Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

by **George Carlin** Tue Sep 06, 2016 8:18 am

First topic message reminder :

Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September - Page 3 Jessie10

Edinburgh v Scarlets
Friday 9 September 2016
KO: 19:35
BT Murrayfield

Live on BBC Alba

Referee: Andrew Brace (IRFU, 13th competition game)
Assistant Referees: Sean Gallagher (IRFU), Graeme Ormiston (SRU)
Citing Commissioner: Iain Goodall (SRU)
TMO: Olly Hodges (IRFU)

Edinburgh Rugby
Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September - Page 3 Lamb10

Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September - Page 3 Lamb10

Glenn Bryce, Michael Allen, Sasa Tofilau, Phil Burleigh, Tom Brown, Duncan Weir, Nathan Fowles, Rory Sutherland, Ross Ford, WP Nel, Ben Toolis, Grant Gilchrist (capt), Jamie Ritchie, John Hardie, Magnus Bradbury.

Replacements: Stuart McInally, Allan Dell, Kevin Bryce, Fraser McKenzie, Hamish Watson, Sam Hidalgo-Clyne, Blair Kinghorn, Solomoni Rasolea

Scarlets
Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September - Page 3 Wolf10

Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September - Page 3 Wolf10

Liam Williams, Hadleigh Parkes, Jonathan Davies, Scott Williams, Steff Evans, Rhys Patchell, Aled Davies; Wyn Jones, Ken Owens (capt), Werner Kruger, Jake Ball, David Bulbring, Aaron Shingler, James Davies, John Barclay.

Replacements: Ryan Elias, Luke Garrett, Peter Edwards, Tadhg Beirne, Josh Macleod, Gareth Davies, Dan Jones, Aled Thomas.

by Seagultaf Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:38 am

miaow wrote:
TJ wrote:if its the last defender who makes the illegal tackle and you remove him from the game then its certain a try would have been scored. In this case the player making the foul was not the last defender. So no penalty try. Thats the way I understand it works

The issue is the Edinburgh flanker only became the last man once Steff Evans had been held up by the offending player, illegally. You remove him from the field of play so he's not able to slow down the attacking player, and you go on the basis of the effect of the offending player- i.e. the slowing down of the attacker, enabling support to come into play- not being made. So, you take the position of the covering Edinburgh defender from the moment the offending Edinburgh player touches Evans (perhaps even before), not- as I think the TMO was judging it on- after several seconds of Evans being driven to the touchline by his neck. The whole decision came down to that last image, which saw Evans in the air being driven to touch, the Edinburgh flanker coming round the back of the 'tackle' to help, and on that basis it appeared there was cover. Which is not the way the law should be applied.

If the offending player is taken out of the game then the try would have been scored as by the time the flanker came into play the ball would have been touched down. Ironically the ref knew this but weakly allowed himself to be over ruled by the TMO. Still would have made no difference, until the Scarlets get their forwards to generate some front foot ball for their much vaunted backs they will continue to be stuffed by all comers.

by TJ Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:54 am

Its one of those that leaves one set of fans feeling hard done by no matter which way it goes. Yes the flanker would probably have been too late - but is that good enough for a penalty try? I don't think so. without the flanker coming in then its a pen try for sure but his actions leave enough doubt that for me it was the correct decision. The ref was not overruled. the TMO ( neutral) drew his attention to the flanker coming in to complete the tackle and left the Ref to make the decision - as is right.

there was also a clear obstruction in the run up to this moment - but they didn't look for that.

always these 50/50 calls will leave one set of fans feeling hard done by. One of the Edinburgh backs got a worse high tackle earlier in the game that was missed and a Scarlets player deliberately handled the ball on the ground behind a ruck that was also missed. should have been yellow.

I bet you spotted some infringements by Edinburgh players that were missed as well

It all evens out over a season.

by **Notch** Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:09 am

BigGee wrote:
Notch wrote:Between Michael Allen and Tommy Seymour, you Scots are doing very well out of the Ulster Academy

Oh and Rory Scholes- a whole back three of Ulster Academy graduates starting for the Scottish teams nowadays.

Well if you don't use them, you lose them!

Fair play to the three of them for backing themselves to succeed elsewhere. I like that kind of confidence.

Me too- it says a lot for those guys that they would rather play first team elsewhere rather than wait for Tommy Bowe and Andrew Trimble to retire. Unfortunately we lost Seymour to Scotland on residency, but I would back Scholes to come back and possibly even play for Ireland in two years when Trimble and Bowe are beginning to play for Ireland- despite the fact our current Academy wingers are both in really good form. Michael Allen is like Ian Whitten at Exeter; a cracking squad player for Ulster who was behind current Ireland internationals in his chosen position. He'll do well for Edinburgh.

by ScarletSpiderman Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:39 am

TJ, your right Wyn Jones certainly should've had a pen given against him. That was a shocking miss by the ref.

All in all the officials were poor (not in favour of anyone, just poor), but that didn't alter the result. Unfortunately it dies create talking points (Wyn Jones playing on ground, Patchell high tackle??, No8 spear, TMO decisions).

by mikey_dragon Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:40 am

I did notice the BBC article stated that the officials were as poor as the weather, or something along those lines. It's not often they'd write that so he must have been pretty bad!

by **RDW** Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:45 am

The weather didn't help but either side barely got a few phases with ball in hand before giving away a breakdown penalty - it didn't exactly encourage an open game as both teams just decided it was less risky to kick.

The Wyn Jones one was incredible - it was right in front of the ref and he somehow missed it! We had built up a lot of momentum in the 22 so probably a clear yellow too.

by ScarletSpiderman Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:11 am

RDW, it's almost as if the ref thought 'nobody would be stupid enough to do that. It must have been a knock on instead'.

by **RDW** Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:15 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:RDW, it's almost as if the ref thought 'nobody would be stupid enough to do that. It must have been a knock on instead'.

He is a front rower so surely stupid play is a given!

by international198 Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:39 pm

We've lost to Edinburgh. We have no chance of finishing in the top 4 now, IMO. The best we can hope for now is a 6th place finish.

If Edinburgh can beat us 20-9, I wouldn't like to think what Saracens and Toulon are going to do to us in Europe this season. They're going to absolutely thump us, IMO.

However, Scarlets feeder teams in the Welsh Premiership are doing well. Victories for RGC1404, Llandovery RFC and Carmarthen Quins today.

Another positive is Rhys Priestland will now be returning for definite, IMO. It's the only way he can play for Wales again, by coming back to the Scarlets.

by Guest Sat Sep 10, 2016 3:38 pm

TJ wrote:Its one of those that leaves one set of fans feeling hard done by no matter which way it goes. Yes the flanker would probably have been too late - but is that good enough for a penalty try?

Yes.

TJ wrote:I don't think so.

Ah well, you don't know the laws of the game well enough then.

by TJ Sat Sep 10, 2016 4:03 pm

Really? Well the ref and TMP agreed with me and actually I did read the laws during this debate.

Its been explained to you why it was not a penalty try.

by Guest Sat Sep 10, 2016 5:34 pm

TJ wrote:Really? Well the ref and TMP agreed with me and actually I did read the laws during this debate.

Its been explained to you why it was not a penalty try.

10/10 for condescension. 0/10 for self awareness.

I'll give you one more chance. When the ref awards a penalty try for a collapsed maul, why does he do so? Does he do it because it is certain a try will be scored? No. That can never be the case. Regardless of the momentum of the maul, it could be held up over the line, or the ball fumbled, or the opposition could push the maul away from the line. He awards it because it is clear foul play which prevents a PROBABLE try. The ruling of a panalty try effectively REMOVES these players involved in the collapsing of the maul from the pitch.

Come with me for a moment, into the land of imagination...the ref, either in real time or on the screen, has to go back to a point in time before the foul has been commited, and imagine said opposition players as invisible, as if they've disappeared. They are no longer there. They're not pulling down the maul, they're not even on the pitch. They are Schroedinger's rugby player, in a way. As such, with said players REMOVED from the pitch, and with the (still upright) maul rumbling toward the tryline unopposed (or perhaps with one or two players who may be able to get to the now unopposed maul before it crosses the line), in all likelihood, this maul will push on and score, even if said covering players contest it, as said covering players are unlikely to amount to enough force to stop a maul of 4, 5, 6 players. As the referee sees a scenario whereby a TRY WOULD PROBABLY BE SCORED BUT FOR A PENALTY OCCURRING, the penalty try is given.

Now, conveniently, you have literally used that exact phrase throughout this thread to describe what happened in the Scarlets Edinburgh game. Unfortunately, you don't know the laws, so whereas you think your analysis is helping your point, it is neatly proving the opposite. Let me quickly quote law.worldrugby.org:

World Rugby wrote: Penalty Try.
If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent, a penalty try is awarded between the goal posts.

Do you see that all important word in there?

Now, just quickly before you move the goalposts and suggest the blindside flanker would probably have made the tackle (which up until now, you have been arguing against...), and before you evoke the referee's decision as gospel, let's quickly go back to the issue at hand.
1. The Edinburgh flanker only appeared to be a likely tackler once Steff Evans had been held up by the neck for several seconds by the offender. At the precise moment the high tackle was made (and with said player disappearing) Steff Evans has a clear view and about a two metre run in to the touchline.
2. The referee initially interpreted what happened correctly. Unfortunately, the TMO demonstrated reluctance from the start to award such a try. Firstly, by trying to argue against the severity of the high tackle (so be it, but why say "no it wasn't a high tackle, it hit the chest and went up", the very definition of a kind of high tackle?), but then also by directly contradicting the referee's interpretation, offering him another angle, and suggesting that- in fact- on the basis of that final shot that a penalty try (the decision the referee was about to deliver) was not the correct one.

This is why Scarlets fans, and rugby fans in general, are and should be annoyed. They are not very annoyed, because it didn't have any bearing on the result, other than denying the team a losing bonus point. However, the fact the referee made an incorrect decision based on bad- and perhaps even improper- input from the TMO does not in any way justify your misunderstanding of the laws of rugby.

Right, last attempt from me. Do you like football? Soccer? Do you know the rule about the last man i.e. if a player is in on goal, and they are running at the goalposts and there is only a goalkeeper in their way, and they are fouled, it is an automatic red card? Do you know that rule? If you don't, let's go back to the realm of imagination one final time.

Imagine Gareth Bale running at a goalkeeper and the goal. No outfield defender is in front of him, but there are several charging just behind him. If one were to bring him down, that player would be sent off (red card) for denying a clear goalscoring opportunity. This is about as analagous as it gets to rugby's probable try. Now, if there was a player between Gareth Bale and the goalkeeper/goal, and the same player running behind Bale brought him down, it would not be a red card. Why? Because the last defender's presence means that it cannot be defined as a clear goalscoring opportunity. Even if that defender between the goalkeeper and Bale is Big Fat Jon, it doesn't matter. The defender's presence dictates the upholding of the rules: Bale was not brought down by the so called 'last man'. Now, were Bale to be running at Big Fat Jon, who stands between him and the goalkeeper/goal, and Big Fat Jon hacks him down (as let's be fair, Jon's done well just to get back to cover in the first place), then Big Fat Jon- as the last man- gets a red card, and Big Fat Jon goes for an early bath. This is literally the same case in rugby: replace goalkeeper and goal with tryline, replace red card and free kick with penalty try and possible card sanction, and that is rugby.

Please don't make me explain this to you again. We're into the realm of explaining sporting rules with salt and pepper shakers and sachets in the pub, and you're the one person out of the group who's absolutely hammered and is not grasping it after the tenth explanation, and everyone's laughing at you. Don't be that person. Stop the laughter.

by TJ Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:09 pm

Trouble is you still don't understand why it was correctly not given. Its been explained to you but you won't open your one eye.

still none so................................

by Guest Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:11 pm

Haha.

Fair play.

At least put some effort in though.

Try to make it funny, at the very least.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z0Pm7tccvc

by TJ Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:20 pm

I do accept the words "probable" and "certain" I used incorrectly. However its been explained to you but you don't want to hear.

correct decision as everyone else including the officials understand.

Nice paranoid twaddle about the TMO not wanting to give it. What the TMO actually did was as he should do tell the ref what he saw

You made a series of ludicrous and over the top assertions about the incident that no one with both eyes open would agree was right then use these to try to convince everyone you were hard done by. You wern't. Correct decision made by the officials after following the correct proceedures.

NO one else thinks it is a wrong decision - just one of those borderline ones than can go anywhere.

Now just accept you are wrong and have been shown to be wrong.

Bye. Its useless to argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and try to beat you with their experience

by Hazel Sapling Sat Sep 10, 2016 6:58 pm

Just going to ignore the try or not and say Scarlets got away with murder (because of the ref) that cost Edinburgh 3 points at a key stage of last season. If Scarlets feel hard done by not getting a try that may have got them a losing bonus point....they are part of the way there

by Guest Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:12 pm

TJ wrote:I do accept the words "probable" and "certain" I used incorrectly.

It's quite clear that you're not too adept with words. I'm sure that all your posts use the correct words, just not necessaily in the right order. That's why nothing makes sense.

TJ wrote:However its been explained to you but you don't want to hear.

If you're genuinely not WUMming, if you're genuinely clueless about the law and are seriously adamant you're correct, come up with more than the fictional masses who are agreeing with you. Evidence, TJ. Come on. Any, even a shred. That'll be the first step up the ladder of explanation.

by TJ Sat Sep 10, 2016 7:27 pm

TJ wrote:

Bye. Its useless to argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and try to beat you with their experience

by EWT Spoons Sun Sep 11, 2016 12:39 pm

Notch wrote:
BigGee wrote:
Notch wrote:Between Michael Allen and Tommy Seymour, you Scots are doing very well out of the Ulster Academy

Oh and Rory Scholes- a whole back three of Ulster Academy graduates starting for the Scottish teams nowadays.

Well if you don't use them, you lose them!

Fair play to the three of them for backing themselves to succeed elsewhere. I like that kind of confidence.

Me too- it says a lot for those guys that they would rather play first team elsewhere rather than wait for Tommy Bowe and Andrew Trimble to retire. Unfortunately we lost Seymour to Scotland on residency, but I would back Scholes to come back and possibly even play for Ireland in two years when Trimble and Bowe are beginning to play for Ireland- despite the fact our current Academy wingers are both in really good form. Michael Allen is like Ian Whitten at Exeter; a cracking squad player for Ulster who was behind current Ireland internationals in his chosen position. He'll do well for Edinburgh.

Just a minor point but he qualified to play for us through his Scottish mum, he qualified for Ireland through residency. As I say minor point.

by funnyExiledScot Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:48 am

EWT Spoons wrote:
Notch wrote:
BigGee wrote:
Notch wrote:Between Michael Allen and Tommy Seymour, you Scots are doing very well out of the Ulster Academy

Oh and Rory Scholes- a whole back three of Ulster Academy graduates starting for the Scottish teams nowadays.

Well if you don't use them, you lose them!

Fair play to the three of them for backing themselves to succeed elsewhere. I like that kind of confidence.

Me too- it says a lot for those guys that they would rather play first team elsewhere rather than wait for Tommy Bowe and Andrew Trimble to retire. Unfortunately we lost Seymour to Scotland on residency, but I would back Scholes to come back and possibly even play for Ireland in two years when Trimble and Bowe are beginning to play for Ireland- despite the fact our current Academy wingers are both in really good form. Michael Allen is like Ian Whitten at Exeter; a cracking squad player for Ulster who was behind current Ireland internationals in his chosen position. He'll do well for Edinburgh.

Just a minor point but he qualified to play for us through his Scottish mum, he qualified for Ireland through residency. As I say minor point.

Nicely done!

Blown away by this result. Scarlets must be awful!

by ScarletSpiderman Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:35 am

funnyExiledScot wrote:Blown away by this result. Scarlets must be awful!

I wouldn't say the Scarlets are awful, I think that is giving them far too much credit. I think abysmal is probably too polite a description too. Thank the lord there is no relegation in the Pro12

by **RDW** Mon Sep 12, 2016 6:18 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
funnyExiledScot wrote:Blown away by this result. Scarlets must be awful!

I wouldn't say the Scarlets are awful, I think that is giving them far too much credit. I think abysmal is probably too polite a description too. Thank the lord there is no relegation in the Pro12

With the caliber of players in the squad you should come good in the end, but your start to the season certainly hasn't helped your ambitions!

by EST Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:26 am

Well the best thing you can say is that Edinburgh won, which was crucial, but that match was a comedy of errors from both teams.

From a Scottish perspective, I saw little to suggest that Edinburgh have what it takes to break into the top 6. The league as a whole has improved, but Edinburgh seem to be playing the same, boring rugby that has been the hallmark of the Solomons regime - can he really not see that the game has moved on?

by **RDW** Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:28 am

EST wrote:Well the best thing you can say is that Edinburgh won, which was crucial, but that match was a comedy of errors from both teams.

From a Scottish perspective, I saw little to suggest that Edinburgh have what it takes to break into the top 6. The league as a whole has improved, but Edinburgh seem to be playing the same, boring rugby that has been the hallmark of the Solomons regime - can he really not see that the game has moved on?

The worrying thing is that all the chat from the players and coaches is that they are wanting to play a more expansive gameplan this year - I certainly hope the last 2 games aren't what they think that involves!

To be fair the conditions have been very bad for each game and there are a number of new players in there. I think we'll have a better picture of our prospects come the first round of European fixtures - we should be in our stride by then.

Anyone fancy doing a Leinster match thread??

by funnyExiledScot Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:37 am

https://www.606v2.com/t63992-edinburgh-vs-leinster-friday-16th-september-2016#3430689

I spent ages on this.

by Guest Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:46 am

TJ wrote:

Bye. Its useless to argue with an idiot - they drag you down to their level and try to beat you with their experience

God forbid someone evokes the actual laws of the game of rugby, rather than the fantasy rules you have in your head. Rolling Eyes

by Sponsored content

Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September

Re: Edinburgh v Scarlets, 9 September