RugbyRebels

Did anyone see this game?

The Scarlets were unlucky to come away with nothing.

When the score was 24-13 the Scarlets scored what looked like a perfectly good try only for it to be disallowed for a knock-on, Toulon then scored and the game was essentially lost, the final score was 31-20.

Toulon don't look anything like the sum of their parts.

Sadly missed it, although I understand that 2 tries were disallowed? The Fail mentioned the Toulon forward power as the mai nreason for victory, in other areas the scarlets had the better of the statistics, although not of course the final score.

Sandydragon wrote:Sadly missed it, although I understand that 2 tries were disallowed? The Fail mentioned the Toulon forward power as the mai nreason for victory, in other areas the scarlets had the better of the statistics, although not of course the final score.

In the first half the Toulon ball carriers were very effective, not so much in the second half. The other disallowed try was for when Gareth Davies was short of the line, the SKY pundits did point out that the reason he didn't get to the line was because he was tackled by a player on the floor so should probably have been a penalty try.

Thanks. A bit gutting for the scarlets then to be so close and get nothing.

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Sadly missed it, although I understand that 2 tries were disallowed? The Fail mentioned the Toulon forward power as the mai nreason for victory, in other areas the scarlets had the better of the statistics, although not of course the final score.

In the first half the Toulon ball carriers were very effective, not so much in the second half. The other disallowed try was for when Gareth Davies was short of the line, the SKY pundits did point out that the reason he didn't get to the line was because he was tackled by a player on the floor so should probably have been a penalty try.

Yeah , surprised the ref missed that

You guys were a bit unlucky

Barclay and Patchell played very well

Here is a link to the match if you wish to watch

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&sourc ... 7m3Da-HT9g

The dissallowed try was questionable and Scarlets deserved a bonus point.
Toulon were a collection of well organised and skilled battering rams interceded by some high level individual skills.They are very impressive at getting over the gain line and Scarlets either have to double team or focus on taking them low to turn this around.
However they are good enough to do it they certainly asked some questions of the Toulon defence .So hopefully the rub of the green will go with them on the decisions of the officials.

whatisthejava wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Sadly missed it, although I understand that 2 tries were disallowed? The Fail mentioned the Toulon forward power as the mai nreason for victory, in other areas the scarlets had the better of the statistics, although not of course the final score.

In the first half the Toulon ball carriers were very effective, not so much in the second half. The other disallowed try was for when Gareth Davies was short of the line, the SKY pundits did point out that the reason he didn't get to the line was because he was tackled by a player on the floor so should probably have been a penalty try.

Yeah , surprised the ref missed that

You guys were a bit unlucky

Barclay and Patchell played very well

Yeah, Barclay has been very good for us for a while now, Patchell had his best game for the Scarlets that I have seen, Jake Ball was good too.

That was never a knock on and the try should have stood. There was nothing clear and obvious about it and that really should be the criteria for disallowing the score. Had it stood it probably wouldn't have led to a win, or possibly a losing BP, but that was a real home town decision.

fivepointer wrote:That was never a knock on and the try should have stood. There was nothing clear and obvious about it and that really should be the criteria for disallowing the score. Had it stood it probably wouldn't have led to a win, or possibly a losing BP, but that was a real home town decision.

Aye, it's hard enough to beat them without being on the wrong side of the ref.

From a neutral point of view it was a knock on his hand goes forward to make contact with the ball.

However, more importantly I though Halfpenny had a pretty good game and showed that when allowed he IS more than just a kicker!

oldbackrow wrote:From a neutral point of view it was a knock on his hand goes forward to make contact with the ball.

However, more importantly I though Halfpenny had a pretty good game and showed that when allowed he IS more than just a kicker!

It makes no difference what direction his hand is travelling in, it's whether or not the ball goes forward off his hand which, (being as the ball landed behind him) I don't think it did.

51:50 for the first disallowed try (tackler was on the floor)
54:00 for the 2nd disallowed try

Numbers wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:From a neutral point of view it was a knock on his hand goes forward to make contact with the ball.

However, more importantly I though Halfpenny had a pretty good game and showed that when allowed he IS more than just a kicker!

It makes no difference what direction his hand is travelling in, it's whether or not the ball goes forward off his hand which, (being as the ball landed behind him) I don't think it did.

How does you hand going forward to the ball and hitting it get it going backwards? Anyway, just my point of view not wanting an argument.

How do you guys think 1/2p did in his quest to get back in the Welsh team?

oldbackrow wrote:

Numbers wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:From a neutral point of view it was a knock on his hand goes forward to make contact with the ball.

However, more importantly I though Halfpenny had a pretty good game and showed that when allowed he IS more than just a kicker!

It makes no difference what direction his hand is travelling in, it's whether or not the ball goes forward off his hand which, (being as the ball landed behind him) I don't think it did.

How does you hand going forward to the ball and hitting it get it going backwards? Anyway, just my point of view not wanting an argument.

How do you guys think 1/2p did in his quest to get back in the Welsh team?

Um, because it glanced off his hand.

I think that's a knock on.

The ball went sideways at worst. Not a knock on as it didn't go forwards.

Forward being towards the opposition dead ball line. As the ball maintained it's backwards trajectory even after the glance off the hand, I can't see how it was judged to be a knock on.

oldbackrow wrote:How do you guys think 1/2p did in his quest to get back in the Welsh team?

He's in the team... it'll take sustained* poor form to change that. But he had a good game, it'll do him no harm at all.

* Like about 3 years if Cuthbert is anything to go by.

It's deceptive as Williams was not only moving forward at the time he touched it, but he was also in the air, so when he landed he was in front of the ball but I think from the point it hit his hand, it went forward.

Would be interesting to see if someone can come up with a gif that may make it easier to see. More often, than not you see those kinda instances adjudged as a knock on.

oldbackrow wrote:

Numbers wrote:

oldbackrow wrote:From a neutral point of view it was a knock on his hand goes forward to make contact with the ball.

However, more importantly I though Halfpenny had a pretty good game and showed that when allowed he IS more than just a kicker!

It makes no difference what direction his hand is travelling in, it's whether or not the ball goes forward off his hand which, (being as the ball landed behind him) I don't think it did.

How does you hand going forward to the ball and hitting it get it going backwards? Anyway, just my point of view not wanting an argument.

How do you guys think 1/2p did in his quest to get back in the Welsh team?

Halfpenny is a nailed on cert for the Welsh team. I think the vast majority of the Welsh public would agree with that, so the question is whether he is better on the wing or at full back.

Halfpenny can attack when allowed to do so, but at the moment, Liam Williams seems less constrained by tactics when at full back and generally gets more involved in attack.

What I don't get is why Toulon played in red? Surely they should have been in their change colours? Shewerly?

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... e-12312855

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugb ... s-12313043

Didn't see the game but really?

Bit of a daft thing to do on live TV. Far worse is said behind the refs back in most amateur games, but as a pro player its a poor example to set. Hopefully, nothing too serious in terms of bans or anything, but he deserves a bollocking.

Sandydragon wrote:Hopefully, nothing too serious in terms of bans or anything, but he deserves a bollocking.

You've got loons in the comments suggesting a 12 month ban! Then the article saying he could get fired! Scarlets would be out of their mind to sack him imo.

What did Hartley get when he called the ref a fucking cheat? Lets start at that, half it because hes not Hartley, half it for a good record and half it because it wasn't directly at the ref nor did he acuse the ref of cheating.

Ross. S wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:Hopefully, nothing too serious in terms of bans or anything, but he deserves a bollocking.

You've got loons in the comments suggesting a 12 month ban! Then the article saying he could get fired! Scarlets would be out of their mind to sack him imo.

What did Hartley get when he called the ref a fucking cheat? Lets start at that, half it because hes not Hartley, half it for a good record and half it because it wasn't directly at the ref nor did he acuse the ref of cheating.

The Scarlets won't be sacking him, they are just getting their statement in early in the hope it mitigates some of his behaviour in the ruling.

The w@nker sign was not a good look.