tackle. Mitrea then responded by agreeing that it was a no arms tackle but only because it was badly timed and therefore in his interpretation only a penalty. He effectively directed the TMO to agree that it was only a penalty.

Hoyland immediately got up and played on until he realised he should have gone down, but that was so long after the tackle, he was told to get back up again. OTOH McFadden stayed down garnering some sympathy until the decision was made and then he got up quickly to get on with the game. If the winger had stayed down there is no doubt that McFadden would have seen yellow or red - he didn't so should Mitrea have carded him for what the ref saw as purely an accident? Penalising accidents will never change behaviours because accidents are never intentional in the first place.

As Notch says above the current Laws are in dire need of reform because of professionalism and the increasing image of a brutal dangerous game. The tackle area is the current hot topic and incidents like this serve to turn up the gas. According to the Laws there are fairly equal arguments to suggest that Mitrea got the decision right AND McFadden should have seen red - that's a good indicator to suggest the Laws need urgently looked at.

I think it was only an accident in that McFadden didn't intend to catch him high. At first I thought he did, but prof pointed out that Hoyland dropped his knees just before impact. So that was accidental, but leading with the shoulder wasn't. Everything about the way McFadden set himself up for the tackle suggests he intended to lead with the shoulder.
Mitrea isn't a bad ref, but his claim that McFadden didn't have time to wrap his arm around is just nonsense. It was a no arm tackle, the TMO seen it as a no arm tackle, and should have been penalised accordingly with a card. In my opinion Mitrea did bottle it.
Fair play to Hoyland for getting up right away, and playing on, but agree that if he had have stayed down the ref may have awarded a card. Also agree that McFadden may have been acting for a bit of sympathy.

On another note, and to the Edinburgh folk; as an Ulster supporter it's great to see Allen playing so well for Edinburgh. We did say he would be a good signing for you lot king

by tigertattie Sat 16 Apr 2016, 3:33 pm

I think we need to teach Mitrea about physics. He claims the impact prevented McFadden's arm from coming round. This is utter testicles as momentum would have had his hands flying forward. The fact that they remained behind McFadden on collision can only mean that McFadden himself elected to keep his arms back. Therefore there can be no argument that not using arms was a conscious decision on McFadden's part.

Ref got it wrong.

No arms. Tackle was high.

Citing should follow

by **RDW** Sat 16 Apr 2016, 4:15 pm

Nematode wrote:I think this game really summed up Edinburgh this season. We really did see the good, the bad and the ugly.

In the first half, we saw Edinburgh's defence of old, in the second, it was non-existent. In phases there was good build up play and good decisions made, in other areas, some absolute howlers.

What is interesting to watch though is the changing of the guard happening in some areas. Sutherland & McInally brought real physicality when they came on and had a bigger impact on the game than Dickinson and Ford, who are in desperate need of a rest. Bradbury too seems to be comfortable at this level and is developing into a terrific player. For next season, I would expect they will all be pushing hard to be regular starters.

Player Ratings
15. Blair Kinghorn - 5: Some poor kicks and didn't offer much threat from the back.

14. Damien Hoyland - 7: The lead up to that incident showed just how exciting a prospect he can be. He needs to back himself far more though.

13. Chris Dean - 5: Little impact, slipped off tackles.

12. Phil Burleigh - 6: Little impact and silly penalty - has there been a change in tactic as he isn't kicking nearly as much?

11. Tom Brown - 7: Made a decent amount of breaks - should be at FB IMO.

10. Jason Tovey - 7: Should have found touch but a good pass to Brown/

9. Sam Hidalgo-Clyne - 7: Looking sharper, still not as good as last season.

1. Alasdair Dickinson - 6: Scrum wasn't as solid as I expected

2. Ross Ford (captain) - 6: Lineouts went ok, good defence of driving maul (for 1-5).

3. WP Nel - 7: Got a few turnovers but looks tired.

4. Anton Bresler - 5: Not very noticeable.

5. Ben Toolis - 7: Back to his usual self, carried and tackled harder.

6. Jamie Ritchie - 6: Few turnovers, silly yellow.

7. John Hardie - 5: I wasn't that impressed with him - a few unnecessary late shots, a complaint of eye gouging and often missed tackles. He might have had one eye on the darts...

8. Cornell Du Preez - 6: Decent few sit downs but could be involved in carrying more frequently.

Substitutes

16. Stuart McInally - 7: Real impact, great physicality, should start.

17. Rory Sutherland - 7: As 16

18. John Andress N/A

19. Alex Toolis N/A

20. Magnus Bradbury - 7: As 16

21. Hamish Watson

22. Sean Kennedy - 4: Shocking intercept pass and very slow service - really infuriating to watch. Is 3rd choice IMO.

23. Mike Allan - 7: Intelligent read of play - should have started in place of Dean.

The lineout was a shambles when Ford was on. He really is a bad captain too.

by tigertattie Sat 16 Apr 2016, 6:24 pm

I'd have rated ford a solid 3 at best. He's too clumsy. Just a big lump running about the field.

by **RDW** Sat 16 Apr 2016, 9:13 pm

Great result for Edinburgh with Munster getting nothing tonight - means if we win our last 2 games we'll be Top 6.

Makes it all the more frustrating that we still need to beat Munster away given there's been 3 or 4 games that we really should have won this season - including against Munster!

by Engine#4 Sat 16 Apr 2016, 11:38 pm

I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.

by reallybored Sun 17 Apr 2016, 12:30 am

Engine#4 wrote:I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.

Seriously? Just because there isn't definite intent to harm the player doesn't mean the offence isn't worthy of a red card.

Warburton in the SF was reckless and saw red.

Watson last week was reckless and saw red.

Payne against Sarries was reckless and saw red.

Scott Murray kicking Gough was reckless and saw red.

You Irish sure do some mean mental gymnastics to justify foul play when your boys are involved.

by TJ Sun 17 Apr 2016, 12:41 am

Its not just the irish - we all defend our own and all see our own trangressions in the best possible light

However I have just seen that again - its a stinker of a decision. Well worth a yellow, possible red, good case for a penalty try as he was the last man.

I really hope he is cited and banned for that. shoulder charge to head and last man

by The Great Aukster Sun 17 Apr 2016, 10:38 am

For what it's worth TJ I'd have given a yellow, but a 'no-arms' tackle does not equate to a card as witnessed in the Connacht Munster game where Whitehouse also deemed a penalty to be the sanction.

Those who say that reckless behaviour should be a red card even if it is accidental - there are plenty of occasions where it isn't even penalised such as Mike Brown stamping on Murray's face.

The Laws are not consistent or easy to apply and are in need of reform.

by TJ Sun 17 Apr 2016, 10:58 am

NO arms tackle is dangerous play which the ref has discretion over the level of sanction - pen / yellow / red as the ref sees fit. As this was also high and shoulder to chin it is too serious for no card IMO and as he was the last man its also worthy of a yellow possible penalty try. Red card would not have been out of order if maybe harsh but given the three aspects, no arms, high and last man he was very lucky to get away with no card at all

These sorts of incidents can only be at the refs discretion or we get absurdities in the other direction but I am pretty sure that Mitrea on reflection will think he got it wrong.

I hope so because Mitrea is developing into a good ref and like us all he will learn from his mistakes ( I hope)

No citing yet tho that I can see?

should Hoyland have "done a Sexton" and had a good roll around on the ground?
I do have sympathy for Sexton as he is always a target for late and cheap shots so I do understand if not condone why he makes a meal of things - he doesn't fake foul play on him but he does make sure the ref sees it.

by tigertattie Sun 17 Apr 2016, 3:39 pm

Game can be bizarre at times. Watching the Cardiff vs Newport game and the Newport 9 got carded for trying to catch an interception. Just bizzare

by **RDW** Sun 17 Apr 2016, 3:45 pm

tigertattie wrote:Game can be bizarre at times. Watching the Cardiff vs Newport game and the Newport 9 got carded for trying to catch an interception. Just bizzare

As I said on Friday - McFadden almost decapitating Hoyland received the same punishment as someone accidentally touching the ball after a knock on!

As you say -just bizzare.

by Engine#4 Sun 17 Apr 2016, 6:16 pm

reallybored wrote:
Engine#4 wrote:I'm a little surprised McFadden hit him at all considering where he was looking. I would have had no complaints whatsoever with a yellow. It was stupid and reckless but rightly or wrongly, reckless does not equal red. I don't know what angle tigertattie is watching but any I saw showed McFadden's arms up, not 'behind' him.
Seriously? Just because there isn't definite intent to harm the player doesn't mean the offence isn't worthy of a red card.

Warburton in the SF was reckless and saw red.

Watson last week was reckless and saw red.

Payne against Sarries was reckless and saw red.

Scott Murray kicking Gough was reckless and saw red.

You Irish sure do some mean mental gymnastics to justify foul play when your boys are involved.

Payne got a red against Sarries yet every subsequent similar incident that I have seen since has been deemed not a red card. The ref was backed by his employers in that incident and then they quietly rowed back.

Governing rugby bodies have made it clear that being reckless does not necessarily equal a red card. Mike Brown was not penalised for reckless use of the boot in the 6 nations. POC was not cited for kicking Dave Kearney in the head. Guirado got nothing for his tackle on Kearney. Like it or not there is nothing definitive to say that McFadden should have seen red. As for 'penalty try'...yes, Hoyland would have scored if McFadden had not attempted to tackle him. Was McFadden supposed to stand to one side and wave him by?

No need for your last sentence really.

by **RDW** Sun 17 Apr 2016, 6:28 pm

Is it only a penalty try if it is an illegal tackle in the act of scoring - I.e. Liam Williams against SA?

by TJ Sun 17 Apr 2016, 6:39 pm

No RDW - Its a penalty try if in the opinion of the ref the player who committed the foul was not on the pitch a try would be scored. the player guilty of foul play has to be taken out of the equation so only if other defenders were in a position to stop Hoyland is it not a case for a penalty try. Having said that this is not cast iron in this case by any means. still had 20 m to go to the line, a number of defenders chasing one at least of which might have been able to stop him. It would take a bold ref to give a penalty try.

by **BigGee** Sun 17 Apr 2016, 6:44 pm

I have to say I did not think penalty try when I saw it.

I did think really dangerous tackle that deserved a card though!

by Engine#4 Sun 17 Apr 2016, 7:07 pm

TJ wrote:No RDW - Its a penalty try if in the opinion of the ref the player who committed the foul was not on the pitch. the player guilty of foul play has to be taken out of the equation so only if other defenders were in a position to stop Hoyland is it not a case for a penalty try. Having said that this is not cast iron in this case by any means. still had 20 m to go to the line, a number of defenders chasing one at least of which might have been able to stop him. It would take a bold ref to give a penalty try.

I thought it was 'in the act of scoring'. The reason being a Leinster v Munster game where Tomas O'Leary took Cian Healy high 5metres out and caused him to knock on. The ref referred it to the TMO and the verdict was yellow card for the high tackle but that it was too far out to consider a penalty try.

Open to correction on this though.

by TJ Sun 17 Apr 2016, 8:01 pm

I am pretty sure it " would a try have been scored if the player committing the foul was not there" - and the ref has to be sure it would. Rarely given from a distance out tho

by TJ Sun 17 Apr 2016, 8:04 pm

"A penalty try must be awarded if the offence prevents a try that would probably otherwise have been scored. A player who prevents a try being scored through foul play must either be cautioned and temporarily suspended or sent off"

"Advantage may be played for acts of foul play, but if the offence prevents a probable try, a penalty try must be awarded."

From the IRB site http://laws.worldrugby.org/index.php?search=penalty+try&x=13&y=21

by Sponsored content

The outcome