Not Heineken Cup 23/24

[Tichtheid]

Slightly ignoring the fact that Wasps won it twice more recently than Tigers, Exeter won it more recently than Saracens, and Bath and Saints both picked up a win in the early days. We've also had five losing finalists and quite a number of semi finalists.

How many URC sides have made finals and semi finals in the last 20 years?

Even in the champions cup era it's four English wins from two teams vs one Leinster win & 3 Leinster lossesfor the URC amid a heap of French representation.

Munster have had a couple of wins within that timeframe, two finals just outside it. Ulster runner up within that time and winner before it, going back further, Cardiff have won it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not arguing the superiority of one league above another, I enjoy both the Premiership and the URC, the Top 14 can be a bit hard going at times, but there is no doubting the strengths of their teams, especially in the top half of their league.

Cardiff have never won it - got to the final - in the year there were no English clubs ( I think).

Dammit, one that got away in my reading of the Wiki page

[Uncle fester]

A couple of sides in the URC were doing all the heavy lifting in Europe before the Saffas were included. Hell, why not add the Kiwis and Aussies? That way you can demand only one premiership side qualifies

I like the way you're thinking.

As an added bonus, it leaves you free to really focus on that anglo-welsh league.

[JM2K6]

A couple of sides in the URC were doing all the heavy lifting in Europe before the Saffas were included. Hell, why not add the Kiwis and Aussies? That way you can demand only one premiership side qualifies

I like the way you're thinking.

As an added bonus, it leaves you free to really focus on that anglo-welsh league.

No, the price is you get to keep them.

[JM2K6]

It's been that way for each of the three leagues hasn't it? Toulouse then Toulon, now La Rochelle. Sarries carried the flag for England for a long time, Leicester before that.

Slightly ignoring the fact that Wasps won it twice more recently than Tigers, Exeter won it more recently than Saracens, and Bath and Saints both picked up a win in the early days. We've also had five losing finalists and quite a number of semi finalists.

How many URC sides have made finals and semi finals in the last 20 years?

Even in the champions cup era it's four English wins from two teams vs one Leinster win & 3 Leinster lossesfor the URC amid a heap of French representation.

Munster have had a couple of wins within that timeframe, two finals just outside it. Ulster runner up within that time and winner before it, going back further, Cardiff have won it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not arguing the superiority of one league above another, I enjoy both the Premiership and the URC, the Top 14 can be a bit hard going at times, but there is no doubting the strengths of their teams, especially in the top half of their league.

Well, I did say a couple of sides - not just Leinster. Leinster and Munster make up the overwhelming majority of appearances in the knockout stages.

The fact of the matter is that the URC has a lot of sides, and until the Saffer super rugby franchises were parachuted in, it was Leinster and Munster doing almost all the heavy lifting.

In the Champions Cup era, which started with the 14/15 competition, the URC's record is:

1 win (Leinster)
3 losing finals (Leinster 3x)
6 losing semi-finals (Leinster 3x, Munster 3x)
9 losing quarter-finals (Ulster 2x, Glasgow 2x, Edinburgh 1x, Leinster 1x, Munster 1x, Sharks 1x, Stormers 1x)

So Leinster lead the way by a mile as the only side actually getting to the final, Munster lost 3 semis, and then the Scottish sides show up for a few losing quarter finals (their best return since Edinburgh lost the semi in 2011/12, fwiw). No Italian sides, obviously, or Welsh sides. 2 losing QFs from the imported Saffa sides. 12/19 are Leinster or Munster.

The Premiership's record in the same time frame:

4 wins (Saracens 3x, Exeter 1x)
5 losing semi-finals (Saracens 2x, Tigers 1x, Wasps 1x, Exeter 1x)
14 losing quarter-finals (Saints 3x, Tigers 2x, Exeter 2x, Sale 2x, Saracens 2x, Wasps 2x, Bath 1x)

More teams making the QF and the same number of different teams losing a QF as the URC even with the imported Saffa teams. 1 fewer losing semi final, but spread across 4 clubs not 2. 4 wins from 2 different sides.

And if you take that 20-year mark, that adds 2 more English wins (both for Wasps) and 4 losing finals (Tigers x2, Saints, Saracens) plus Bath, London Irish, Saints, Saracens x2 all appearing in the semi finals, and a heap of sides making the QFs (14 appearances spread across 8 different teams). In the URC it's still Munster and Leinster doing the business towards the end, albeit with one final appearance from Ulster. The Welsh sides actually exist here - Scarlets and Cardiff both get to the semi finals, Ospreys make the QFs 3 times (as do Cardiff again, twice). Even Edinburgh makes a semi final out of nowhere. But the story is 5 titles between Munster and Leinster and another 7 semi finals between them.

It's extremely heavily weighted to those two teams.

In reality we're all just fighting over the scraps left by the French sides, who are the real enemy here, but the URC has no call to be suggesting the Premiership is underperforming in Europe. And that's before you even begin to look at the Challenge Cup, which has been won 12 times by 7 different English sides vs 3 for the URC teams (Cardiff x2 and Leinster).

We do absolutely fine in Europe and while Leinster and Munster can be rightly proud of their exploits, everyone else in the URC is kidding themselves if they think they're not riding hard on their coat-tails, far more than English sides were with Saracens' era.

For ref:

[Tichtheid]

Slightly ignoring the fact that Wasps won it twice more recently than Tigers, Exeter won it more recently than Saracens, and Bath and Saints both picked up a win in the early days. We've also had five losing finalists and quite a number of semi finalists.

How many URC sides have made finals and semi finals in the last 20 years?

Even in the champions cup era it's four English wins from two teams vs one Leinster win & 3 Leinster lossesfor the URC amid a heap of French representation.

Munster have had a couple of wins within that timeframe, two finals just outside it. Ulster runner up within that time and winner before it, going back further, Cardiff have won it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not arguing the superiority of one league above another, I enjoy both the Premiership and the URC, the Top 14 can be a bit hard going at times, but there is no doubting the strengths of their teams, especially in the top half of their league.

Well, I did say a couple of sides - not just Leinster. Leinster and Munster make up the overwhelming majority of appearances in the knockout stages.

The fact of the matter is that the URC has a lot of sides, and until the Saffer super rugby franchises were parachuted in, it was Leinster and Munster doing almost all the heavy lifting.

In the Champions Cup era, which started with the 14/15 competition, the URC's record is:

1 win (Leinster)
3 losing finals (Leinster 3x)
6 losing semi-finals (Leinster 3x, Munster 3x)
9 losing quarter-finals (Ulster 2x, Glasgow 2x, Edinburgh 1x, Leinster 1x, Munster 1x, Sharks 1x, Stormers 1x)

So Leinster lead the way by a mile as the only side actually getting to the final, Munster lost 3 semis, and then the Scottish sides show up for a few losing quarter finals (their best return since Edinburgh lost the semi in 2011/12, fwiw). No Italian sides, obviously, or Welsh sides. 2 losing QFs from the imported Saffa sides. 12/19 are Leinster or Munster.

The Premiership's record in the same time frame:

4 wins (Saracens 3x, Exeter 1x)
5 losing semi-finals (Saracens 2x, Tigers 1x, Wasps 1x, Exeter 1x)
14 losing quarter-finals (Saints 3x, Tigers 2x, Exeter 2x, Sale 2x, Saracens 2x, Wasps 2x, Bath 1x)

More teams making the QF and the same number of different teams losing a QF as the URC even with the imported Saffa teams. 1 fewer losing semi final, but spread across 4 clubs not 2. 4 wins from 2 different sides.

And if you take that 20-year mark, that adds 2 more English wins (both for Wasps) and 4 losing finals (Tigers x2, Saints, Saracens) plus Bath, London Irish, Saints, Saracens x2 all appearing in the semi finals, and a heap of sides making the QFs (14 appearances spread across 8 different teams). In the URC it's still Munster and Leinster doing the business towards the end, albeit with one final appearance from Ulster. The Welsh sides actually exist here - Scarlets and Cardiff both get to the semi finals, Ospreys make the QFs 3 times (as do Cardiff again, twice). Even Edinburgh makes a semi final out of nowhere. But the story is 5 titles between Munster and Leinster and another 7 semi finals between them.

It's extremely heavily weighted to those two teams.

In reality we're all just fighting over the scraps left by the French sides, who are the real enemy here, but the URC has no call to be suggesting the Premiership is underperforming in Europe. And that's before you even begin to look at the Challenge Cup, which has been won 12 times by 7 different English sides vs 3 for the URC teams (Cardiff x2 and Leinster).

We do absolutely fine in Europe and while Leinster and Munster can be rightly proud of their exploits, everyone else in the URC is kidding themselves if they think they're not riding hard on their coat-tails, far more than English sides were with Saracens' era.

For ref:

That's a fair amount of effort to go to to disprove something that was never claimed in the first place.

Personally I have no "enemies" when it comes to rugby. The lack of grace from some fans from both sides of winning and losing is distasteful, but it's not important, it's just another angle to online unpleasantness.

There is no rugby team that I dislike, I like "ten man up the jumper" and I like "chuck it out to the wings, defence optional, we'll score more than you" and all points in between.

Having said that I'd love Glasgow to beat Quins, but that isn't a grudge thing.

[Ovals]

Munster have had a couple of wins within that timeframe, two finals just outside it. Ulster runner up within that time and winner before it, going back further, Cardiff have won it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not arguing the superiority of one league above another, I enjoy both the Premiership and the URC, the Top 14 can be a bit hard going at times, but there is no doubting the strengths of their teams, especially in the top half of their league.

Well, I did say a couple of sides - not just Leinster. Leinster and Munster make up the overwhelming majority of appearances in the knockout stages.

The fact of the matter is that the URC has a lot of sides, and until the Saffer super rugby franchises were parachuted in, it was Leinster and Munster doing almost all the heavy lifting.

In the Champions Cup era, which started with the 14/15 competition, the URC's record is:

1 win (Leinster)
3 losing finals (Leinster 3x)
6 losing semi-finals (Leinster 3x, Munster 3x)
9 losing quarter-finals (Ulster 2x, Glasgow 2x, Edinburgh 1x, Leinster 1x, Munster 1x, Sharks 1x, Stormers 1x)

So Leinster lead the way by a mile as the only side actually getting to the final, Munster lost 3 semis, and then the Scottish sides show up for a few losing quarter finals (their best return since Edinburgh lost the semi in 2011/12, fwiw). No Italian sides, obviously, or Welsh sides. 2 losing QFs from the imported Saffa sides. 12/19 are Leinster or Munster.

The Premiership's record in the same time frame:

4 wins (Saracens 3x, Exeter 1x)
5 losing semi-finals (Saracens 2x, Tigers 1x, Wasps 1x, Exeter 1x)
14 losing quarter-finals (Saints 3x, Tigers 2x, Exeter 2x, Sale 2x, Saracens 2x, Wasps 2x, Bath 1x)

More teams making the QF and the same number of different teams losing a QF as the URC even with the imported Saffa teams. 1 fewer losing semi final, but spread across 4 clubs not 2. 4 wins from 2 different sides.

And if you take that 20-year mark, that adds 2 more English wins (both for Wasps) and 4 losing finals (Tigers x2, Saints, Saracens) plus Bath, London Irish, Saints, Saracens x2 all appearing in the semi finals, and a heap of sides making the QFs (14 appearances spread across 8 different teams). In the URC it's still Munster and Leinster doing the business towards the end, albeit with one final appearance from Ulster. The Welsh sides actually exist here - Scarlets and Cardiff both get to the semi finals, Ospreys make the QFs 3 times (as do Cardiff again, twice). Even Edinburgh makes a semi final out of nowhere. But the story is 5 titles between Munster and Leinster and another 7 semi finals between them.

It's extremely heavily weighted to those two teams.

In reality we're all just fighting over the scraps left by the French sides, who are the real enemy here, but the URC has no call to be suggesting the Premiership is underperforming in Europe. And that's before you even begin to look at the Challenge Cup, which has been won 12 times by 7 different English sides vs 3 for the URC teams (Cardiff x2 and Leinster).

We do absolutely fine in Europe and while Leinster and Munster can be rightly proud of their exploits, everyone else in the URC is kidding themselves if they think they're not riding hard on their coat-tails, far more than English sides were with Saracens' era.

For ref:

That's a fair amount of effort to go to to disprove something that was never claimed in the first place.

Personally I have no "enemies" when it comes to rugby. The lack of grace from some fans from both sides of winning and losing is distasteful, but it's not important, it's just another angle to online unpleasantness.

There is no rugby team that I dislike, I like "ten man up the jumper" and I like "chuck it out to the wings, defence optional, we'll score more than you" and all points in between.

Having said that I'd love Glasgow to beat Quins, but that isn't a grudge thing.

I hope for the opposite - but have nothing against Glasgow.

[JM2K6]

Munster have had a couple of wins within that timeframe, two finals just outside it. Ulster runner up within that time and winner before it, going back further, Cardiff have won it.

For the avoidance of any doubt, I'm not arguing the superiority of one league above another, I enjoy both the Premiership and the URC, the Top 14 can be a bit hard going at times, but there is no doubting the strengths of their teams, especially in the top half of their league.

Well, I did say a couple of sides - not just Leinster. Leinster and Munster make up the overwhelming majority of appearances in the knockout stages.

The fact of the matter is that the URC has a lot of sides, and until the Saffer super rugby franchises were parachuted in, it was Leinster and Munster doing almost all the heavy lifting.

In the Champions Cup era, which started with the 14/15 competition, the URC's record is:

1 win (Leinster)
3 losing finals (Leinster 3x)
6 losing semi-finals (Leinster 3x, Munster 3x)
9 losing quarter-finals (Ulster 2x, Glasgow 2x, Edinburgh 1x, Leinster 1x, Munster 1x, Sharks 1x, Stormers 1x)

So Leinster lead the way by a mile as the only side actually getting to the final, Munster lost 3 semis, and then the Scottish sides show up for a few losing quarter finals (their best return since Edinburgh lost the semi in 2011/12, fwiw). No Italian sides, obviously, or Welsh sides. 2 losing QFs from the imported Saffa sides. 12/19 are Leinster or Munster.

The Premiership's record in the same time frame:

4 wins (Saracens 3x, Exeter 1x)
5 losing semi-finals (Saracens 2x, Tigers 1x, Wasps 1x, Exeter 1x)
14 losing quarter-finals (Saints 3x, Tigers 2x, Exeter 2x, Sale 2x, Saracens 2x, Wasps 2x, Bath 1x)

More teams making the QF and the same number of different teams losing a QF as the URC even with the imported Saffa teams. 1 fewer losing semi final, but spread across 4 clubs not 2. 4 wins from 2 different sides.

And if you take that 20-year mark, that adds 2 more English wins (both for Wasps) and 4 losing finals (Tigers x2, Saints, Saracens) plus Bath, London Irish, Saints, Saracens x2 all appearing in the semi finals, and a heap of sides making the QFs (14 appearances spread across 8 different teams). In the URC it's still Munster and Leinster doing the business towards the end, albeit with one final appearance from Ulster. The Welsh sides actually exist here - Scarlets and Cardiff both get to the semi finals, Ospreys make the QFs 3 times (as do Cardiff again, twice). Even Edinburgh makes a semi final out of nowhere. But the story is 5 titles between Munster and Leinster and another 7 semi finals between them.

It's extremely heavily weighted to those two teams.

In reality we're all just fighting over the scraps left by the French sides, who are the real enemy here, but the URC has no call to be suggesting the Premiership is underperforming in Europe. And that's before you even begin to look at the Challenge Cup, which has been won 12 times by 7 different English sides vs 3 for the URC teams (Cardiff x2 and Leinster).

We do absolutely fine in Europe and while Leinster and Munster can be rightly proud of their exploits, everyone else in the URC is kidding themselves if they think they're not riding hard on their coat-tails, far more than English sides were with Saracens' era.

For ref:

That's a fair amount of effort to go to to disprove something that was never claimed in the first place.

Personally I have no "enemies" when it comes to rugby. The lack of grace from some fans from both sides of winning and losing is distasteful, but it's not important, it's just another angle to online unpleasantness.

There is no rugby team that I dislike, I like "ten man up the jumper" and I like "chuck it out to the wings, defence optional, we'll score more than you" and all points in between.

Having said that I'd love Glasgow to beat Quins, but that isn't a grudge thing.

Enemy was a little tongue in cheek, but also a little bit of me being fed up with what they've done to club rugby with tons of cash and a seemingly endless supply of vat grown genetic freaks who make standard sized rugby players look tiny. They do play some great rugby, but I can't shake the idea it's coming at a great cost to the sport.

There were definitely some weird claims about the premiership vs urc that started off this whole discussion, mind. I didn't mind putting the effort in though, I found it interesting enough so might as well share it in case anyone else does.

[PornDog]

A very good Scratletts team got to the 2018 semi-finals.

Even with that though, it really does make rather depressing reading for the Welsh.

[Tichtheid]

Enemy was a little tongue in cheek, but also a little bit of me being fed up with what they've done to club rugby with tons of cash and a seemingly endless supply of vat grown genetic freaks who make standard sized rugby players look tiny. They do play some great rugby, but I can't shake the idea it's coming at a great cost to the sport.

Emmanuel Meafou is the same size as Will Skelton but he has pace and quick hands, there will be more of these guys as we go on. We are going to have to ensure that a six foot eight, twenty three stone guy running at pace doesn't hit anyone in the head. The laws are going to have to be changed, or at least properly applied, at the elite level. I enjoyed almost everything about the rugby over last weekend, but the number of times I watched officials talk down a hit to the head from red to yellow or penalty only is a major problem.

Going back a bit, when you say Edinburgh got to a European Cup semi final out of nowhere - I was at the quarter final where we beat Toulouse, that was one of the happiest rugby days of my life, up there with the two Scotland Grand Slam games I'd been at - against France in '84 and the "David Sole walking his team onto the pitch" six years later.

[Margin__Walker]

Caulfield's red card from Friday night has been overturned

[sockwithaticket]

Disciplinary committee decided Caulfield had committed an act of foul play but "found that the offence did not warrant a red card."

Wtf? I was in the camp that it was an accident, a rugby incident, but if you've decided that it's an act of foul play, how does it not meet the red card standard?

[inactionman]

Caulfield's red card from Friday night has been overturned

Common sense prevails.

I'll dig out the judgment, I'd be interested to read how the conclusion of foul play was reached as I'm a bit confused on reasoning - if it's considered foul play and it's a knee to the head, I can't see how that isn't a red?

edit: ignore this - wrong red card incident.

[Oxbow]

Hmm, I wonder how Langdon's hearing will go later today.

[inactionman]

Disciplinary committee decided Caulfield had committed an act of foul play but "found that the offence did not warrant a red card."

Wtf? I was in the camp that it was an accident, a rugby incident, but if you've decided that it's an act of foul play, how does it not meet the red card standard?

That's confusing me as well.

[Margin__Walker]

Disciplinary committee decided Caulfield had committed an act of foul play but "found that the offence did not warrant a red card."

Wtf? I was in the camp that it was an accident, a rugby incident, but if you've decided that it's an act of foul play, how does it not meet the red card standard?

That's confusing me as well.

Guessing it started as a red with mitigation applied for the boot in the face from Sinks. Similar to how every head shot seems to be getting mitigated down to a yellow on field at the moment.

[Margin__Walker]

Hmm, I wonder how Langdon's hearing will go later today.

I think he's in a tougher spot. We'll see though

[Uncle fester]

Disciplinary committee decided Caulfield had committed an act of foul play but "found that the offence did not warrant a red card."

Wtf? I was in the camp that it was an accident, a rugby incident, but if you've decided that it's an act of foul play, how does it not meet the red card standard?

That's confusing me as well.

More sensible decision would have been to say that the red card was sufficient and no further sanction is required and detail why. Right now, they've just contradicted themselves and made refs jobs harder.

[fishfoodie]

Wtf? I was in the camp that it was an accident, a rugby incident, but if you've decided that it's an act of foul play, how does it not meet the red card standard?

That's confusing me as well.

More sensible decision would have been to say that the red card was sufficient and no further sanction is required and detail why. Right now, they've just contradicted themselves and made refs jobs harder.

It's probably down to not wanting to leave him with a Red Card on his disciplinary record, but I agree with everyone else, the logic of the complete decision is impossible to understand.

[Biffer]

A couple of sides in the URC were doing all the heavy lifting in Europe before the Saffas were included

It's been that way for each of the three leagues hasn't it? Toulouse then Toulon, now La Rochelle. Sarries carried the flag for England for a long time, Leicester before that.

Slightly ignoring the fact that Wasps won it twice more recently than Tigers, Exeter won it more recently than Saracens, and Bath and Saints both picked up a win in the early days. We've also had five losing finalists and quite a number of semi finalists.

How many URC sides have made finals and semi finals in the last 20 years?

Even in the champions cup era it's four English wins from two teams vs one Leinster win & 3 Leinster lossesfor the URC amid a heap of French representation.

You know if you make it the last twenty years you rule out the Bath, Northampton and Leicester wins you mentioned, right? In the last twenty years, URC has two different winners, Prem and T14 3 each. URC has one other team making the final, Prem 2, T14 another 3. Semifinals URC another 3, Prem another 3, T14 another 1. SO SF or later looks like URC 6, Prem 8, T14 7. Not a huge amount of difference, and the saffers will likely hit a semifinal at some point (this is only their second year in the comp).

[Margin__Walker]

That's confusing me as well.

More sensible decision would have been to say that the red card was sufficient and no further sanction is required and detail why. Right now, they've just contradicted themselves and made refs jobs harder.

It's probably down to not wanting to leave him with a Red Card on his disciplinary record, but I agree with everyone else, the logic of the complete decision is impossible to understand.

How would the logic be different from something like a head high hit, where the sanction starts at red, but mitigation is applied for a sudden change in height to bring it down to a yellow?

I'm assuming (and hopefully the judgement will clarify) here that he's started with a red for stepping on someone's head, but that it's been mitigated in a similar manner for the impact Caulfield receiving a boot to his face form a team mate has had on his movement.

[inactionman]

More sensible decision would have been to say that the red card was sufficient and no further sanction is required and detail why. Right now, they've just contradicted themselves and made refs jobs harder.

It's probably down to not wanting to leave him with a Red Card on his disciplinary record, but I agree with everyone else, the logic of the complete decision is impossible to understand.

How would the logic be different from something like a head high hit, where the sanction starts at red, but mitigation is applied for a sudden change in height to bring it down to a yellow?

I'm assuming (and hopefully the judgement will clarify) here that he's started with a red for stepping on someone's head, but that it's been mitigated in a similar manner for the impact Caulfield receiving a boot to his face form a team mate has had on his movement.

It will be interesting to see what the ruling says, but if reports are to be believed it's still seen as foul play for trying to step over someone to enter a ruck.

I suppose there may be some consideration of recklessness, but I can't see what else Caulfield can do. Not enter a ruck because an opposition player is on the ground in front of you? Run all the way round them (he sort of did that anyway, but presumably more to enter from behind the ruck and not to enter from side)? Drag them out of the way? Heaven forfend, ruck them out? We've already got the tactic of rolling in the way of people entering the ruck - although to be absolutely clear that is not what I saw happening here - and this will only make it worse.

My main reservation is that we can't realistically referee or sanction on outcome, only on intent or degree of recklessness - but in these two cases I'm not sure that's really what's happened. I'd say we've got it mostly right in terms of reckless high shots and tackling in the air, after we've established you've transgressed than we can assess the seriousness of sanctions based upon the outcome. We can't do it the other way round - judge the outcomes and then apply mitigations if you've not really transgressed.

[Uncle fester]

More sensible decision would have been to say that the red card was sufficient and no further sanction is required and detail why. Right now, they've just contradicted themselves and made refs jobs harder.

It's probably down to not wanting to leave him with a Red Card on his disciplinary record, but I agree with everyone else, the logic of the complete decision is impossible to understand.

How would the logic be different from something like a head high hit, where the sanction starts at red, but mitigation is applied for a sudden change in height to bring it down to a yellow?

I'm assuming (and hopefully the judgement will clarify) here that he's started with a red for stepping on someone's head, but that it's been mitigated in a similar manner for the impact Caulfield receiving a boot to his face form a team mate has had on his movement.

Refs job is already hard enough. For head contact, there is a protocol to follow that states when mitigation can and cannot be applied. Trouble is that the panels don't seem to be working of the same protocols.

It's less clear for stuff like this but where a player gets kicked in the head due to reckless action, then a penalty should be applied as the ref can't be a mind reader.

Really good example is POC kicking Dave Kearney on the head trying to kick a loose ball. You could take the view that Dave put his head in the way of POC's boot and it's a rugby accident or that POC took his chances leathering a ball that another player was diving on.

CJ Stander ended Lambie's career with a reckless challenge. I disagreed with red at the time but I've come around to the notion that if players are causing head injuries by wild out of control actions, then there should be sanction for that

[topofthemoon]

[Margin__Walker]

It's probably down to not wanting to leave him with a Red Card on his disciplinary record, but I agree with everyone else, the logic of the complete decision is impossible to understand.

How would the logic be different from something like a head high hit, where the sanction starts at red, but mitigation is applied for a sudden change in height to bring it down to a yellow?

I'm assuming (and hopefully the judgement will clarify) here that he's started with a red for stepping on someone's head, but that it's been mitigated in a similar manner for the impact Caulfield receiving a boot to his face form a team mate has had on his movement.

Refs job is already hard enough. For head contact, there is a protocol to follow that states when mitigation can and cannot be applied. Trouble is that the panels don't seem to be working of the same protocols.

It's less clear for stuff like this but where a player gets kicked in the head due to reckless action, then a penalty should be applied as the ref can't be a mind reader.

Really good example is POC kicking Dave Kearney on the head trying to kick a loose ball. You could take the view that Dave put his head in the way of POC's boot and it's a rugby accident or that POC took his chances leathering a ball that another player was diving on.

CJ Stander ended Lambie's career with a reckless challenge. I disagreed with red at the time but I've come around to the notion that if players are causing head injuries by wild out of control actions, then there should be sanction for that

TBF I agree with a lot of that, but I don't think the ref does need to be a mind reader and think the protocols for head contact do seem to have been followed at the hearing. The head contact was the result of a reckless action, but the on field ref and TMO just didn't spot the boot heading to Caulfields face that changed the dynamics at the last moment and caused him to freeze up.

The other hearing will also be interesting, as I can't really see the mitigation in Langdon's case and would be very surprised if that was overturned.

[sockwithaticket]

I think it's hard to accept these sorts of incidents being given on field reds when so many officials seem to be bending over backwards to use the high tackle framework to award yellows for nasty hits.

[JM2K6]

It's been that way for each of the three leagues hasn't it? Toulouse then Toulon, now La Rochelle. Sarries carried the flag for England for a long time, Leicester before that.

Slightly ignoring the fact that Wasps won it twice more recently than Tigers, Exeter won it more recently than Saracens, and Bath and Saints both picked up a win in the early days. We've also had five losing finalists and quite a number of semi finalists.

How many URC sides have made finals and semi finals in the last 20 years?

Even in the champions cup era it's four English wins from two teams vs one Leinster win & 3 Leinster lossesfor the URC amid a heap of French representation.

You know if you make it the last twenty years you rule out the Bath, Northampton and Leicester wins you mentioned, right? In the last twenty years, URC has two different winners, Prem and T14 3 each. URC has one other team making the final, Prem 2, T14 another 3. Semifinals URC another 3, Prem another 3, T14 another 1. SO SF or later looks like URC 6, Prem 8, T14 7. Not a huge amount of difference, and the saffers will likely hit a semifinal at some point (this is only their second year in the comp).

I mentioned Bath, Northampton, Wasps because they were relevant to the comment Tichtheid made - just going with the flow. We've had several winners over the years.

I'm well aware that we've "only" had 3 different winners in the last 20 years. The URC has more teams and more countries and my point was that Leinster and Munster have done the vast amont of work in the knockout stages for the URC. For the URC, it's 6 wins from 2 teams. For the Premiership, 6 wins from 3 different teams. For the URC, there's one other final appearance for a team outside those two - Ulster lost in 2011/12. The Premiership? Saints & Tigers lost 3 between them, and Saracens lost in 2013/14. it's 10 final appearances among 5 teams with 6 wins, vs 10 final appearancs among 3 teams with 6 wins, and 9/10 of those appearances are the same two teams.

And like I pointed out in the other post, that story continues. The saddest factor is the decline of the Welsh sides, but at no point do the appearances in the knockout stages suggest anything other than Leinster & Munster dominance for the URC, and the Prem being a lot more spread out while being just as successful. Take Leinster & Munster out of the URC, and Saracens and your choice of another team, and the Premiership stays ahead.

All this is just to back up the point - there's no point anyone trying to get bigheaded about the URC vs the Premiership, not when the URC contains 3 (well, 4, but you know...) countries of sides whose teams haven't made a final since the English teams joined, let alone won it, and when all the success is so heavily concentrated in two teams. I think that's great if you're an Irish fan, but if I was a Scot, Italian, or a Welshman I'm not sure I'd be invested in the "URC's" success in Europe when it's almost entirely Irish success.

Anyway, the Saffer teams will no doubt win it soon but it's an absolute joke they're in any european league, let alone the Champions Cup. Importing Super Rugby sides is terrible. But that's another argument that's already been and gone.

[JM2K6]

Enemy was a little tongue in cheek, but also a little bit of me being fed up with what they've done to club rugby with tons of cash and a seemingly endless supply of vat grown genetic freaks who make standard sized rugby players look tiny. They do play some great rugby, but I can't shake the idea it's coming at a great cost to the sport.

Emmanuel Meafou is the same size as Will Skelton but he has pace and quick hands, there will be more of these guys as we go on. We are going to have to ensure that a six foot eight, twenty three stone guy running at pace doesn't hit anyone in the head. The laws are going to have to be changed, or at least properly applied, at the elite level. I enjoyed almost everything about the rugby over last weekend, but the number of times I watched officials talk down a hit to the head from red to yellow or penalty only is a major problem.

Going back a bit, when you say Edinburgh got to a European Cup semi final out of nowhere - I was at the quarter final where we beat Toulouse, that was one of the happiest rugby days of my life, up there with the two Scotland Grand Slam games I'd been at - against France in '84 and the "David Sole walking his team onto the pitch" six years later.

I reckon just changing body height isn't enough when it comes to the big guys. They do so much damage in contact, they warp the set piece, and they are just the inevitable end game of a size-based arms race. It's not healthy at all. Completely agree about refs doing their best to find mitigation out of nowhere now, the sport has basically decided that red cards "ruin" matches (ask Saints about that one) and it's so stupid.

Quins beating Stade Francais in a group stage game was the first time I genuinely felt like European rugby couldn't be beat. Pissing down with rain, massive underdogs, Sergio Parisse making a wanker of himself and 28 phases (and a huge slice of luck from the ref) later and a drop goal wins it at the death. Just magic. Funnily enough the most enjoyment I'd had from Euro rugby before then was the Wasps Toulouse final - sat among the mad Toulouse fans, about 20 yards from the drummers, cheering on Wasps (spit) and being rewarded with an absolutely incredible display that somehow topped their win against Munster in the semi final.

[ASMO]

Enemy was a little tongue in cheek, but also a little bit of me being fed up with what they've done to club rugby with tons of cash and a seemingly endless supply of vat grown genetic freaks who make standard sized rugby players look tiny. They do play some great rugby, but I can't shake the idea it's coming at a great cost to the sport.

Emmanuel Meafou is the same size as Will Skelton but he has pace and quick hands, there will be more of these guys as we go on. We are going to have to ensure that a six foot eight, twenty three stone guy running at pace doesn't hit anyone in the head. The laws are going to have to be changed, or at least properly applied, at the elite level. I enjoyed almost everything about the rugby over last weekend, but the number of times I watched officials talk down a hit to the head from red to yellow or penalty only is a major problem.

Going back a bit, when you say Edinburgh got to a European Cup semi final out of nowhere - I was at the quarter final where we beat Toulouse, that was one of the happiest rugby days of my life, up there with the two Scotland Grand Slam games I'd been at - against France in '84 and the "David Sole walking his team onto the pitch" six years later.

I reckon just changing body height isn't enough when it comes to the big guys. They do so much damage in contact, they warp the set piece, and they are just the inevitable end game of a size-based arms race. It's not healthy at all. Completely agree about refs doing their best to find mitigation out of nowhere now, the sport has basically decided that red cards "ruin" matches (ask Saints about that one) and it's so stupid.

Quins beating Stade Francais in a group stage game was the first time I genuinely felt like European rugby couldn't be beat. Pissing down with rain, massive underdogs, Sergio Parisse making a wanker of himself and 28 phases (and a huge slice of luck from the ref) later and a drop goal wins it at the death. Just magic. Funnily enough the most enjoyment I'd had from Euro rugby before then was the Wasps Toulouse final - sat among the mad Toulouse fans, about 20 yards from the drummers, cheering on Wasps (spit) and being rewarded with an absolutely incredible display that somehow topped their win against Munster in the semi final.

The only way to reduce the size of some of there behemoths is to make them play the full 80 mins. Right now they play 60 mins max, then are replaced with another of the same size....bring back injury subs only.

[PornDog]

Emmanuel Meafou is the same size as Will Skelton but he has pace and quick hands, there will be more of these guys as we go on. We are going to have to ensure that a six foot eight, twenty three stone guy running at pace doesn't hit anyone in the head. The laws are going to have to be changed, or at least properly applied, at the elite level. I enjoyed almost everything about the rugby over last weekend, but the number of times I watched officials talk down a hit to the head from red to yellow or penalty only is a major problem.

Going back a bit, when you say Edinburgh got to a European Cup semi final out of nowhere - I was at the quarter final where we beat Toulouse, that was one of the happiest rugby days of my life, up there with the two Scotland Grand Slam games I'd been at - against France in '84 and the "David Sole walking his team onto the pitch" six years later.

I reckon just changing body height isn't enough when it comes to the big guys. They do so much damage in contact, they warp the set piece, and they are just the inevitable end game of a size-based arms race. It's not healthy at all. Completely agree about refs doing their best to find mitigation out of nowhere now, the sport has basically decided that red cards "ruin" matches (ask Saints about that one) and it's so stupid.

Quins beating Stade Francais in a group stage game was the first time I genuinely felt like European rugby couldn't be beat. Pissing down with rain, massive underdogs, Sergio Parisse making a wanker of himself and 28 phases (and a huge slice of luck from the ref) later and a drop goal wins it at the death. Just magic. Funnily enough the most enjoyment I'd had from Euro rugby before then was the Wasps Toulouse final - sat among the mad Toulouse fans, about 20 yards from the drummers, cheering on Wasps (spit) and being rewarded with an absolutely incredible display that somehow topped their win against Munster in the semi final.

The only way to reduce the size of some of there behemoths is to make them play the full 80 mins. Right now they play 60 mins max, then are replaced with another of the same size....bring back injury subs only.

Limit them to 3 or 4 as well - stop any rampant Tom Williams type shenanigans.

[JM2K6]

Just mandate size/weight limits on safety grounds.

[fishfoodie]

Northampton Saints hooker Curtis Langdon has been suspended for four matches after his red card against Munster in Saturday's Investec Champions Cup meeting at Thomond Park.

The 26-year-old was shown a red card shortly before half time by French referee Tual Trainini, after striking Munster's Tom Ahern in the head with his knee.

Ahern left the game with a head injury and spent Saturday night in hospital, and has since had to withdraw from Ireland's extended Six Nations training squad. Northampton staged second half fightback to win 26-23, setting up a last-16 rematch against Munster at Franklin's Gardens in April.

Langdon appeared before an independent disciplinary committee this week, where he accepted the red card decision, with the incident given a mid-range entry point which carries an eight-week suspension.

Taking into account the player's guilty plea and his clear disciplinary record, the committee decided to reduce the sanction by the maximum of 50% before imposing a four-week suspension.

The date when Langdon can return to play will be determined once the committee has received full details of his future playing schedule, with the Saints due to play two friendly matches during the Six Nations break.

Both the player and EPCR have the right to appeal the decision.

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2024/012 ... -red-card/

[Blake]

The only way to reduce the size of some of there behemoths is to make them play the full 80 mins. Right now they play 60 mins max, then are replaced with another of the same size....bring back injury subs only.

Limit them to 3 or 4 as well - stop any rampant Tom Williams type shenanigans.

Study after study has found that injuries are more likely to occur when players are more fatigued.

An unintended consequence of this proposal is going to the that big players still get selected, but become more and a more sloppy with their hits the more tired they get at the end of a match. Yes they'll get penalised, but they could also dole out some career ending injuries in the process.

[PornDog]

The only way to reduce the size of some of there behemoths is to make them play the full 80 mins. Right now they play 60 mins max, then are replaced with another of the same size....bring back injury subs only.

Limit them to 3 or 4 as well - stop any rampant Tom Williams type shenanigans.

Study after study has found that injuries are more likely to occur when players are more fatigued.

That's something that is true across the entirety of human activity - a broad strokes point like that is not applicably true when applied to specific circumstances where a plethora of other factors are involved. Huge cunts that can't waddle around the pitch after 40 minutes can't catch any other player to injure them. They might pull a hammy though!

Size, size, size has been the mantra for player development and it is absolutely vital to the long term prospects of the game that that changes. And it needs to change pretty damn quickly.

[Raggs]

Limit them to 3 or 4 as well - stop any rampant Tom Williams type shenanigans.

Study after study has found that injuries are more likely to occur when players are more fatigued.

That's something that is true across the entirety of human activity - a broad strokes point like that is not applicably true when applied to specific circumstances where a plethora of other factors are involved. Huge cunts that can't waddle around the pitch after 40 minutes can't catch any other player to injure them. They might pull a hammy though!

Size, size, size has been the mantra for player development and it is absolutely vital to the long term prospects of the game that that changes. And it needs to change pretty damn quickly.

Who exactly are these huge cunts that waddle around the pitch after 40 then? Playing at pro and international level. Because I can't think of any.

[PornDog]

Study after study has found that injuries are more likely to occur when players are more fatigued.

That's something that is true across the entirety of human activity - a broad strokes point like that is not applicably true when applied to specific circumstances where a plethora of other factors are involved. Huge cunts that can't waddle around the pitch after 40 minutes can't catch any other player to injure them. They might pull a hammy though!

Size, size, size has been the mantra for player development and it is absolutely vital to the long term prospects of the game that that changes. And it needs to change pretty damn quickly.

Who exactly are these huge cunts that waddle around the pitch after 40 then? Playing at pro and international level. Because I can't think of any.

in fairness to him, Uini Atonio has gone from a 30 minutes only sub to a 50 minutes only starter.

Obviously there's a little bit of facetious hyperbole from me, but the point stands - if players have to play a full 80 minutes to international standard then they will be forced to reduce their size to remain competitive.

And Blake, fitter players aren't as easily fatigued! Especially true if they aren't tackling much larger men that only play a portion of the match.

[Raggs]

That's something that is true across the entirety of human activity - a broad strokes point like that is not applicably true when applied to specific circumstances where a plethora of other factors are involved. Huge cunts that can't waddle around the pitch after 40 minutes can't catch any other player to injure them. They might pull a hammy though!

Size, size, size has been the mantra for player development and it is absolutely vital to the long term prospects of the game that that changes. And it needs to change pretty damn quickly.

Who exactly are these huge cunts that waddle around the pitch after 40 then? Playing at pro and international level. Because I can't think of any.

in fairness to him, Uini Atonio has gone from a 30 minutes only sub to a 50 minutes only starter.

Obviously there's a little bit of facetious hyperbole from me, but the point stands - if players have to play a full 80 minutes to international standard then they will be forced to reduce their size to remain competitive.

And Blake, fitter players aren't as easily fatigued! Especially true if they aren't tackling much larger men that only play a portion of the match.

He played 60 minutes against South Africa in a world cup quarter final. I'm willing to bet I can find games that he's played for his club where he's stayed on even longer.

People seem to be under the impression that the giants will suddenly drop 30kg. It's not going to happen, they don't need to. Skelton is enormous, and regularly played 80 minutes.

[PornDog]

Who exactly are these huge cunts that waddle around the pitch after 40 then? Playing at pro and international level. Because I can't think of any.

in fairness to him, Uini Atonio has gone from a 30 minutes only sub to a 50 minutes only starter.

Obviously there's a little bit of facetious hyperbole from me, but the point stands - if players have to play a full 80 minutes to international standard then they will be forced to reduce their size to remain competitive.

And Blake, fitter players aren't as easily fatigued! Especially true if they aren't tackling much larger men that only play a portion of the match.

He played 60 minutes against South Africa in a world cup quarter final. I'm willing to bet I can find games that he's played for his club where he's stayed on even longer.

People seem to be under the impression that the giants will suddenly drop 30kg. It's not going to happen, they don't need to. Skelton is enormous, and regularly played 80 minutes.

Well then there should be no issue with them playing 80 minutes every week then, should there?

You're hardly showing me up by saying Atonio has occasionally played 60 minutes either. I'd be very surprised as well if Skelton did "regularly" play the full 80 as well. I'm sure it has happened - Furlong and Porter have done so (or pretty damn close to it) for us numerous times, though usually because there are questions over our backups than by choice.

And you're guilty of as much hyperbole as I am with your drop 30kgs remark. Of course that's not going to happen. They are certainly not mutually exclusive, but there is an inverse relationship between fitness and power - rebalancing that is a net good for rugby.

For what's it's worth, I like the idea of limiting subs to 4 changes, with a max of 2 being for tactical reasons.

[Tichtheid]

Unfortunately I’ve yet to see a proposal anywhere that isn’t either open to abuse (injury only subs) or probably unworkable (size limits).

Eg, Bundee Aki isn’t huge, five ten and sixteen stones, but he’s hugely powerful. Owen Farrell at six two and fourteen and a half stone isn’t as powerful but it’s not his size or power that has been controversial over the years.

If we are looking at size limits, what is “too big”? Is Jonathan Danty too big? He is one of the most effective ball carriers in world rugby, but he’s more like Aki than he is Skelton.

[PornDog]

I don't like size limits either, which ultimately would be prejudice based and unworkable legally.

For clarity, I'm not looking to depower rugby, just to rebalance it away from being as focused on power as it currently is. Increasing the level of fitness required to play the game is one element of that.

The real question is, what do we lose by doing away with tactical subs? I'm not so sure we need to be as wedded to it as we are.


My real bugbear though is the complete and utter shambles that is the ruck. It's ugly, frustrating, unworkable, with about 90% of them being obviously illegal. Also a huge source of dangerous contacts. I know jumping up and down on people's heads wasn't a good look - and I'm not suggesting bringing back that level of proper rucking - but even then I reckon they were not as dangerous as they are now. And they were much more functional. Surely we can go a good distance back towards that type of ruck, just stopping short of actually dancing on people's heads.

[Biffer]

A quick skim says Atonio has only played 80 twice in 6 seasons. Rarely plays past 60.