Saints Vs Tigers

[Puja]

On the Chessum "clear out" on Moon. Thats foul play all day long. You cannot just shove someone into another player irrespective of where they are on the pitch.
Overall Saints will be dismayed that they crumbled so badly in the 2nd half. Until they can add some solidity in the scrum and resilience generally they wont advance. Shame, as some of their attacking play is a joy to watch.

Yeah, I have to say I think we got away with one there. FKAS is right in one respect that Moon changes direction so that he's running towards Leicester's side of the ruck rather than trying to go around it - he'd have to hurdle it anyway if he wasn't pushed - but you can't give someone a full-blooded shove like that. A bit of a nudge you can argue that he was trying to keep his balance after Moon cut him up like he was driving a BMW, but not when he absolutely launches him.

Penalty for Moon for obstruction, penalty reversed against Chessum for reckless play, to my mind.

Puja

Going to be a lot more penalties every week if that's the case or are we only going to penalise players when someone gets injured? If you put yourself in a position you shouldn't don't be shocked if you get cleared out. Accelerating Moon's momentum will make any contact look worse but Chessum doesn't really have much in the way of options. He doesn't drop the shoulder in, he doesn't tackle him into the probe players which would have been more dangerous. If he tries to go round the Moon will ensure he's enough of an obstacle so that Saints are over the ball and at that point Tigers are chasing the game, would you want to be the international second row in the debrief on Monday explaining how you let your opposite number obstruct you from getting to the breakdown?

If Waller doesn't get injured then no one looks twice at the incident and in most games something like this happens and everybody is fine and no one bats and eyelid.

He's a solid five metres away from the ruck at the point of the shove though. He's not being "cleared out" of a ruck, he's a player in open field. Yes, he is being a dick and deliberately obstructing someone, but shoving someone is explicitly against the laws and it doesn't matter that Moon committed the first offence if Chessum then retaliates.

Granted, he doesn't want to be the second row in the debrief explaining how he was blocked, but I suspect he also wouldn't want to be the second row in the debrief explaining how he gave away a penalty for a very obvious and blatant bit of foul play which let Northampton go 40m up the pitch and change the momentum. With a different ref, the second could very easily have happened.

Not saying I don't understand his reaction, but at the very least, you cannot go that big and obvious with the retaliation!

Puja

[FKAS]

Yeah, I have to say I think we got away with one there. FKAS is right in one respect that Moon changes direction so that he's running towards Leicester's side of the ruck rather than trying to go around it - he'd have to hurdle it anyway if he wasn't pushed - but you can't give someone a full-blooded shove like that. A bit of a nudge you can argue that he was trying to keep his balance after Moon cut him up like he was driving a BMW, but not when he absolutely launches him.

Penalty for Moon for obstruction, penalty reversed against Chessum for reckless play, to my mind.

Puja

Going to be a lot more penalties every week if that's the case or are we only going to penalise players when someone gets injured? If you put yourself in a position you shouldn't don't be shocked if you get cleared out. Accelerating Moon's momentum will make any contact look worse but Chessum doesn't really have much in the way of options. He doesn't drop the shoulder in, he doesn't tackle him into the probe players which would have been more dangerous. If he tries to go round the Moon will ensure he's enough of an obstacle so that Saints are over the ball and at that point Tigers are chasing the game, would you want to be the international second row in the debrief on Monday explaining how you let your opposite number obstruct you from getting to the breakdown?

If Waller doesn't get injured then no one looks twice at the incident and in most games something like this happens and everybody is fine and no one bats and eyelid.

He's a solid five metres away from the ruck at the point of the shove though. He's not being "cleared out" of a ruck, he's a player in open field. Yes, he is being a dick and deliberately obstructing someone, but shoving someone is explicitly against the laws and it doesn't matter that Moon committed the first offence if Chessum then retaliates.

Granted, he doesn't want to be the second row in the debrief explaining how he was blocked, but I suspect he also wouldn't want to be the second row in the debrief explaining how he gave away a penalty for a very obvious and blatant bit of foul play which let Northampton go 40m up the pitch and change the momentum. With a different ref, the second could very easily have happened.

Not saying I don't understand his reaction, but at the very least, you cannot go that big and obvious with the retaliation!

Puja

The lack of consistency with officiating makes everything a risk. If sir isn't policing it then you have to and there was plenty of off the ball bits going on. Holding Steward down off the ball in the first half so he couldn't get back to his feet and cover a Mitchell box kick, the push in the back of Chessum at the lineout he dropped. It's all rugby, you do what you can get away with. Tigers will have done plenty as well.

Never 5m, 2m at most. Moon's attempted hurdle of the ruck is where he knees Waller in the head. He created the situation and my sympathy is limited to hoping Waller is ok. Chessum gives a smaller shove and what difference does that make? Moon's momentum will still carry him into the ruck and he still has to try and hurdle it.

[Oakboy]

Is Dickson just a bad referee? Or, does he get carried away with the mood? I thought there was a plain case in the 2nd half of the Leicester prop pulling down though not be penalised for the same offences that cost Northampton so dear. Whatever the rights/wrongs of that incident, it does perhaps illustrate Dickson's tendency to lose control of games. It's an odd lack of empathy in a referee who played at top club level.

[Banquo]

Is Dickson just a bad referee? Or, does he get carried away with the mood? I thought there was a plain case in the 2nd half of the Leicester prop pulling down though not be penalised for the same offences that cost Northampton so dear. Whatever the rights/wrongs of that incident, it does perhaps illustrate Dickson's tendency to lose control of games. It's an odd lack of empathy in a referee who played at top club level.

most refs go with the team with momentum- which is 'mood' in some ways- and Dickson certainly did, but though I've only seen live at the game he didn't be seem to be getting that much wrong; the scrums were a tad random, but Tigers -Cole especially- had the edge in nous if nothing else, delaying the feed just long enough to enable a slight nudge, and keeping it in as long as possible to drain the Saints legs and occasionally win a penalty through a strong drive. I think he was a bit trigger happy binning Augustus, but he did appear to warn him not to have a bite at the self same ruck. The Porter flappy hands looked like a penalty, but a judgement call; I thought there was a knock on from Tigers at the lineout that lead to their scrum which lead to the key try in the second half just after Saints had scored, but again, inconclusive in real time and on the big screen. The Chessum push has been covered ad nauseum above- they reviewed it and thought it just a rugby accident, I thought it merited sanction but its a judgement call- though I do think the outcome matters, as it does with any other bit of foul play.

He did have a massive influence on the game- 2 pens to Saints and three yellows, 14 to Tigers-- but that kind of reflects what was happening on the park; Tigers were dominating up front in the loose and had the edge at the scrum. Basically Saints weren't very good without the ball (thrilling with it in fairness)- as noted, a few players won't be looking forward to the Monday video. They got nothing from the ref (and I don't think he was that good, but not terrible), and the Saints die hards were furious, but ultimately they have their own problems to solve; Tigers solved theirs pretty well- they were cut to ribbons in the 1st 20, and figured out they were better keeping the ball.

[FKAS]

Watching it back and the Saints are blowing on 21 minutes. Line speed starting to slow and forwards hands on knees and not contesting the ruck which was only resourced by a single Tiger.

There was a lot of ball in play time, ridiculously long passages. That plus the long scrums seem a Tigers tactic. Similar to last season where Saints were allowed to just punch themselves out.

27 minutes and Gopperth is nearly in the corner. The penalties are starting to mount already and the Saints scrum firmly in reverse. You can point fingers at the referee but the penalty stats are 14-2 (per ESPN). That's going to play on the mind of a ref who saw a clear momentum shift and who was asked early by the Tigers captain about the Saints indiscipline. For the final 15 mins of the first half it's nearly all in the Saints 22.

There was definitely a couple of calls that could have gone the other way re Porter and Chessum but there was some pretty generous scrum calls from Dickson where he just didn't reward a dominant Tigers scrum and forces JVP to play away. Two or three in the Saints 22 letting them off the hook, such is life particularly with a ref like Dickson who is slow to reward teams dominant at the set piece.

I do wonder whether the respective discussions with the ref had a baring. The Saints through Luldum and Biggar were quite loud and forceful with fairly direct questions or demands. Liebenburg, quietly spoken and it's more of a discussion with Dickson after the Tigers first try where he's listening to what Dickson has to say and having an actual conversation. Refs are professionals so they won't have favourites but there's research that supports people being more receptive to talking as opposed to shouting.

[Puja]

I do wonder whether the respective discussions with the ref had a baring. The Saints through Luldum and Biggar were quite loud and forceful with fairly direct questions or demands. Liebenburg, quietly spoken and it's more of a discussion with Dickson after the Tigers first try where he's listening to what Dickson has to say and having an actual conversation. Refs are professionals so they won't have favourites but there's research that supports people being more receptive to talking as opposed to shouting.

Biggar especially can't have helped his case with trying to take a dropped conversion after the later disallowed first try, arguing with Dickson when he stopped him, and then getting chopsy afterwards and denying that he had been trying to circumvent the review with a ridiculous lie that he was "just trying to inject some tempo and you shouldn't stop us if we want to do that sir, you can't stop us from adding tempo!" Seemed a ridiculous hill to die on, but some people just can't help claiming that *actually* they *were* right all along because...

Puja

[Banquo]

That plus the long scrums seem a Tigers tactic.

The penalties are starting to mount already and the Saints scrum firmly in reverse. You can point fingers at the referee but the penalty stats are 14-2 (per ESPN). That's going to play on the mind of a ref who saw a clear momentum shift and who was asked early by the Tigers captain about the Saints indiscipline.

There was definitely a couple of calls that could have gone the other way re Porter and Chessum but there was some pretty generous scrum calls from Dickson where he just didn't reward a dominant Tigers scrum and forces JVP to play away. Two or three in the Saints 22 letting them off the hook, such is life particularly with a ref like Dickson who is slow to reward teams dominant at the set piece.

that's what I just posted. I'll accept a royalty . Though 14-2 is what the ref did rather than 'playing on his mind'. Chicken meet egg

[FKAS]

That plus the long scrums seem a Tigers tactic.

The penalties are starting to mount already and the Saints scrum firmly in reverse. You can point fingers at the referee but the penalty stats are 14-2 (per ESPN). That's going to play on the mind of a ref who saw a clear momentum shift and who was asked early by the Tigers captain about the Saints indiscipline.

There was definitely a couple of calls that could have gone the other way re Porter and Chessum but there was some pretty generous scrum calls from Dickson where he just didn't reward a dominant Tigers scrum and forces JVP to play away. Two or three in the Saints 22 letting them off the hook, such is life particularly with a ref like Dickson who is slow to reward teams dominant at the set piece.

that's what I just posted. I'll accept a royalty . Though 14-2 is what the ref did rather than 'playing on his mind'. Chicken meet egg

Erm cheque is in the post

[Banquo]

That plus the long scrums seem a Tigers tactic.

The penalties are starting to mount already and the Saints scrum firmly in reverse. You can point fingers at the referee but the penalty stats are 14-2 (per ESPN). That's going to play on the mind of a ref who saw a clear momentum shift and who was asked early by the Tigers captain about the Saints indiscipline.

There was definitely a couple of calls that could have gone the other way re Porter and Chessum but there was some pretty generous scrum calls from Dickson where he just didn't reward a dominant Tigers scrum and forces JVP to play away. Two or three in the Saints 22 letting them off the hook, such is life particularly with a ref like Dickson who is slow to reward teams dominant at the set piece.

that's what I just posted. I'll accept a royalty . Though 14-2 is what the ref did rather than 'playing on his mind'. Chicken meet egg

Erm cheque is in the post

Excellent

[Danno]

I do wonder whether the respective discussions with the ref had a baring. The Saints through Luldum and Biggar were quite loud and forceful with fairly direct questions or demands. Liebenburg, quietly spoken and it's more of a discussion with Dickson after the Tigers first try where he's listening to what Dickson has to say and having an actual conversation. Refs are professionals so they won't have favourites but there's research that supports people being more receptive to talking as opposed to shouting.

Biggar especially can't have helped his case with trying to take a dropped conversion after the later disallowed first try, arguing with Dickson when he stopped him, and then getting chopsy afterwards and denying that he had been trying to circumvent the review with a ridiculous lie that he was "just trying to inject some tempo and you shouldn't stop us if we want to do that sir, you can't stop us from adding tempo!" Seemed a ridiculous hill to die on, but some people just can't help claiming that *actually* they *were* right all along because...

Puja

From a Welsh half back. Hard to believe.