Planet Rugby Forum

CM11 wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote: Is that not the huge issue with Munster? It'll be the exact same next year with Tadhg Beirne wasted making the same sort of carries.

Stander does nothing but make those hard yards. He's a superb carrier with a bit of space or a gap, it's a waste to have him just making one-out carries into contact to buy time for unimaginative half-back play.

CJ has a serious problem getting the most benefit out of his wider carries though as he just refuses to offload, for the most part. He'll remain a tight carrier and I imagine Beirne will be put out wider as he does have the ball skills. POM will then play exclusively tight to compensate, I guess. Basically POM will play a lock role outside scrums.

Not 100% sure that will work but it makes the most sense.

POM already plays a lot of the dirty stuff for Ireland, clearing ruck ball and ensuring clean possession. He can certainly do it effectively. Having another offloading carrier like Beirne might actually make it easier to dish out the various responsibilities.

Presume it'll be Beirne and Kleyn as starting locks next season? Holland, as much as he gives it his all, really sticks out like a sore thumb in Munster's first choice pack.

He shouldn't be mentally fatigued either.

He's had his place taken for club and country, he should be ripping up trees.

Mullet 2 wrote:He shouldn't be mentally fatigued either.

He's had his place taken for club and country, he should be ripping up trees.

Could be other things going on. Dunno, something's up.

CM11 wrote:

anonymous_joe wrote: Is that not the huge issue with Munster? It'll be the exact same next year with Tadhg Beirne wasted making the same sort of carries.

Stander does nothing but make those hard yards. He's a superb carrier with a bit of space or a gap, it's a waste to have him just making one-out carries into contact to buy time for unimaginative half-back play.

CJ has a serious problem getting the most benefit out of his wider carries though as he just refuses to offload, for the most part. He'll remain a tight carrier and I imagine Beirne will be put out wider as he does have the ball skills. POM will then play exclusively tight to compensate, I guess. Basically POM will play a lock role outside scrums.

Not 100% sure that will work but it makes the most sense.

Could very well be lads, it depends on our game plan really and how tight or loose we play.

This issue again comes back to the issue with the 2nd row, the headbanger was very good at the start of the season but his form has dropped alot IMHO and well Holland isn't really this level even when in good form. 2nd Row is the most important row on the field and its our glaring weakness at the moment. Beirne will be massive in this regard next season. I also think our front row has dropped in confidence in this regard recently, our front row are good carriers with Killer being the best but our confidence and attitude is alot of facets in the pack for some reason is very low at the moment.

Beirne will be a huge upgrade over Holland. It can't be overstated how much of a difference that will make. Billy is a nice guy but way short of the level required.

Farrell and Cloete would be more big additions but we are still a little short of being a championship winning team because of the big hole at 10. I'm cautiously optimistic for next season but we need to get over this injury bug. Or build up some better depth.

Rumham wrote:Beirne will be a huge upgrade over Holland. It can't be overstated how much of a difference that will make. Billy is a nice guy but way short of the level required.

Farrell and Cloete would be more big additions but we are still a little short of being a championship winning team because of the big hole at 10. I'm cautiously optimistic for next season but we need to get over this injury bug. Or build up some better depth.

Holland works his socks off but he's obviously a weakness. We are a bit weak in the row. Grobler would have been nice to hold on to. Not as worried about 10 but a decent backup 9 is a must.

Who's FB going to be? Conway, I presume?

Earls and ? on the wing? Would Arnold be an option? Looks to have the pace anyway. I know there's Sweetnam and Wooton but not sure on either.

Either way, Munster's first choice team looks pretty good. Need a bit more strength in depth up front though.

A number of people commented on Furlongs clean out on Conway in the lead up to the Leinster try. It looks absolutely text book. It was a big man hitting a smaller man who went flying out the back due to the force of the impact.

https://streamable.com/i090g

CM11 wrote:Who's FB going to be? Conway, I presume?

Earls and ? on the wing? Would Arnold be an option? Looks to have the pace anyway. I know there's Sweetnam and Wooton but not sure on either.

Either way, Munster's first choice team looks pretty good. Need a bit more strength in depth up front though.

Haley is signed. But Nash looks a player and I'd like to see him starting on the wing. So yeah, Conway would be starting FB.

Liathroidigloine wrote:A number of people commented on Furlongs clean out on Conway in the lead up to the Leinster try. It looks absolutely text book. It was a big man hitting a smaller man who went flying out the back due to the force of the impact.

https://streamable.com/i090g

I don't think its a huge issue, but I do disagree. He couldn't have hit Conway the way he did and remained on his feet. It's a penalty.

Even if Conway could have resisted the contact, Furlong would still have hit the deck because the point of contact is so far in front of where his feet are when he launched the hit. To be legal, Furlong would have had to place his feet carefully around those on the deck and then effectively entered into a wrestling match with Conway instead of doing the big spectacular hit - which he would have spectacularly won anyway. Removing illegal hits at ruck time will go a long way to reducing injuries and concussions.

CM11 wrote:Ah here BM, tongue in cheek, relax.

Carbery is sliding backwards, he does lose the ball but since he's going backwards, so does the ball. It's similar to why it sometimes looks like a forward pass when a player is stopped dead as he's passing.

Carbery would have had to bat at the ball for it to go forward, it wouldn't have been physically possible to knock it on otherwise.

Ah now Stats... don't play the "I was only messing"..... was condescending.

In those cases where a lad slides in has the ball and loses it and keeps sliding back, it is often called as a knock on. It looked to me live like he had it in his hand and then let go and I will try to watch it on youtube or something later.

I don't need a lecture on the physics of knock ons.... and I dont want to go on about. It had no impact on the game

For what it's worth Furlongs clear out is just a good hard hit. I've zero issue with it

Banana Man wrote:

CM11 wrote:Ah here BM, tongue in cheek, relax.

Carbery is sliding backwards, he does lose the ball but since he's going backwards, so does the ball. It's similar to why it sometimes looks like a forward pass when a player is stopped dead as he's passing.

Carbery would have had to bat at the ball for it to go forward, it wouldn't have been physically possible to knock it on otherwise.

Ah now Stats... don't play the "I was only messing"..... was condescending.

In those cases where a lad slides in has the ball and loses it and keeps sliding back, it is often called as a knock on. It looked to me live like he had it in his hand and then let go and I will try to watch it on youtube or something later.

I don't need a lecture on the physics of knock ons.... and I dont want to go on about. It had no impact on the game

For what it's worth Furlongs clear out is just a good hard hit. I've zero issue with it

I'm sorry you took it that way BM. The bit about people at the ground not noticing it was OTT but c'mon, I hardly thought people on a rugby board didn't know what a knock on was.

I've never seen a person with their back to the opposition goal having a knock on called in the manner you say, btw. That's why kick receivers turn if they can so any lost ball will go backwards.

Think about it like this, essentially what Carbery did was touch down the ball running backwards, if you saw a defender race back to touch the ball down for a 22, would you really call knock on?

Banana Man wrote:

CM11 wrote:Ah here BM, tongue in cheek, relax.

Carbery is sliding backwards, he does lose the ball but since he's going backwards, so does the ball. It's similar to why it sometimes looks like a forward pass when a player is stopped dead as he's passing.

Carbery would have had to bat at the ball for it to go forward, it wouldn't have been physically possible to knock it on otherwise.

Ah now Stats... don't play the "I was only messing"..... was condescending.

In those cases where a lad slides in has the ball and loses it and keeps sliding back, it is often called as a knock on. It looked to me live like he had it in his hand and then let go and I will try to watch it on youtube or something later.

I don't need a lecture on the physics of knock ons.... and I dont want to go on about. It had no impact on the game

For what it's worth Furlongs clear out is just a good hard hit. I've zero issue with it

I knew a fellow coach would appreciate that! It was a grand clean game other than the Kleyn torpedo although it was very stop start.

The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

You could argue a penalty because it was technically illegal but you give that then there would have been another 10 or so penalties, min, in the game.

CM11 wrote:

Banana Man wrote:

CM11 wrote:Ah here BM, tongue in cheek, relax.

Carbery is sliding backwards, he does lose the ball but since he's going backwards, so does the ball. It's similar to why it sometimes looks like a forward pass when a player is stopped dead as he's passing.

Carbery would have had to bat at the ball for it to go forward, it wouldn't have been physically possible to knock it on otherwise.

Ah now Stats... don't play the "I was only messing"..... was condescending.

In those cases where a lad slides in has the ball and loses it and keeps sliding back, it is often called as a knock on. It looked to me live like he had it in his hand and then let go and I will try to watch it on youtube or something later.

I don't need a lecture on the physics of knock ons.... and I dont want to go on about. It had no impact on the game

For what it's worth Furlongs clear out is just a good hard hit. I've zero issue with it

I'm sorry you took it that way BM. The bit about people at the ground not noticing it was OTT but c'mon, I hardly thought people on a rugby board didn't know what a knock on was.

I've never seen a person with their back to the opposition goal having a knock on called in the manner you say, btw. That's why kick receivers turn if they can so any lost ball will go backwards.

Think about it like this, essentially what Carbery did was touch down the ball running backwards, if you saw a defender race back to touch the ball down for a 22, would you really call knock on?

Ah being a bit sensitive I suppose but entitled to feel that way too when you lose another semi.....

Carberry was sliding along the ground/going down on ball.

I have often seen lads lose the ball in that way and get pinged for a knock on.... unless I am totally misrembering the situation.

Chip over, he slides along deck and loses and grabs it again.

I get the explanation on running backwards but this is different

Regardless its enough about a nothing incident in context of the game.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

Banana Man wrote:

CM11 wrote:Ah here BM, tongue in cheek, relax.

Carbery is sliding backwards, he does lose the ball but since he's going backwards, so does the ball. It's similar to why it sometimes looks like a forward pass when a player is stopped dead as he's passing.

Carbery would have had to bat at the ball for it to go forward, it wouldn't have been physically possible to knock it on otherwise.

Ah now Stats... don't play the "I was only messing"..... was condescending.

In those cases where a lad slides in has the ball and loses it and keeps sliding back, it is often called as a knock on. It looked to me live like he had it in his hand and then let go and I will try to watch it on youtube or something later.

I don't need a lecture on the physics of knock ons.... and I dont want to go on about. It had no impact on the game

For what it's worth Furlongs clear out is just a good hard hit. I've zero issue with it

I knew a fellow coach would appreciate that! It was a grand clean game other than the Kleyn torpedo although it was very stop start.

No issue at all with it - and Cammy moaning about Munster lads leaving late shoulders in.... Ruddock, Ryan and Healy weren't taking any prisoners too on their hits/clear outs.

Which is fine... its a high level elite game. But " Munster were dirty" is wide of the mark.

He doesn't grab it again. It was exactly as I described. Like someone dotting the ball down for a try/22.

CM11 wrote:He doesn't grab it again. It was exactly as I described. Like someone dotting the ball down for a try/22.

I honestly don't remember it that way but until I see a replay.....

You're scum who is wrong.

Banana Man wrote:

CM11 wrote:He doesn't grab it again. It was exactly as I described. Like someone dotting the ball down for a try/22.

I honestly don't remember it that way but until I see a replay.....

You're scum who is wrong.

He does sort of go for it again, tbf, but doesn't make contact.

camroc1 wrote:Just looked at the recording, and a lot of Munster 'late shoulders' are , for obvious ball watching TV reasons, missed.

The two biggest decisions of the match, the torpedo dive on Byrnes head, and Munsters second try, both went Munsters way. The torpedo was a red card all day every day, and, unless the TMO had different footage, there was no footage of the ball hitting the base of the post. It may well have done so, but there was zero footage showing it.

Headline" drug cheat scores fake try"

CM11 wrote:

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

You could argue a penalty because it was technically illegal but you give that then there would have been another 10 or so penalties, min, in the game.

I agree 100% that that type of contact is not enforced at all, and to do so in this instance would be pretty inconsistent.

I'm arguing more the point that I think these sort of things should be refereed more consistently. There have been a lot of fairly minor illegal developments in the contact area over the past 10 years or so which have effectively become the norm (entering contact with arm down only to then allow the momentum of the contact to swing the arm around and give it a veneer of legality is a particular bugbear of mine). Allowing these sort of illegal multipliers is a big contributor to the increased forces experienced in rugby, and thus to increasing the dangers in the game.

Yes, I should stop being such a giant fucking pussy. But, I do believe that concussion and serious injuries are the biggest threat to the game of rugby at the moment, not just from any potential class action suits down the road, like with the NFL, but also from parents not allowing their kids to play it. I believe it is vital that rugby addresses these issues head on (excuse the pun), and just as importantly is seen to do so.

PornDog wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

You could argue a penalty because it was technically illegal but you give that then there would have been another 10 or so penalties, min, in the game.

I agree 100% that that type of contact is not enforced at all, and to do so in this instance would be pretty inconsistent.

I'm arguing more the point that I think these sort of things should be refereed more consistently. There have been a lot of fairly minor illegal developments in the contact area over the past 10 years or so which have effectively become the norm (entering contact with arm down only to then allow the momentum of the contact to swing the arm around and give it a veneer of legality is a particular bugbear of mine). Allowing these sort of illegal multipliers is a big contributor to the increased forces experienced in rugby, and thus to increasing the dangers in the game.

Yes, I should stop being such a giant fucking pussy. But, I do believe that concussion and serious injuries are the biggest threat to the game of rugby at the moment, not just from any potential class action suits down the road, like with the NFL, but also from parents not allowing their kids to play it. I believe it is vital that rugby addresses these issues head on (excuse the pun), and just as importantly is seen to do so.

I don't disagree. It'd be great if we could go back to proper rucks.

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

Nah. Big hit, if we start penalising them the game is gone to shit. Sure, he technically went off his feet, but only because all his momentum was going that way. Once he'd removed Conway and fallen down, Furlong's body didn't prevent anyone else getting at the ball. Play the scenario, not the letter of the law.

The Kleyn one was very different because he targeted a prone player's head, who wasn't even interfering with the ball. All he had to do was bridge over the contact area and grab a handful of Byrne's jersey as he stood up and the ruck would have been formed and won. Instead it was a cheap shot. The fact that he went off his feet is almost secondary.

CM11 wrote:

PornDog wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

You could argue a penalty because it was technically illegal but you give that then there would have been another 10 or so penalties, min, in the game.

I agree 100% that that type of contact is not enforced at all, and to do so in this instance would be pretty inconsistent.

I'm arguing more the point that I think these sort of things should be refereed more consistently. There have been a lot of fairly minor illegal developments in the contact area over the past 10 years or so which have effectively become the norm (entering contact with arm down only to then allow the momentum of the contact to swing the arm around and give it a veneer of legality is a particular bugbear of mine). Allowing these sort of illegal multipliers is a big contributor to the increased forces experienced in rugby, and thus to increasing the dangers in the game.

Yes, I should stop being such a giant fucking pussy. But, I do believe that concussion and serious injuries are the biggest threat to the game of rugby at the moment, not just from any potential class action suits down the road, like with the NFL, but also from parents not allowing their kids to play it. I believe it is vital that rugby addresses these issues head on (excuse the pun), and just as importantly is seen to do so.

I don't disagree. It'd be great if we could go back to proper rucks.

I know it goes against everything I've pretty much just said above, but so long as its not to the head there's nothing wrong with a good shoeing.

Nolanator - if everyone kept their feet there'd be a much safer and much better contest for the ball. Having a bunch of players lying on the ground and calling that a ruck is letting the game go to shit!

PornDog wrote:

CM11 wrote:

PornDog wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Diego wrote:The Furlong one was a penalty, nothing more.

You could argue a penalty because it was technically illegal but you give that then there would have been another 10 or so penalties, min, in the game.

I agree 100% that that type of contact is not enforced at all, and to do so in this instance would be pretty inconsistent.

I'm arguing more the point that I think these sort of things should be refereed more consistently. There have been a lot of fairly minor illegal developments in the contact area over the past 10 years or so which have effectively become the norm (entering contact with arm down only to then allow the momentum of the contact to swing the arm around and give it a veneer of legality is a particular bugbear of mine). Allowing these sort of illegal multipliers is a big contributor to the increased forces experienced in rugby, and thus to increasing the dangers in the game.

Yes, I should stop being such a giant fucking pussy. But, I do believe that concussion and serious injuries are the biggest threat to the game of rugby at the moment, not just from any potential class action suits down the road, like with the NFL, but also from parents not allowing their kids to play it. I believe it is vital that rugby addresses these issues head on (excuse the pun), and just as importantly is seen to do so.

I don't disagree. It'd be great if we could go back to proper rucks.

I know it goes against everything I've pretty much just said above, but so long as its not to the head there's nothing wrong with a good shoeing.

Nolanator - if everyone kept their feet there'd be a much safer and much better contest for the ball. Having a bunch of players lying on the ground and calling that a ruck is letting the game go to shit!

I get the sentiment but in this day and age with players so good on the deck - its why there are hard hits.

I would be with Nols on this.

I get your point, PornDog, but I just don't think it's one of the main issues in the game right now.
Give me a good clean blasting clear of a ruck, rather than a wrestle to win the ball. Reduces instances of neck rolls and provides the ball on a plate for the SH.

Nolanator wrote:I get your point, PornDog, but I just don't think it's one of the main issues in the game right now.
Give me a good clean blasting clear of a ruck, rather than a wrestle to win the ball. Reduces instances of neck rolls and provides the ball on a plate for the SH.

Yup. Kleyn was a seriously lucky Saffer IMHO.

A belated congrats ye hoors. Mind you go on and win the thing now FFS.

I'm rugby'd out. Honest to God wish we weren't going anywhere on tour this Summer.

redderneck wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I get your point, PornDog, but I just don't think it's one of the main issues in the game right now.
Give me a good clean blasting clear of a ruck, rather than a wrestle to win the ball. Reduces instances of neck rolls and provides the ball on a plate for the SH.

Yup. Kleyn was a seriously lucky Saffer IMHO.

A belated congrats ye hoors. Mind you go on and win the thing now FFS.

I'm rugby'd out. Honest to God wish we weren't going anywhere on tour this Summer.

Give it a fortnight and you'll be mad for the summer tests again.

Liathroidigloine wrote:

redderneck wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I get your point, PornDog, but I just don't think it's one of the main issues in the game right now.
Give me a good clean blasting clear of a ruck, rather than a wrestle to win the ball. Reduces instances of neck rolls and provides the ball on a plate for the SH.

Yup. Kleyn was a seriously lucky Saffer IMHO.

A belated congrats ye hoors. Mind you go on and win the thing now FFS.

I'm rugby'd out. Honest to God wish we weren't going anywhere on tour this Summer.

Give it a fortnight and you'll be mad for the summer tests again.

Was on the travels and met a shedload of Saffers; growing regard for Irish rugby the common feature - even a few years back there tended to be both a lack of appreciation and even knowledge of Irish rugby from them unless they'd lived up these parts.

Also more than a few muttering darkly about how prevalent pushing the rehab envelope (my words) is down there amongst younger players. Even 'traditional' types who might long for the utter physical dominance so beloved of Saffers are saying that the game can't go on with the level of attrition it currently has. Something's got to give. Either shorten seasons, control gametime (sort of Irish style) or change rules etc. Interesting conversations...

redderneck wrote:

Liathroidigloine wrote:

redderneck wrote:

Nolanator wrote:I get your point, PornDog, but I just don't think it's one of the main issues in the game right now.
Give me a good clean blasting clear of a ruck, rather than a wrestle to win the ball. Reduces instances of neck rolls and provides the ball on a plate for the SH.

Yup. Kleyn was a seriously lucky Saffer IMHO.

A belated congrats ye hoors. Mind you go on and win the thing now FFS.

I'm rugby'd out. Honest to God wish we weren't going anywhere on tour this Summer.

Give it a fortnight and you'll be mad for the summer tests again.

Was on the travels and met a shedload of Saffers; growing regard for Irish rugby the common feature - even a few years back there tended to be both a lack of appreciation and even knowledge of Irish rugby from them unless they'd lived up these parts.

Also more than a few muttering darkly about how prevalent pushing the rehab envelope (my words) is down there amongst younger players. Even 'traditional' types who might long for the utter physical dominance so beloved of Saffers are saying that the game can't go on with the level of attrition it currently has. Something's got to give. Either shorten seasons, control gametime (sort of Irish style) or change rules etc. Interesting conversations...

Maximum team weight like with Tug of war!

Austin Healy pointed out the problem years ago.

All this idiotic shite with the TMO has games taking forever.

Lads don't need to be as fit as they did around 2000 - 2005.

Mullet 2 wrote:Austin Healy pointed out the problem years ago.

All this idiotic shite with the TMO has games taking forever.

Lads don't need to be as fit as they did around 2000 - 2005.

Sounds like a ref whinge mullet.

Opposite actually.

Back to the old days when the refs call was gospel and we didn't spend 20 minutes looking at the camera.

Mullet 2 wrote:

paddyor wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:

Flametop wrote:Luke McGrath really needs to work on his box kicking. It was atrocious.
He was virtually inviting Munster to counter attack every time he kicked incontestable balls down the centre of the pitch.

The problem was the instruction to box kick with a wind at his back.

Leo needs to cop on a bit.

Or they did some analysis and found Munster weren't going to create much from that far out.

Well that analysis was pants then.

Earls and Conway were both very sharp

Not really. They as a team lack the ability to create chances from that far out. This might seem like a cheap shot at the back 3, but I mean more the rest of the team.

At one point just before the try, McGrath kicked long to Earls who "Kearneyed" and ran the ball back into 2 defenders in the middle of our 10m line (think we gained about 15-20metres), Munster tried to move it wide only for a pass to bounce to Conway who proceeded to chip the ball back to us. We regathered but got turned over at the breakdown and they scored. Really dreadful clearout from Ruddock on Copeland and Dev was ruck inspecting. The problem wasn't the kick, though that was how I remembered it at the time.

About 55 mins, we get a peno, go to the maul at our 22. McGrath kicks long to Earls who knocks on just inside his own half, he'd Larmour and Conan bearing down on him.

They did gain about 30m going to the far touchline from another one to Zebo around 60 mins, but wait for it, they kicked it away and we regathered at the 22 and ran it back to just before the 10m line.

At 62 mins, Byrne kicks long into the Munster 22 behind Earls in acres of space who calls a mark.

Nah

Nearly cost us the game and gave them the mo

That's as good as clear out as you'll see. He's bound.

Full article on the try here

http://www.the42.ie/analysis-leinster-c ... =shortlink

Mullet 2 wrote:Nah

Nearly cost us the game and gave them the mo

Bar the knock-on, they kicked the ball back to us every time.

I wouldn't like to see us doing it against a team like Scarlets, but Munster can't counter from deep like them.