rugbyunion
Latest News:

Quinssa WebsiteQuins News from News NowQuins Official Site


Goto Page: Previous1234
Current Page: 4 of 4
 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:12
Yeah I'm being really up myself by pointing out your comments about Marler being "a plank" and "40% rugby and 60% digs" were needless trolling of a good player and just putting the boot in to a beaten team



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:37
Quote:
Jammy Git
OK, so I've grabbed a copy of the game and snipped the Hughes turnover.
Here it is: [gfycat.com]

1) Hughes isn't off his feet until after he's stolen the ball, and has a stable base. His right hand brushes the floor, but given it is immediately grabbed it's clear he's not using it to support his bodyweight.
2) Robshaw holds on for a long time on the floor
3) Hughes is always using his left hand to get at the ball
4) Marler, on the floor, wraps up Hughes and prevents the ball being played

2) and 4) are clear penalties. Hughes' technique was spot-on. There may be a split second after the ball comes loose where Hughes loses contact with it - honestly, I can't tell! - I'd have kicked my TV in frustration if the roles were reversed and Quins hadn't won a penalty for that.

The problem was Joe's awful cleanout and Hughes' strength.

I disagree. If you were to take his arms away, he would fall flat on his face. He was not supporting his own bodyweight.

But he got away with it, and much more, so it's irrelevant.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:24
At one point he's even managing the lift Robshaw and ball off the ground with his one-armed attempt, so I can't agree he's using them to support his bodyweight



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:47
Quote:
Jammy Git
At one point he's even managing the lift Robshaw and ball off the ground with his one-armed attempt, so I can't agree he's using them to support his bodyweight

At one point maybe. But not constantly. Without being facetious,if I jump in the air at some point I'm not in contact with the ground. It doesn't mean I'm levitating or defying gravity...

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:36
It's pretty decent evidence you're not in danger of falling on your face, though.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:53
Quote:
Jammy Git
It's pretty decent evidence you're not in danger of falling on your face, though.

You haven't seen me jumping sad smiley

I don't think we're going to agree but thanks for putting up the gif. I must learn how to do them.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Mayor West (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:41
T bone, incident involving Courtney Lawes? Haven't heard anything more.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 19:44
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
It's pretty decent evidence you're not in danger of falling on your face, though.

You haven't seen me jumping sad smiley

I don't think we're going to agree but thanks for putting up the gif. I must learn how to do them.

The best tool I've found is from an old gaming forum, and it's fairly straightforward to use: [gooncam.jaleco.com]

and you can not worry too much about size, as uploading them to gfycat.com means magic happens and they don't take a million years to view.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 20:03
Quote:
Jammy Git
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
It's pretty decent evidence you're not in danger of falling on your face, though.

You haven't seen me jumping sad smiley

I don't think we're going to agree but thanks for putting up the gif. I must learn how to do them.

The best tool I've found is from an old gaming forum, and it's fairly straightforward to use: [gooncam.jaleco.com]

and you can not worry too much about size, as uploading them to gfycat.com means magic happens and they don't take a million years to view.

I've never worried about size smiling smiley

Thanks for that, I'll give it a try. If I could do a thumbs up on my phone, I would.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
RodneyRegis (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 20:07
Quote:
T-Bone
Quote:
Mayor West
That clip to me looks like a clear swinging arm to the head, almost a punch. Why would you tackle somebody like that. Smith is a target like many fly halfs but you can do it within the laws. If Sinck or Joe had done that imarine the fallout. Incidentally, has there been the same outcry about Leowe's gouging citing as Sinck's not gouging one?

Missed this. Got a link?

Vid here. Pretty nasty.

Louw btw.

[www.sarugbymag.co.za]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/10/2017 20:10 by RodneyRegis.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 20:29
There's less outcry because Louw isn't an England player or a Lion, and it was a match against Treviso that hardly anyone watched.

Also Sinck's "not gouging"? He gouged the guy.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 20:42
Quote:
InbetweenWasp
Quote:
QuincyJones
5- Hughes is a nasty piece of work. (Should definitely cop a ban for the Smith headshot. Referee and TMO, bless them, more concerned with a nothing tussle between Walker and Gopperth!)

I haven't had a chance to watch the game back after schlepping back down the M40 last night, so haven't seen the incident but doesn't sound great and a few of our posters suggesting there may be trouble ahead for Hughes. But very much an isolated incident, he's absolutely not a nasty piece of work. Big, physical, sure. Dirty, absolutely not.

Quote:
QuincyJones
Side note, but Gopperth trying to get Walker a yellow card after being awarded the penalty was particularly disappointing. Though I know players try anything to get an advantage, thought he was better than that.

Same caveat as above, but again a few of ours suggesting Gopps did the opposite and insisted to the Ref it wasn't worthy of a card and just a penalty. Seems pretty fair and balanced to me if correct - difficult to argue that it shouldn't have been that result.

Have a look when you get the chance - his swinging arm shot to head of an 18 yr old newbie (not that it should matter who it is, I suppose) isn't something a non-dirty player does. (I'd like to point out my non-bias when I say that Marler has been guilty of dirty play in the past, not just retaliating!)

With regard to Gopperth, I've always like him and actually was hoping we signed him before he moved to Wasps as he is a great player... but he 100% was asking the referee to card Walker, complaining that he landed on his head and it should be a sending off.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 20:50
Quote:
Jammy Git
OK, so I've grabbed a copy of the game and snipped the Hughes turnover.
Here it is: [gfycat.com]

1) Hughes isn't off his feet until after he's stolen the ball, and has a stable base. His right hand brushes the floor, but given it is immediately grabbed it's clear he's not using it to support his bodyweight.
2) Robshaw holds on for a long time on the floor
3) Hughes is always using his left hand to get at the ball
4) Marler, on the floor, wraps up Hughes and prevents the ball being played

2) and 4) are clear penalties. Hughes' technique was spot-on. There may be a split second after the ball comes loose where Hughes loses contact with it - honestly, I can't tell! - I'd have kicked my TV in frustration if the roles were reversed and Quins hadn't won a penalty for that.

The problem was Joe's awful cleanout and Hughes' strength.

Thanks for that GIF, Jammy.

It's definitely impressive strength by Hughes but it's definitely not legal! Despite the fact he has two goes at getting the ball, (I know you've argued your case otherwise, but I see that as two attempts!) I also don't see him supporting his weight there!

Therein lies the beauty of refereeing...

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Dgwasp (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 21:21
You did well to hear what Gopperth was saying, that is certainly not what I've heard was being said. You'd have thought that if Wasps were trying to get a player sent off the ref would have not taken so long to look at the incident with TMO.... Not that it matters really, after the shenanigans in the game a few weeks ago I think this was always likely to be open to a fair bit of niggle.

As for Hughes, he will get a ban for what was a clumsy tackle as he has caught a players head with the arm. After the way he acted in light of Simmonds injury against Exeter this season I don't buy the dirty player talk.

Marler just needs to learn to be able to take what he dishes out, if he can manage that he would be awesome - for Quins and a nightmare for anyone else. Again he has struck a player in the head with his arm, it doesn't really matter if it was intentional or not other than perhaps dictating the length of ban. I'd expect the same punishment as Hughes will be receiving given that both have been given warnings this season.

Walker has been fortunate in my opinion, dropping a player on his head/shoulders is a pretty dangerous move, it was off the ball and seemed pretty intentional from where I was sat.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/10/2017 21:42 by Dgwasp.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Dgwasp (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 21:26
Just as an aside, interesting discussion about the Hughes turnover. Up to this game we've been pretty passive in and around the ruck. Against Exeter and Sarries we seem to get turned over a lot where the type of turn over you are describing is executed. I personally think it should be penalty against Hughes but it seems to be something that is easier to get away with.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 21:52
Quote:
Dgwasp
You did well to hear what Gopperth was saying, that is certainly not what I've heard was being said.

Well, I did have the TV up pretty loud. I'm not mistaken.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
23 October, 2017 21:53
He certainly did a lot of arm waving as he hit the floor!



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Mayor West (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 05:35
Jammy, the citing for Sinck wasn't for gouging and he wasn't found guilty of gouging.
Dgwasp, Joe takes plenty of stuff from other players. I've seen him punched, pulled, rubbed in the face, kneed and much more. That's life in the front row. Never back down.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 08:22
Mayor West, it's impossible for a player to get cited for gouging because there's no such offence in the law. He was found guilty of deliberately making contact with the eyes.

Quote:
“It is on the third movement that the hand and fingers of the player [Sinckler] then come across the face and make contact with the eye of the opponent player [Paterson],” the report says.
“By the time this third movement is made it is our finding that the player would have deliberately placed his fingers upon the right eye of his opponent.

“Whilst we are content with the submission that the player’s original intent was to remove the scrum cap, his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area.”

That's gouging.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
blucherquin (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 08:34
Quote:
Jammy Git
Mayor West, it's impossible for a player to get cited for gouging because there's no such offence in the law. He was found guilty of deliberately making contact with the eyes.
Quote:
“It is on the third movement that the hand and fingers of the player [Sinckler] then come across the face and make contact with the eye of the opponent player [Paterson],” the report says.
“By the time this third movement is made it is our finding that the player would have deliberately placed his fingers upon the right eye of his opponent.

“Whilst we are content with the submission that the player’s original intent was to remove the scrum cap, his final movement with the fingers was intentional and intended to make contact with the eye, not simply the “eye area.”

That's gouging.

For fear of doing this whole thread again but, yes, exactly. And actually he wasn't found guilty -- he pleaded guilty to the more serious offence of deliberately making contact with the eye.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Sarriebone (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 10:18
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Jammy Git
OK, so I've grabbed a copy of the game and snipped the Hughes turnover.
Here it is: [gfycat.com]

1) Hughes isn't off his feet until after he's stolen the ball, and has a stable base. His right hand brushes the floor, but given it is immediately grabbed it's clear he's not using it to support his bodyweight.
2) Robshaw holds on for a long time on the floor
3) Hughes is always using his left hand to get at the ball
4) Marler, on the floor, wraps up Hughes and prevents the ball being played

2) and 4) are clear penalties. Hughes' technique was spot-on. There may be a split second after the ball comes loose where Hughes loses contact with it - honestly, I can't tell! - I'd have kicked my TV in frustration if the roles were reversed and Quins hadn't won a penalty for that.

The problem was Joe's awful cleanout and Hughes' strength.

Thanks for that GIF, Jammy.

It's definitely impressive strength by Hughes but it's definitely not legal! Despite the fact he has two goes at getting the ball, (I know you've argued your case otherwise, but I see that as two attempts!) I also don't see him supporting his weight there!

Therein lies the beauty of refereeing...

I have to agree, he definitely has two goes at it. His right hand comes out of the ruck, goes back in and comes out with the ball, clear as day

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 10:40
Yes, it does.

But the point is he's always going at it with his left hand - so it's not "two attempts", because he never stops tugging at the ball with one hand. Adding the second back in doesn't make it two attempts.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 12:09
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yes, it does.
But the point is he's always going at it with his left hand - so it's not "two attempts", because he never stops tugging at the ball with one hand. Adding the second back in doesn't make it two attempts.

I saw it that he was supporting himself by leaning on the ball?

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 12:54
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yes, it does.
But the point is he's always going at it with his left hand - so it's not "two attempts", because he never stops tugging at the ball with one hand. Adding the second back in doesn't make it two attempts.

I think it does. Can't do it with one hand (attempt one), has a go with two hands (attempt two), regardless of whether he ever let go with one hand.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 12:55
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yes, it does.
But the point is he's always going at it with his left hand - so it's not "two attempts", because he never stops tugging at the ball with one hand. Adding the second back in doesn't make it two attempts.

I saw it that he was supporting himself by leaning on the ball?

...which is illegal.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Jammy Git (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 13:16
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yes, it does.
But the point is he's always going at it with his left hand - so it's not "two attempts", because he never stops tugging at the ball with one hand. Adding the second back in doesn't make it two attempts.

I saw it that he was supporting himself by leaning on the ball?

...which is illegal.

Had he not been pulling at the ball I'd agree with you, but a) he managed to lift the ball and Robshaw with it with that hand, and b) that was the same hand that eventually forced the ball loose, so leaning it definitely wasn't.



O Fortuna, velut luna statu variabilis,
semper crescis aut decrescis

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinten Poulsen (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 13:42
Neither side giving an inch. Very exciting stuff!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Hymenoptera (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 14:34
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yeah I'm being really up myself by pointing out your comments about Marler being "a plank" and "40% rugby and 60% digs" were needless trolling of a good player and just putting the boot in to a beaten team

JG...you cant even read mate, i said get over yourself,...and poor Marler, such a good player..

your a proper yawn.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
blucherquin (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 15:09
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yeah I'm being really up myself by pointing out your comments about Marler being "a plank" and "40% rugby and 60% digs" were needless trolling of a good player and just putting the boot in to a beaten team

JG...you cant even read mate, i said get over yourself,...and poor Marler, such a good player..

your a proper yawn.

I believe it's "you're"

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 15:12
Quote:
Hymenoptera
Quote:
Jammy Git
Yeah I'm being really up myself by pointing out your comments about Marler being "a plank" and "40% rugby and 60% digs" were needless trolling of a good player and just putting the boot in to a beaten team

JG...you cant even read mate, i said get over yourself,...and poor Marler, such a good player..

your a proper yawn.

Pretty sure Jammy can read.

Pretty sure Marler is a good player (unless you disagree with many international coaches).

And if Jammy is a yawn then I'm not quite sure what that makes you with your tired old insults about Marler.

So 0/3. Could do better.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Max Bear (IP Logged)
24 October, 2017 16:47
Looking at that clip, there is a moment where players from both sides look at the ref after Hughes takes the ball, seemingly expecting a penalty to be given and then as it's not start competing again. Could be telling that it appears the players were expecting a Quin's penalty..

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Brummagem Bertie (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 00:30
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Quote:
QuincyJones
Quote:
thomh
Absolutely no way Wade wouldn't have scored, and it only needs to be probably anyway, not certain.

On the contrary, it has to be certain. 'Probably' is a penalty only, no penalty try.

That's incorrect I'm afraid. From the laws:

"Penalty try. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored but for foul play by the defending team. A penalty try is awarded if a try would probably have been scored in a better position but for foul play by the defending team."

Absolutely correct, Thomh. I take it back! Missed that new law amendment trial.

It's not a new law amendment trial - it's been the law for years.

It says 'LAW AMENDMENT TRIAL' next to it in the law book but perhaps this occurs to the 2 pointer being automatically applied.

Referees are obviously told to be very stringent when applying that law as you don't see them given often unless it's 99% sure they would score!

Correct - it's the change this year that a conversion isn't needed but a penalty try is automatically 7 points.

As for your other point, referees always correctly interpret the laws, don't they.



Whatever you do, do it safely!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 06:30
Lots of discussion of ref decisions in here and fair enough if you want to look at that in detail.

But is that somewhat deflecting from the fact that we were absolute tosh?

The ref wasn’t the reason we lost that game. Simple as that.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 06:34
Quote:
Brummagem Bertie
As for your other point, referees always correctly interpret the laws, don't they.

Wouldn't that be a dream.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
QuincyJones (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 06:38
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Lots of discussion of ref decisions in here and fair enough if you want to look at that in detail.
But is that somewhat deflecting from the fact that we were absolute tosh?

The ref wasn’t the reason we lost that game. Simple as that.

Not deflecting, talkshowhost. I think it's just something interesting to debate rather than focussing on how inept the team, coaching team and club as a whole is.

I agree, the referee was absolutely not why we lost at all. He didn't help, mind...but when have we needed a referee to help us lose a match!

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 08:11
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Lots of discussion of ref decisions in here and fair enough if you want to look at that in detail.
But is that somewhat deflecting from the fact that we were absolute tosh?

The ref wasn’t the reason we lost that game. Simple as that.

I haven't seen a single comment claiming that we lost because of the ref. There is a lot of criticism of his performance, and not all of that was in Quins favour.

Not every post on here has to be blaming someone for something. There can be a discussion as well.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 08:51
*sigh*

Where did I say that anyone said we lost because of the ref? I merely backed up what others have said in here that the ref wasn't the reason we lost that game.

I'm merely suggesting that perhaps, whilst discussing the ref is very interesting, perhaps more spotlight in the thread about the match should be being placed on the abject team performance.

I actually think the discussion of refs generally is becoming increasingly tiresome (in the game generally rather than just on here).

It's very rare that a better team loses because of a poor ref performance. When that does happen I absolutely understand why people investigate it very closely, and in all games I hope that those managing the refs are monitoring those performances.

But it's becoming a bit of a modern trope to whinge about the ref (generally the sign of a team not doing that well) and in what was a very one-sided affair, it seems odd to focus so much on the ref.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 10:16
What's the problem with doing both? And more? It's a rugby forum and most people on here probably enjoy rugby. A ref can enhance a game and can equally ruin it. If you think threads are tiresome, then ignore them. Personally I enjoy discussing aspects of the game (and our games) beyond "we lost because we're terrible" and "we won, well done us". I find the regular "JK Out" threads tiresome, but if people want to take part in them it's up to them.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 10:24
Quote:
Quinky Kin
What's the problem with doing both? And more? It's a rugby forum and most people on here probably enjoy rugby. A ref can enhance a game and can equally ruin it. If you think threads are tiresome, then ignore them. Personally I enjoy discussing aspects of the game (and our games) beyond "we lost because we're terrible" and "we won, well done us". I find the regular "JK Out" threads tiresome, but if people want to take part in them it's up to them.

grinning smiley

The hypocrisy.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quinky Kin (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 10:28
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
What's the problem with doing both? And more? It's a rugby forum and most people on here probably enjoy rugby. A ref can enhance a game and can equally ruin it. If you think threads are tiresome, then ignore them. Personally I enjoy discussing aspects of the game (and our games) beyond "we lost because we're terrible" and "we won, well done us". I find the regular "JK Out" threads tiresome, but if people want to take part in them it's up to them.

grinning smiley

The hypocrisy.

You seem upset. Maybe you can't find anything negative about Quins to scratch at? That barrel must be pretty empty.

 
Re: Wasps match thread
talkshowhost86 (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 10:37
Quote:
Quinky Kin
Quote:
talkshowhost86
Quote:
Quinky Kin
What's the problem with doing both? And more? It's a rugby forum and most people on here probably enjoy rugby. A ref can enhance a game and can equally ruin it. If you think threads are tiresome, then ignore them. Personally I enjoy discussing aspects of the game (and our games) beyond "we lost because we're terrible" and "we won, well done us". I find the regular "JK Out" threads tiresome, but if people want to take part in them it's up to them.

grinning smiley

The hypocrisy.

You seem upset. Maybe you can't find anything negative about Quins to scratch at? That barrel must be pretty empty.

Yes.

That must be it.

(Sm22)

 
Re: Wasps match thread
Quin Kong (IP Logged)
25 October, 2017 10:41
The problem with Quins seems to be threefold.

1 We’re overcoached. There is no trust in the players to make the right decision. Against opponents we don’t know or people we’ve played before we are poor. Tough opponents or people we don’t expect to beat we’re good.

2 we’re worried. Whether through injuries or something else. We need coaches to hold back.

3 we’re short on depth. Unless we’re willing to break the salary cap this is something We I can live with.



QUIN KONG

Goto Page: Previous1234
Current Page: 4 of 4

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net
 
 

Who is online?

Total users online:  

Most users online:  

Users on this site:  

Where are they?