Ulster 2016/2017

First topic message reminder :

Well the danger is always that life happens and he might refocus his entire life after two years in France.... were he to go.

Seagultaf wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:It isn't a punch. How anyone can see it as one is beyond me. Simple as that.

Closed hand jab to the face not a haymaker but they call that a punch where I come from! A cheap shot at a player pinned to the the ground, stupid play! He will be sweating for the next few days when he waits to see if he is cited and banned.

Sorry but it wasnt a cheap shot, I think what Pete meat was that he was trying to rip the ball and wasnt trying to punch him it will still probably be a citing and few weeks out

Watched it again a number of times and in real time it's seen for what it is. Hendo tries to rip the balls which is why his arm is drawn back. He then goes to grab the ball again and his hand only brushes the top of the head. No punch. No cheap shot. For a punch to be a punch there has to be both force and impact. There is neither in this instance. I can't see it being cited unless they are looking at hand contact about the face. Punching? No.
P.S. If that's a punch where you're from I can only imagine you're from Pixi glade

Pete, I have to say, you are very biased towards your own team, why would he be trying to rip the ball when he was nowhere near it ? There is nothing wrong with showing support for your team and players, but I think you are wrong on this one.

How do you think Trimble will get off for his trailing fore arm ?

LD you're just being silly now, seems some just like throwing around the word bias without checking out what they are actually saying

The ball was right beside the head, Henderson couldnt see anything and was working blind, so you are now claiming it was deliberate? You ask why would he be trying to rip the ball, well why would he punch him in the face?

marty2086 wrote:LD you're just being silly now, seems some just like throwing around the word bias without checking out what they are actually saying

The ball was right beside the head, Henderson couldnt see anything and was working blind, so you are now claiming it was deliberate? You ask why would he be trying to rip the ball, well why would he punch him in the face?

marty, wind your neck in, where does it say the word deliberate in my post ? I think it was reckless, I think it was stupid, I think it was dangerous, all these things should be punished, if it was deliberate, only Henderson can say so. Either way, the move was over, what was did he think he was going to achieve ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD you're just being silly now, seems some just like throwing around the word bias without checking out what they are actually saying

The ball was right beside the head, Henderson couldnt see anything and was working blind, so you are now claiming it was deliberate? You ask why would he be trying to rip the ball, well why would he punch him in the face?

marty, wind your neck in, where does it say the word deliberate in my post ? I think it was reckless, I think it was stupid, I think it was dangerous, all these things should be punished, if it was deliberate, only Henderson can say so. Either way, the move was over, what was did he think he was going to achieve ?

So he accidentially threw a punch is what you are saying?

Also the move wasnt over and the ball could still be placed for a try and the whistle wasnt blown until a good bit after it

marty2086 wrote:So he accidentially threw a punch is what you are saying?

No, I am saying he accidentally clumped the player on the side of the head because he was reckless, the same as when you recklessly tackle someone or the same as Trimble's reckless trailing arm, they are all punishable incidents, whether it was on purpose or not.

Have to agree with LD on this, it looked a punch in slow mo. Deliberate or not, it was reckless.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So he accidentially threw a punch is what you are saying?

No, I am saying he  accidentally clumped the player on the side of the head because he was reckless, the same as when you recklessly tackle someone or the same as Trimble's reckless trailing arm, they are all punishable incidents, whether it was on purpose or not.

No you challenged Petes claim he was trying to rip the ball and called him biased for saying it and said that isn't what happened, maybe you should take your own advice and wind your neck in

So apparently his arm was just swinging around, no attempt to punch or rip the ball just an arm he apparently didnt know what to do with but just left swinging around

Recklessly

Thats the LD assesment

eirebilly wrote:Have to agree with LD on this, it looked a punch in slow mo. Deliberate or not, it was reckless.

Thats the problem we've only seen it in slow mo, players regularly get whacked up the face when defenders try to rip the ball it happened with Best against Clermont and there was a face rake involved too there. You cant ell the force involved in it all that will probably be the key

I said it was reckless myself but watching it again, its one of those where theres a pile of bodies and the player cant see what hes going for it doesnt look good but it is pretty innocuous I think

why is everything an argument with you marty ?

pete is saying it was not a punch.

I will concede that it was not a cheap shot, well lets just say I would rather beleive it was not a cheap shot.

Henderson was trying to punch the ball, or dislodge the ball. He missed and struck the players head. No matter what spin you put on it, that is what happened, we have all seen it. I am referring to this:-

Pete330v2 wrote:
Watched it again a number of times and in real time it's seen for what it is. Hendo tries to rip the balls which is why his arm is drawn back. He then goes to grab the ball again and his hand only brushes the top of the head. No punch. No cheap shot. For a punch to be a punch there has to be both force and impact. There is neither in this instance. I can't see it being cited unless they are looking at hand contact about the face. Punching? No.

The bits in bold are wrong.

Not an argument, just seems you are jumping all over the place trying to say an Ulster player should be banned

First it was a punch, then it wasn't now it was but it was the ball he was trying to punch which you claimed earlier was nowhere nearby along with the move being over

Why does it have to be a punch? Why cant it be a hand making contact with the face?

Marty, I'm off to the club to watch the Blues game with my old man and brother now, I am not saying an Ulster player should be banned, more nonsense from you again, stop saying lies. That's the second Tom Pepper you have said in as many hours, if you think it's nothing, fine that's your opinion, I think otherwise.

Enjoy the rest of your Saturday night.

LD opinions are like A-holes etc.
Watch the frickin thing in real time with both eyes open. He clearly attempts to rip the ball. It clearly isn't a punch. If it had been I'd call Hendo a cupid stunt for doing it.

Jaysus Pete,

I see it as a punch... Not a deliberate act (maybe trying to dislodge the ball) but his fist is clenched and he makes contact to the head.

We'll see what the citing panel says eh?

Trust me pete, I am not after wanting Henderson banned.

I hope that if he is cited then the findings prove his innocence. As I said, does not appear intentional but reckless.

eirebilly wrote:Trust me pete, I am not after wanting Henderson banned.

I hope that if he is cited then the findings prove his innocence. As I said, does not appear intentional but reckless.

I know you're not Billy. It's just that I've watched it over and over and in slo-mo it's possibly a punch. In real time which shows it best it's absolutely not a punch. If he's cited it could be for the hand touching the facial area but IMO even that would be unfair.

Like I said previously, and LD has said likewise - th accidental/reckless nature is neither here nor there.

I would assume the officials will take the same approach as they are doing with most instances - ignoring the idea of intent, and penalising the realities.

Hendo's fist collides with the players head. That is all they will look at when citing. Same as yellow cards for arms slipping up to the neck even when not intended (and probably not even dangerous) - it still was contact with the neck. Case closed.

At least with arms slipping up in tackles, its much easier to assume that the action was accidental. More so at least than saying a clinched fist to side of the head is accidental.

Pete, you do yourself no favours with your argument. Your statement 'his hand only brushes the top of the head' is ridiculous. Fair enough, if you don't think it had force, say THAT, don't try to play it down so extreme.

I was at the game. Thought the high-tackles were 'technically' right, but to be honest would've sent Trimble not the No8. Also didn't notice the 'pinch' until the fuss on here and watching the highlights (even though the big screen shown the footage numerous times). Personally I think it is nowhere near as bad as it has been made out, but it is a closed hand connecting with a face/head so I can't see any defence available for it, as you rip a ball with an open hand not a closed one.

World Rugby were right to bring in the more severe directives to referees half way through the season because too many players are suffering HIA and concussions. They frankly had to do something quickly.
Last season the low chop tackle was gaining followers until refs started penalising it. This season the tackle area is targetting the head and the straw that broke the camel's back was the disgraceful display by the All Blacks in Dublin. What has been disappointing this weekend though is that the referees aren't taking the directive on board except in the Scarlets/Ulster game. The directive had a major influence on the game last night yet every other game seems to have escaped with the new directive being largely ignored. This different treatment is unfair to the Scarlets and Ulster especially the yellow card to Jake Ball. Mitrea was behaving as directed but Scarlets were hampered for 10 minutes from pulling away on the scoreboard to potentially deny Ulster a LBP. That LBP affects the League standings and that's why consistency is important across the board.

So are World Rugby going to chastise all those referees who ignored their directive this weekend, or just accept they are being marginalised as irrelevant administrators?

http://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/news/12321/10721120/watch-referee-john-lacey-explains-new-rugby-tackle-laws

I don't think either Quinnell or Quinlin have a clue what they're talking about.  Indeed Quinlin flipflops on the Ball tackle from never being to a penalty to being a penalty in the space of 5 seconds.  

To me the Ball incident is never a penalty in a million years.  Also the comparisons to the Autumn Tests are ridiculous.  If it was refereed consistently Franks was yellow, and the other two were red. As was only 2 were yellow. That's an order of magnitude of difference from 2 yellows vs 1 yellow and 2 reds.

What you're going to see now is players running at speed from 5 metres out and diving for the line leading with their heads, because they know there's no way the defending team can attempt to engage in a tackle. It'll be too risky with a yellow and penalty try resulting.

What will that mean? Probably more kicking for the corners, and more soft scores like that what we've seen. Less heroic on the line defense.

Probably less choke tackles as well.

What I don't understand though, is in the New Zealand examples above, they're attempting to increase the sanction for what are already existing offenses. The Reidy and Ball examples were never an offense under the old rules.

The Great Aukster wrote:World Rugby were right to bring in the more severe directives to referees half way through the season because too many players are suffering HIA and concussions. They frankly had to do something quickly.
Last season the low chop tackle was gaining followers until refs started penalising it. This season the tackle area is targetting the head and the straw that broke the camel's back was the disgraceful display by the All Blacks in Dublin. What has been disappointing this weekend though is that the referees aren't taking the directive on board except in the Scarlets/Ulster game. The directive had a major influence on the game last night yet every other game seems to have escaped with the new directive being largely ignored. This different treatment is unfair to the Scarlets and Ulster especially the yellow card to Jake Ball. Mitrea was behaving as directed but Scarlets were hampered for 10 minutes from pulling away on the scoreboard to potentially deny Ulster a LBP. That LBP affects the League standings and that's why consistency is important across the board.

So are World Rugby going to chastise all those referees who ignored their directive this weekend, or just accept they are being marginalised as irrelevant administrators?

That was the finest display of defense the Rugby World has seen from a team at the International level for a couple of years, the only thing disgraceful for the Irish, was that they lost.

Well we won't see it again in the same respect anyway as NZ would be down a couple of men at least of reffed correctly under the current laws.

Reports in France that James Hart is on his way to Munster

marty2086 wrote:Reports in France that James Hart is on his way to Munster

To replace Connor Murray who wants to build a pertnership with the future Ireland 10 at Ulster???

Seriously though, I hope UR aren't playing silly buggers. If Hart was on the market, there is absolutely no reason we could not have outbid Munster with money we are currently paying Pienaar.

I mean, yea I get it, some players don't want to come North. But surely everybody has a price, and if ever there was a position where UR should pay over the odds, it's at number 9.

Was it not on here or maybe t'other forum that someone has assured us that Ulster were sorted at 9 for next year with an IQ player? Maybe they meant Paul Marshall
I do hope the Ulster backroom team get their collective finger out and play a bit of hardball for a change.

Im hoping its the French media putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5 and hes really coming to Ulster because it leads you to ask if Nucifora is allowing Hart to sign for Munster and Ulster aren't getting a decent 9 what is he trying to do?

Also how can Munster afford him? I doubt he would be cheap coming from Racing

Would Hart really want to be second choice when he can be first choice? Though recent performances may scare him off

clivemcl wrote:Seriously though, I hope UR aren't playing silly buggers. If Hart was on the market, there is absolutely no reason we could not have outbid Munster with money we are currently paying Pienaar.

I mean, yea I get it, some players don't want to come North. But surely everybody has a price, and if ever there was a position where UR should pay over the odds, it's at number 9.

No established player has moved north in the professional era that I can recall unless they were Ulstermen playing for Connacht.

On Hart heard he is a bit too full of himself and not as good as some here, who probably never seem him, think.

Pete330v2 wrote:Was it not on here or maybe t'other forum that someone has assured us that Ulster were sorted at 9 for next year with an IQ player? Maybe they meant Paul Marshall
I do hope the Ulster backroom team get their collective finger out and play a bit of hardball for a change.

IQ 9's definitely coming in - they question is quality

Cooney and Heaney seem by far the most likely - don't know if it is just 1 or 2.
Marshall hinted this weekend he is away too

Posted elsewhere Piatau has a get out clause if we don't make the Champions Cup - I understand that is correct

geoff999rugby wrote:Posted elsewhere Piatau has a get out clause if we don't make the Champions Cup - I understand that is correct

I wouldn't blame the guy to be honest. What he thought he was coming to at Ulster has been vastly different in reality. We're now going to be fighting for our Champions cup place instead of playoffs and we've not even seen our other big signing of the season in an Ulster shirt yet. Next season could now end up seeing us without Piutau as well as Pienaar, the only two players that have been able to make a difference to the side with regularity. Sad times

geoff999rugby wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Was it not on here or maybe t'other forum that someone has assured us that Ulster were sorted at 9 for next year with an IQ player? Maybe they meant Paul Marshall
I do hope the Ulster backroom team get their collective finger out and play a bit of hardball for a change.

IQ 9's definitely coming in - they question is quality

Cooney and Heaney seem by far the most likely - don't know if it is just 1 or 2.
Marshall hinted this weekend he is away too

Decisions decisions.... the scrum-half we let go when he didn't displace Paul Marshall a few seasons back, and now plays tier2 rugby in England, or connacht's third choice scrum-half to become Ulster's first choice.
Thinks are really looking up eh??

geoff999rugby wrote:
No established player has moved north in the professional era that I can recall unless they were Ulstermen playing for Connacht.

On Hart heard he is a bit too full of himself and not as good as some here, who probably never seem him, think.

Geoff, Hart is surely the best available IQ 9 on the market at that minute unless we are allowed a project who happens to be pretty decent

We could maybe do with someone whos full of themselves as we have too many that are too nice and understated

Hart is no Pienaar. Any time I've seen him he reminds me of Ian Porter - his kicking game is his strength, and he has a good pass. He is good behind a pack going forward, but he isn't the quickest and his decision making under pressure is nowhere near Ruan's.

Big difference between being a leader and/or a forceful individual and a bit of a prat.

My understanding is Hart is more the latter

Also doesn't matter how good he is, and his game time over 5 years suggests nothing special, if he doesn't want to come north it becomes an irrelevance.
Being 2nd choice shows his limits in a number of ways

Well then Munster are welcome to him, seems he may have to adjust his attitude going there

We just have to hope theres a few SH 9s who forgot until recently they had an Irish granny

Let's look at the worst case scenario here.

Marshall leaves, who is our number one 9 - Shanahan or Heaney?

That's if Heaney comes in, at the minute it could be Shanahan and Lloyd who seems to be getting more opportunity at Munster

Wonderful. From what I can see of Lloyd, he's 24 and has 2 senior caps. Both off the bench. Shanahan on the other hand has 10 senior appearances and is 23.

If Marshall leaves we will definitely have 1 new 9 and probably 2

marty2086 wrote:Well then Munster are welcome to him, seems he may have to adjust his attitude going there

I just wouldn't believe that he has an attitude problem bearing in mind that he has been coached by two ex-Munster players recently (Prendergast & ROG who would be close to a lot of people in Munster). Jackman was saying on Off the Ball (I think) that it was a good move for him as Munster would suit him as he performs best in a structured game.

Any further ideas on who Geoff?  

If it's as you suggested before either or both Cooney and Heaney then why bother?  From what I can tell Cooney is now Connacht's 3rd choice scrumhalf and 26.  

Why don't Ulster try out a 18/19 year old kid and give them game time to understand what's required at the top level.  We may lose games because of it ...... but then we're probably going to lose games with whatever other 9 we've got available and that development time might yield results 2-3 years down the line in a way it never will for a 23 - 26 year old.

Jonny Stewart is supposed to one of the best prospects in years, and known for his leadership - he was head boy at Wallace.

Stewart and O'Donnell are the ones for the future.

We need to mark time till they come good - a set up of any 3 from 4 (Cooney, Heaney, Marshall, Shanahan) seems next years likely offering.
Behind an inadequate pack that is not a pleasant prospect

And Paddy Jackson hasn't re signed yet

geoff999rugby wrote:Stewart and O'Donnell are the ones for the future.

We need to mark time till they come good - a set up of any 3 from 4 (Cooney, Heaney, Marshall, Shanahan) seems next years likely offering.
Behind an inadequate pack that is not a pleasant prospect

And Paddy Jackson hasn't re signed yet

If you were entirely impartial you would advise Jackson to sign for Munster. Even Connacht to pair up with Marmion.

I mean, how is Jackson's career going to continue on the up with service from Cooney/Heaney/Marshall/Shanahan??

If I were him, I'd be seriously considering my options.

Can you imagine losing Franco, Pienaar, Jackson and Piutau?

Geoff, does Coetzee have the similar get out clause regarding Champions Cup?

NO

geoff999rugby wrote:NO

He'll be kicking himself! How long is he trapped here for? two years? 3?