Scarlet Fever Llanelli Rugby Sport Wales Tickets Homepage
Forum Home Forum Home > RUGBY > SCARLETS GENERAL
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Munster v Scarlets match thread
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login


Munster v Scarlets match thread

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
Author
Message
Mogwen View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 07 April 2013
Location: Yma o Hyd
Status: Offline
Points: 4489
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mogwen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 4:36pm
S4c said that those 3 were part of the irish squsd
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Tiobraid View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 October 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tiobraid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 8:01pm
Originally posted by Mogwen Mogwen wrote:

Cronin scannell coombes in the pack
None of those three were in the Irish squad and Daly was dropped from the squad 3 weeks ago. 
Back to Top
Tiobraid View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 October 2020
Status: Offline
Points: 44
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tiobraid Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 8:04pm
Originally posted by Mogwen Mogwen wrote:

S4c said that those 3 were part of the irish squsd
They were part of a panel of nearly 50 players brought to a training camp after New Year.
Back to Top
Mogwen View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 07 April 2013
Location: Yma o Hyd
Status: Offline
Points: 4489
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mogwen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 8:21pm
I stand corrected. My appologies
The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing.
Back to Top
saundersfootscarlets View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 17 October 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 645
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote saundersfootscarlets Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 10:54pm
I don't think Munster have as many in the Irish squad now so less disruption and possibly not as many injuries as us but I am not sure about this and might well be wrong.
If so with us having 24 unavailable for different reasons might partly explain the result? 
saundersfoot scarlets
Back to Top
Nikostratos View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 505
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nikostratos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 11:19pm
Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Gifting possession and territory. 6 penalties on the bounce.


Only because it’s an Irish ref mind


That try,,,

Morgan over runs the chip through in Munster 22,,,penalty..

From the ensuing lineout..I’m not not sure what Sholtz was doing actually..penalty..

Munster are in our 22. Ref had no infuence.


Scholtz's penalty was really a team penalty, I think, as it looked like planned move.  No Scarlets player engaged the front of the Munster lineout, so it looks as though they were trying to negate the maul. Unfortunately, the player who caught the ball in the lineout still had it when Scholtz bound to a Muster player, so the lineout wasn't over and the offside line was still set.    Scholtz couldn't be expected to see where the ball was, given his position; he just did what was planned.  It wasn't a great plan, but I don't think you can pin it on any one player. 



Scholtz did have full visibility to the offside line though and could have stepped away from the play. Agree though that the plan to do something like that has to be perfected on the training paddock as a group.


You're right.   I just checked the law book and the offside line is through the ball under those circumstances.  So if he couldn't see that he was tackling the ball carrier, and from the side, not behind, he shouldn't have gone in. 
Back to Top
Nikostratos View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 505
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nikostratos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 March 2021 at 11:32pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Gifting possession and territory. 6 penalties on the bounce.


Only because it’s an Irish ref mind


That try,,,

Morgan over runs the chip through in Munster 22,,,penalty..

From the ensuing lineout..I’m not not sure what Sholtz was doing actually..penalty..

Munster are in our 22. Ref had no infuence.


Scholtz's penalty was really a team penalty, I think, as it looked like planned move.  No Scarlets player engaged the front of the Munster lineout, so it looks as though they were trying to negate the maul. Unfortunately, the player who caught the ball in the lineout still had it when Scholtz bound to a Muster player, so the lineout wasn't over and the offside line was still set.    Scholtz couldn't be expected to see where the ball was, given his position; he just did what was planned.  It wasn't a great plan, but I don't think you can pin it on any one player. 

That has to be right, surely? Not Scholtz's fault at all...

Genuine question now - if instead of sending Scholtz around the back, just one Scarlet had tackled the ball carrier at the back of his knees, - which would have brought the whole Munster pack to ground - would that have been OK - 'tackling the ball carrier' - or penalised - 'bringing down the maul'?

If that was legal, I'm not at all convince that the Munster players hadn't already come in front of the ball carrier... and did the ref really know where the ball was?


I think that would be OK.  It's not a maul unless there's  a ball carrier plus one player from each side, all bound and on their feet.  Technically, if the ball carrier isn't at the front before the maul is formed, that's obstruction/ accidental offside. Maybe that was the ref's point when he said that the catcher still had the ball; our players could have tacked him. 

Whether the ref actually knew where the ball was, I can't say. I'm certainly not watching it again just to check!  

The move was probably a desperate attempt to get around  Munster's  dominance in the maul, rather than something they'd practised that week.  Understandable, I suppose, as we were getting smashed in that phase. 

What I don't understand is why, if we don't use Shingler to compete at the lineout, we don't use him to get his arms over the top of the maul and try to lock the ball up.  Beard and Charteris [and Muntser's young replacement lock last night] are/were all good that and Shingler seems to have the long levers for it. 
Back to Top
GPR - Rochester View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 01 December 2014
Location: Rhydcymerau
Status: Offline
Points: 18783
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GPR - Rochester Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2021 at 7:57am
Originally posted by Why Why wrote:

Originally posted by GPR - Rochester GPR - Rochester wrote:

Originally posted by Legendinmybathroom Legendinmybathroom wrote:

Originally posted by Micro Duck Micro Duck wrote:

Delaney's comments in the week were interesting.

When asked about Peel, he said he didn't see his job changing, but that they were looking to recruit a Head of Performance and another coach.

I wonder if Peel is being looked at as a HoP.

Peel won’t be interested in a HoP role, he’s far too ambitious for that, he is building an excellent reputation as an backs/attack coach and the HoP role is often sen as a role taken up by someone who is no longer cutting the mustard as a Head Coach.
I also don’t see Peel’s and Delaney’s rugby ethos’ being aligned, which won’t lead to a harmonious relationship.
We need a change of direction, a return to the style that the scarlets are renowned for (throughout the world), they won’t get that from Delaney and Co. 
Our backs look like they are being coached to just kick the ball away and seem to struggle with simple ball handling skills, such as catch, draw the defence and pass (preferably in front of the support player), the kind of stuff you teach kids at under 7s level.  Flanagan and Whiffin have to take responsibility for this.

Well said. That has been the case most of the season. Basic skills which I had drummed into me when I was 11 - giving and taking a pass, alignment & running angles. We are very poor at all of this unless Costelow starts at 10 and then things start to happen. Peel would revolutionise our back play overnight.
The fact that the players can’t do the basics is not the coaches fault they should be able to that by the time they play for the under 18’s. You shouldn’t have to coach players at pro level to pass and catch the ball. 
Then again everything is Delaneys fault when we lose and even when we win. But Toby Booth is a god the way he gets lauded by some on here. 

Please read my post - the players possess the skills but far too many times the attacking system we seem to employ negates their skills. Costelow, by the tempo and lines he runs, manages to correct many of the issues as well as his ability to take on board the bulk of the decision making.

Your continuing obsession with the Ospreys is becoming ridiculous - we are on the Scarlets v Munster thread & discussing our pretty abysmal performance yet you seem to want to rubbish Booth. Trust me our problems with coaching run deep enough for us to concentrate all our efforts on our own. Let the Osprey supporters worry about theirs. 
Back to Top
aber-fan View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 25 October 2004
Location: Wales
Status: Offline
Points: 18857
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote aber-fan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2021 at 11:47am
Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Gifting possession and territory. 6 penalties on the bounce.


Only because it’s an Irish ref mind


That try,,,

Morgan over runs the chip through in Munster 22,,,penalty..

From the ensuing lineout..I’m not not sure what Sholtz was doing actually..penalty..

Munster are in our 22. Ref had no infuence.


Scholtz's penalty was really a team penalty, I think, as it looked like planned move.  No Scarlets player engaged the front of the Munster lineout, so it looks as though they were trying to negate the maul. Unfortunately, the player who caught the ball in the lineout still had it when Scholtz bound to a Muster player, so the lineout wasn't over and the offside line was still set.    Scholtz couldn't be expected to see where the ball was, given his position; he just did what was planned.  It wasn't a great plan, but I don't think you can pin it on any one player. 

That has to be right, surely? Not Scholtz's fault at all...

Genuine question now - if instead of sending Scholtz around the back, just one Scarlet had tackled the ball carrier at the back of his knees, - which would have brought the whole Munster pack to ground - would that have been OK - 'tackling the ball carrier' - or penalised - 'bringing down the maul'?

If that was legal, I'm not at all convince that the Munster players hadn't already come in front of the ball carrier... and did the ref really know where the ball was?


I think that would be OK.  It's not a maul unless there's  a ball carrier plus one player from each side, all bound and on their feet.  Technically, if the ball carrier isn't at the front before the maul is formed, that's obstruction/ accidental offside. Maybe that was the ref's point when he said that the catcher still had the ball; our players could have tacked him. 

Whether the ref actually knew where the ball was, I can't say. I'm certainly not watching it again just to check!  

The move was probably a desperate attempt to get around  Munster's  dominance in the maul, rather than something they'd practised that week.  Understandable, I suppose, as we were getting smashed in that phase. 

What I don't understand is why, if we don't use Shingler to compete at the lineout, we don't use him to get his arms over the top of the maul and try to lock the ball up.  Beard and Charteris [and Muntser's young replacement lock last night] are/were all good that and Shingler seems to have the long levers for it. 

Thanks for that - another question occurs to me, if you have the patience to answer it...

Am I right in thinking that the Munster forwards would not be allowed to advance in that formation? Or is that OK? It sort of looks like a version of a 'flying wedge', but maybe it's allowed if the ball stays at the front...?
“You cannot reason a man out of what he never reasoned himself into.” (Jonathan Swift)
Back to Top
Nikostratos View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 24 July 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 505
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Nikostratos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 March 2021 at 11:30pm
Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Gifting possession and territory. 6 penalties on the bounce.


Only because it’s an Irish ref mind


That try,,,

Morgan over runs the chip through in Munster 22,,,penalty..

From the ensuing lineout..I’m not not sure what Sholtz was doing actually..penalty..

Munster are in our 22. Ref had no infuence.


Scholtz's penalty was really a team penalty, I think, as it looked like planned move.  No Scarlets player engaged the front of the Munster lineout, so it looks as though they were trying to negate the maul. Unfortunately, the player who caught the ball in the lineout still had it when Scholtz bound to a Muster player, so the lineout wasn't over and the offside line was still set.    Scholtz couldn't be expected to see where the ball was, given his position; he just did what was planned.  It wasn't a great plan, but I don't think you can pin it on any one player. 

That has to be right, surely? Not Scholtz's fault at all...

Genuine question now - if instead of sending Scholtz around the back, just one Scarlet had tackled the ball carrier at the back of his knees, - which would have brought the whole Munster pack to ground - would that have been OK - 'tackling the ball carrier' - or penalised - 'bringing down the maul'?

If that was legal, I'm not at all convince that the Munster players hadn't already come in front of the ball carrier... and did the ref really know where the ball was?


I think that would be OK.  It's not a maul unless there's  a ball carrier plus one player from each side, all bound and on their feet.  Technically, if the ball carrier isn't at the front before the maul is formed, that's obstruction/ accidental offside. Maybe that was the ref's point when he said that the catcher still had the ball; our players could have tacked him. 

Whether the ref actually knew where the ball was, I can't say. I'm certainly not watching it again just to check!  

The move was probably a desperate attempt to get around  Munster's  dominance in the maul, rather than something they'd practised that week.  Understandable, I suppose, as we were getting smashed in that phase. 

What I don't understand is why, if we don't use Shingler to compete at the lineout, we don't use him to get his arms over the top of the maul and try to lock the ball up.  Beard and Charteris [and Muntser's young replacement lock last night] are/were all good that and Shingler seems to have the long levers for it. 

Thanks for that - another question occurs to me, if you have the patience to answer it...

Am I right in thinking that the Munster forwards would not be allowed to advance in that formation? Or is that OK? It sort of looks like a version of a 'flying wedge', but maybe it's allowed if the ball stays at the front...?


I can't find anything in the laws that specifies.  There must be something in the guidance given to refs, I'd think, but I'm not a ref.   It does look rather like a flying wedge, but the definition of that seems to apply only to tap penalty/ free kicks.  I'm sure I've seen teams in that situation advance, but whether that would be allowed currently, I don't know.

Here's the definition:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

That seems a poor piece of law-drafting.  It doesn't make it clear what it is that makes the move illegal and instead gives two examples of 'typical situations', the second one confusing the issue.  If a team mate is in front of the ball-carrier, that's plain old obstruction; no need for a special law. 
Back to Top
gnasher1975 View Drop Down
Veteran
Veteran
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2005
Status: Online
Points: 2078
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gnasher1975 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 March 2021 at 8:39am
Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by aber-fan aber-fan wrote:

Originally posted by Nikostratos Nikostratos wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Originally posted by Fscarlet Fscarlet wrote:

Originally posted by Wil Chips Wil Chips wrote:

Gifting possession and territory. 6 penalties on the bounce.


Only because it’s an Irish ref mind


That try,,,

Morgan over runs the chip through in Munster 22,,,penalty..

From the ensuing lineout..I’m not not sure what Sholtz was doing actually..penalty..

Munster are in our 22. Ref had no infuence.


Scholtz's penalty was really a team penalty, I think, as it looked like planned move.  No Scarlets player engaged the front of the Munster lineout, so it looks as though they were trying to negate the maul. Unfortunately, the player who caught the ball in the lineout still had it when Scholtz bound to a Muster player, so the lineout wasn't over and the offside line was still set.    Scholtz couldn't be expected to see where the ball was, given his position; he just did what was planned.  It wasn't a great plan, but I don't think you can pin it on any one player. 

That has to be right, surely? Not Scholtz's fault at all...

Genuine question now - if instead of sending Scholtz around the back, just one Scarlet had tackled the ball carrier at the back of his knees, - which would have brought the whole Munster pack to ground - would that have been OK - 'tackling the ball carrier' - or penalised - 'bringing down the maul'?

If that was legal, I'm not at all convince that the Munster players hadn't already come in front of the ball carrier... and did the ref really know where the ball was?


I think that would be OK.  It's not a maul unless there's  a ball carrier plus one player from each side, all bound and on their feet.  Technically, if the ball carrier isn't at the front before the maul is formed, that's obstruction/ accidental offside. Maybe that was the ref's point when he said that the catcher still had the ball; our players could have tacked him. 

Whether the ref actually knew where the ball was, I can't say. I'm certainly not watching it again just to check!  

The move was probably a desperate attempt to get around  Munster's  dominance in the maul, rather than something they'd practised that week.  Understandable, I suppose, as we were getting smashed in that phase. 

What I don't understand is why, if we don't use Shingler to compete at the lineout, we don't use him to get his arms over the top of the maul and try to lock the ball up.  Beard and Charteris [and Muntser's young replacement lock last night] are/were all good that and Shingler seems to have the long levers for it. 

Thanks for that - another question occurs to me, if you have the patience to answer it...

Am I right in thinking that the Munster forwards would not be allowed to advance in that formation? Or is that OK? It sort of looks like a version of a 'flying wedge', but maybe it's allowed if the ball stays at the front...?


I can't find anything in the laws that specifies.  There must be something in the guidance given to refs, I'd think, but I'm not a ref.   It does look rather like a flying wedge, but the definition of that seems to apply only to tap penalty/ free kicks.  I'm sure I've seen teams in that situation advance, but whether that would be allowed currently, I don't know.

Here's the definition:

Flying wedge: An illegal type of attack, which usually happens near the goal line, when the attacking team is awarded a penalty or free-kick. The kicker taps the ball and starts the attack, either by driving towards the goal line or by passing to a team-mate who drives forward. Immediately, team-mates bind on each side of the ball-carrier in a wedge formation before engaging the opposition. Often one or more of these team-mates is in front of the ball-carrier.

That seems a poor piece of law-drafting.  It doesn't make it clear what it is that makes the move illegal and instead gives two examples of 'typical situations', the second one confusing the issue.  If a team mate is in front of the ball-carrier, that's plain old obstruction; no need for a special law. 

Tackling the ball carrier would be fine as there is no maul formed you need at least one opposition player involved for it to become a maul.

Munster are allowed to advance as they are trying to create a maul. The only thing for me is what is to say Munster haven't passed it back then passed it forward once they have realised what is happening. I think that tactic is done now as teams will just not take the ball from the catcher until the opposition have engaged. 

My junior team scored a lovely try once through opposition trying to be clever. They didn't know the rules, we Ballsed up by having the ball at the back of the maul, they held off and kept holding off and we walked over the line and our 8 put the ball down. 

Their coach played for Swansea RFC at the time, you would have thought he would have known if any one of their player touched one of ours we were all technically offside 😂😂😂


Edited by gnasher1975 - 15 March 2021 at 8:42am
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 101112
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.04
Copyright ©2001-2021 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.094 seconds.