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.

According to the other forum Chris Henry re-signing to be announced today, and somebody saying Angus Curtis is a sure thing. I like the cut of his jib! What age is he? WOuld he be joining academy, or senior squad?

https://business.facebook.com/KyrosSports/videos/1215624431794443/

So when's Henderson's citing hearing???

Just saying

Pete330v2 wrote:So when's Henderson's citing hearing???

Just saying

They were going to have one then saw the arguments on here and thought screw it we don't want to start them off again

Don't know where else to post it. But since we've previously talked about the new tackle laws, I'll continue here.

From Exeter V Saracens here. Both Saracens players have been cited now, but on the day, the ref only viewed one as cardable.

Like I've always questioned... Are refs allowed to be bad? Or do they get told off or repremanded. These new laws were a big deal. Surely somebody should be sitting down with this ref and saying... 'ok, let's go through this one more time...'

https://youtu.be/D9mIOt2vHcQ

clivemcl wrote:Don't know where else to post it. But since we've previously talked about the new tackle laws, I'll continue here.

From Exeter V Saracens here. Both Saracens players have been cited now, but on the day, the ref only viewed one as cardable.

Like I've always questioned... Are refs allowed to be bad? Or do they get told off or repremanded. These new laws were a big deal. Surely somebody should be sitting down with this ref and saying... 'ok, let's go through this one more time...'

https://youtu.be/D9mIOt2vHcQ

I said on the other thread at the time it was a joke of a decision, Barritt should have seen red and Barrington who was red carded was hard done by. Parling essentially fell into Barrington

marty2086 wrote:

clivemcl wrote:Don't know where else to post it. But since we've previously talked about the new tackle laws, I'll continue here.

From Exeter V Saracens here. Both Saracens players have been cited now, but on the day, the ref only viewed one as cardable.

Like I've always questioned... Are refs allowed to be bad? Or do they get told off or repremanded. These new laws were a big deal. Surely somebody should be sitting down with this ref and saying... 'ok, let's go through this one more time...'

https://youtu.be/D9mIOt2vHcQ

I said on the other thread at the time it was a joke of a decision, Barritt should have seen red and Barrington who was red carded was hard done by. Parling essentially fell into Barrington

Agreed Marty. It's and unfortunate set of events for all involved, obviously especially Parling. I'm quite sure Barritt never intends to connect a swinging arm in a high tackle, what player would. However his impact causes Parling to drop into Barrington's leading shoulder and the rest is history. Under the new laws Barritt should have been sent off but what exactly is accidental. I mean we can assume that Barrinton's contact was accidental in that no player would ever want to KO another and not just because of the following citing process etc. Can we then assume any intent in the case of Barritt? Did he mean to hit Parling with a swinging arm?
Anyway, before I waffle anymore, do we think that the new regulations would put an end to incidents like this? Surely not if every action was purely accidental and out of the players' control in those split seconds.

Does any of that even make sense to anyone other than me?

The big problem seems to be they have addressed one part of the problem in isolation, if you go to tackle someone around the chest and they get tackled or try to go lower then you get penalised, so essentially you get punished for doing what you were told to do by WR.

Either they need to encourage players to go upright into tackles or allow for a drop in punishment for these incidents on the field.

Its the same with fielding high balls, you can legitimately tackle for a ball and get penalised because you took on an opponent but you recklessly do it with a teammate and do serious damage theres no punishment. If your serious about protecting players you have to police all potential scenarios

Exactly Marty. Recklessness has to be challenged even if it's not an opponent you injured.

Regarding the 'accidental' notion. It would appear that they now want all players to tackle around the waist or lower. Any higher than that and you risk causing a head/neck injury if the attacking player dips.

What does that mean for rugby? Either penalty tries or soft tries on pick and go phases on a try line. In general play, no player will get 'knocked back', and attacking teams will gain an extra yard in each contact as they fall over the schoolboy tackle.

But here's a question. Does the ruling not equally apply forwards diving towards the line. They pick up the ball already hunched and head straight down with the might of their supporting players. There is pretty much no way to defend the line without making contact with the attackers head. But if rules are rules, all incidents should be punished.

clivemcl wrote:Exactly Marty. Recklessness has to be challenged even if it's not an opponent you injured.

Regarding the 'accidental' notion. It would appear that they now want all players to tackle around the waist or lower. Any higher than that and you risk causing a head/neck injury if the attacking player dips.

What does that mean for rugby? Either penalty tries or soft tries on pick and go phases on a try line. In general play, no player will get 'knocked back', and attacking teams will gain an extra yard in each contact as they fall over the schoolboy tackle.

But here's a question. Does the ruling not equally apply forwards diving towards the line. They pick up the ball already hunched and head straight down with the might of their supporting players. There is pretty much no way to defend the line without making contact with the attackers head. But if rules are rules, all incidents should be punished.

And that's what makes a mockery of the idea. I'm not sure where I heard or read it but someone has mentioned that it'll be strictly adhered to now to make the message felt but relaxed in the future to avoid the likes of penalty tries we saw on Friday night. What do we have if we take the physicality out of rugby?

If they are encouraging players to tackle lower, in a situation like Barringtons if he had stooped lower it would be head on head and likely two players with a concussion which increases the risk

clivemcl wrote:Exactly Marty. Recklessness has to be challenged even if it's not an opponent you injured.

Regarding the 'accidental' notion. It would appear that they now want all players to tackle around the waist or lower. Any higher than that and you risk causing a head/neck injury if the attacking player dips.

What does that mean for rugby? Either penalty tries or soft tries on pick and go phases on a try line. In general play, no player will get 'knocked back', and attacking teams will gain an extra yard in each contact as they fall over the schoolboy tackle.

But here's a question. Does the ruling not equally apply forwards diving towards the line. They pick up the ball already hunched and head straight down with the might of their supporting players. There is pretty much no way to defend the line without making contact with the attackers head. But if rules are rules, all incidents should be punished.

I made this point in the previous page but I think it got lost in the Henderson citing argument.

You'll see much more kicking for the corner rather than going for posts because the % return will be higher. Probably also see choke tackles dying out unless you can get under both arms of the attacker.

You may also see a change in the formation of the maul. Instead of say a 5 standing tall and backing into a player for initiation the maul they may adjust the attack point to go as horizontal as possible meaning how do you defend it? Can't go high, can't go low. Much harder to initiate properly, but near impossible to defend.

Also great news on Henry. There was probably no real risk of him leaving but still a great moment for a player who's health had been in doubt not long ago.

World Rugby do seem to have reacted without properly taking into account everything. I agree with the concept of trying to do something to stop dangerous high tackles that can hurt players and leave them with serious damage in the future but they have not thought it through, in order for the laws to properly work they would have to force every player to run entirely straight up and not go head down into a tackle scenario.
The concept I agree with the ill thought out nature of the reaction I take issue with

As this weekend has shown the new rules will probably result in more concussions rather than less.

I agree with that, geoff. I was all for it, but seeing how it is being applied has given me cause for concern. It appears ill thought out. A mass of confusion, with refs contradicting each other, and will probably cause more injuries than it prevents.

My only hope is World Rugby scrap it, and give any new measure much more thought.

All that was needed was for World Rugby to again stress the need for players to be sensitive to the risks and ultra careful.  But you can't legislate errors and mistakes out of the game by strict rules.  Mistakes and errors are always going to be part of the game and the concept of 'punishment' for mistakes won't eradicate errors in games.  Counter productive, rules-are-best ,  21st century solution.

Not trying to tempt fate but if they are serious about the directives then where are the citings for Reidy, Balls and even Trimble?

Trimble didnt make huge contact but it had the potential to be as bad as Barritts on Parling

SecretFly wrote:All that was needed was for World Rugby to again stress the need for players to be sensitive to the risks and ultra careful.  But you can't legislate errors and mistakes out of the game by strict rules.  Mistakes and errors are always going to be part of the game and the concept of 'punishment' for mistakes won't eradicate errors in games.  Counter productive, [i]rules-are-best [/I,]21st century solution.

Or something similar to football for the high feet, you go above waist high in football with your foot its a foul, if someone puts their head down they are taking a risk

On the other thread someone posted the stats that show the majority of concussions were for tacklers, so its not a solution that gets to the heart of the problem

marty2086 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:All that was needed was for World Rugby to again stress the need for players to be sensitive to the risks and ultra careful.  But you can't legislate errors and mistakes out of the game by strict rules.  Mistakes and errors are always going to be part of the game and the concept of 'punishment' for mistakes won't eradicate errors in games.  Counter productive, [i]rules-are-best [/I,]21st century solution.

Or something similar to football for the high feet, you go above waist high in football with your foot its a foul, if someone puts their head down they are taking a risk

On the other thread someone posted the stats that show the majority of concussions were for tacklers, so its not a solution that gets to the heart of the problem

Yea and forcing them to tackle down around pumping knees will really help the number of concussions!

"Trimble didnt make huge contact but it had the potential to be as bad as Barritts on Parling"

That's where is becomes a farce Marty. Barritt was a step closer and a half a second less reactive than Trimble and unfortunately for him the tackled player was injured, not by him but by Barrington. Was it any worse than Trimble's 'recklessness'? I'd say marginally but only due to factors out of anyone's control. It's once again very dependent upon the outcome which leads to players milking the situation (if they are of questionable morals).
Citings are usually a lottery anyway. I mean even Ulster supporters were certain that Hendo would be cited for that forceful and cheap punch......that wasn't a punch

This is interesting that apparently the people in charge agree it should not have been a pen try. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38589839
I always wondered in this situation is the ref sat down or anything and explained what went wrong or is it just as if nothing happened?
In other news Less Kiss says Coetzee should be available to make debut during 6 nations possibly edinburgh game and the Zebre fixture is now 11th march

neilthom7 wrote:This is interesting that apparently the people in charge agree it should not have been a pen try. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38589839
I always wondered in this situation is the ref sat down or anything and explained what went wrong or is it just as if nothing happened?
In other news Less Kiss says Coetzee should be available to make debut during 6 nations possibly edinburgh game and the Zebre fixture is now 11th march

Pretty much everybody in every line of work is sat down and talked to if they under-perform. Does it happen with refs? who knows!
What do you do to create an incentive for ref's to perform well? Funnily, the idea of the rules being the same but punished more severely is based on the idea that if there is a greater consequence, players should control themselves more and make less errors. So, would a similar approach not work if we want ref's to do there job better and make less errors?
I mean, I get it, reffing is a tough gig, you can get a lot of flak, and maybe not well paid. But ultimately, games,points,tournament exits,league standings and even silverware can all be decided by bad reffing calls in this sport.

Quite simply - say we finish 5th, and do so by only one or two points - then this penalty try decision hypothetically costs us a a semi-final. If we were still scratching our heads about the detail of the law, that would be one thing. But when the officials then come out and say it was a wrong call, but the result still stands, you do have to question if.... it's fair...

neilthom7 wrote:This is interesting that apparently the people in charge agree it should not have been a pen try. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/38589839
I always wondered in this situation is the ref sat down or anything and explained what went wrong or is it just as if nothing happened?
In other news Less Kiss says Coetzee should be available to make debut during 6 nations possibly edinburgh game and the Zebre fixture is now 11th march

That's interesting. After the dust has settled I do feel some sympathy for the refs. But let's not forget the position of the TMO in this either. The ref went to the TMO and I'm sure he said he agreed. Either through interpretation of the laws or unwillingness to overrule the initial decision (as is the case with many of them).

Really it was that point that they should have used their coded speak - "Marius, I think you need to look at it again." i.e. No I disagree.

To your point about who watches the Watchmen? The TMO does. In this case both the primary and secondary checks failed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/5izutx/for_me_its_fine_ill_go_to_the_touch_thats_a/

Rather amusing u-turn after some coded speak from the officials.

Any number of decisions throughout the season affect the points table. Some are in the players control and some aren't. Ulster need to focus on the ones inside their control rather than cry "poor me" if a decision goes against them. They have to be good enough to cope with the adverse decisions like real champions do rather than looking for external excuses to hide the internal ineptitude.
Right now Ulster will do well to finish in the top 6, but if they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

Really it's Top 5. Won't 1 place automatically go to an Italian team?

Apologies if that's what you meant, but I thought there had to be 1 from each of the participating Pro12 nations?

Redman wrote:Really it's Top 5.  Won't 1 place automatically go to an Italian team?

Top 6 go through + one of the Italian sides.

I thought there were 7 teams form the Pro12 qualify - the top team from each nation plus the next three highest finishers. So the only scenario where the sixth placed team isn't selected is if there are two nations with their highest team finishing outside it.

Yep, it is 7. Top 6 + 1 Italian, unless a minor miracle happens.

The Great Aukster wrote:Any number of decisions throughout the season affect the points table. Some are in the players control and some aren't. Ulster need to focus on the ones inside their control rather than cry "poor me" if a decision goes against them. They have to be good enough to cope with the adverse decisions like real champions do rather than looking for external excuses to hide the internal ineptitude.
Right now Ulster will do well to finish in the top 6, but if they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

Ulster were right to ask questions, and I'm glad they did. Refs have a difficult job, but that doesn't excuse them from being held to account. The more this happens, the less likely mistakes will be made. It highlights the fault for other refs to learn from.

The Great Aukster wrote:Any number of decisions throughout the season affect the points table. Some are in the players control and some aren't. Ulster need to focus on the ones inside their control rather than cry "poor me" if a decision goes against them. They have to be good enough to cope with the adverse decisions like real champions do rather than looking for external excuses to hide the internal ineptitude.
Right now Ulster will do well to finish in the top 6, but if they don't they will only have themselves to blame.

I'm not making excuses for Ulster, I'm talking about the significance of incorrect reffing. Ulster just happened to be my example.

Our next 7 games are

H - Zebre, Treviso, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow (playing this during the 6N when they will be missing a hell of a lot more player than us)
A - Zebre, Dragons

if we are not, comfortably in the top 4, after those games we will get what we deserve - nothing

geoff999rugby wrote:Our next 7 games are

H - Zebre, Treviso, Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow (playing this during the 6N when they will be missing a hell of a lot more player than us)
A - Zebre, Dragons

if we are not, comfortably in the top 4, after those games we will get what we deserve - nothing

If we can get some players back from injury including of course the invisible Marcel we could be in a good place to become masters of our own destiny. No room for error now.

Oh and this is rather interesting. Doak and Clarke should be job hunting by now

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/ulster-aim-to-add-bok-botha-as-kiss-ponders-shakeup-35361539.html

So we finally get some backrow reinforcements but lose our star 9 who would be the best person to have to utilise it?

On the plus side NEW COACHES

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/kiss-revolution-ulster-set-for-drastic-overhaul-of-coaching-setup-35361347.html

Thank Jebus.

So....Cooney....WOW with lots of eye rolling.

Could that south African 9 be one of the new coaches? ...... What's his name? You know played a few games for Ulster, Ryan something...... Pinior?


Did any one watch rugby tonight last night? Ruan was a guest just wondering if he mentioned anything about his future

Yeah he said he was off to Montpellier.

Well not in so many words but the way he talked them up against Leinster was mightily suspicious to the trained eye.

We could try that irish guy who played a few times for us as a new forwards coach, whats his name John O'Muller or something lol

So Coetzee is set to first wear the Ulster shirt in anger v Edinburgh on the 10th of February, a fixture that should see Ruan back in action too.
I really do think we should be focusing on the Pro12 right now although Sunday's game may well make that decision for us anyway. Maybe we'll really hit form now at the business end of the season, who knows eh

The A Team has been announced for tomorrow nights B&I Cup game few interesting selections, other than there being no Hannibal

(15-9): Rob Lyttle, David Busby, Darren Cave (C), Mark Best, Craig Gilroy, Johnny McPhillips, Jonny Stewart;
(1-8): Tommy O'Hagan, Jonny Murphy, Ricky Lutton, Robbie Diack, John Donnan, Stephen Mulholland, Conor Joyce, Lorcan Dow.
Replacements (16-22): Zack McCall, Craig Trenier, Alex Thompson, Connor Smyth, Johnny Creighton, Rory Butler, Jack Owens.

Do any of you lot know about this ?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/cardiff-blues-targeting-former-south-12442223

I know it's WOL and my fellow countrymen on here hate it, but have any of you hered anything about this ?

LD think it's pretty much a done deal

LordDowlais wrote:Do any of you lot know about this ?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/cardiff-blues-targeting-former-south-12442223

I know it's WOL and my fellow countrymen on here hate it, but have any of you hered anything about this ?

Its going round our media too, It seems like it is likely to happen. We have quite a few second rows and it seems like perhaps Les Kiss wants another saffer back row for us so he needs to sacrifice one of our NIQ

carpet baboon wrote:LD think it's pretty much a done deal

What are the thoughts from the Ulster side ? I think this could be quite an astute signing for Cardiff Blues, it's an area of weakness for them.

LordDowlais wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:LD think it's pretty much a done deal

What are the thoughts from the Ulster side ? I think this could be quite an astute signing for Cardiff Blues, it's an area of weakness for them.

I may be kicked and beaten for this but for me he's a solid lock and not much more. I always thought he was punching below his weight but hey, how dare I
He's known to have leadership skills within the squad and is a cracking lineout operator. I'd say he'd be a good signing but don't expect too much......IMO

He is solid, dependable but nothing special

So yet again, Cardiff Blues are signing a mediocre NWQ player ?