Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

'I think it should have been a penalty try'

By PA
Georgian referee Nika Amashukeli reacts during the European Rugby Champions Cup rugby union match between Stade Rochelais (La Rochelle) and Ulster Rugby. (Photo by XAVIER LEOTY / AFP) (Photo by XAVIER LEOTY/AFP via Getty Images)

Ulster head coach Dan McFarland was proud of his side’s efforts in their “heartbreaking” defeat to La Rochelle but felt they were denied what could have been a decisive penalty try in the low-scoring clash.

ADVERTISEMENT

Reigning champions La Rochelle snatched a dramatic 7-3 Heineken Champions Cup victory after replacement prop Joel Sclavi crashed over for a last-minute converted try at Stade Marcel Deflandre.

That consigned Ulster to a sixth defeat in their last seven games, including all three of their matches in the Heineken Champions Cup, but their battling performance in atrocious conditions in France has kept them in the hunt for a place in the last 16.

Video Spacer
Video Spacer

To reach the knock-out stages they will have to beat Sale Sharks at the Kingspan Stadium in the final round of pool games.

McFarland said following the defeat: “It’s heartbreaking, but the bottom line is I was really proud of what they produced.

“We’ve lost a game right at the end, but the bottom line is they’re European champions for a reason – they won that game, I don’t think we lost it.”

“They won because when they needed to, they produced the goods. It was tough going and I thought we were excellent.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Ulster took the lead through Nathan Doak’s 63rd-minute penalty but McFarland feels they should already have been in front at that point.

He said: “I believe we should have had a penalty try when we were completely dominating them five metres from their line around 35 minutes. They got a yellow card.

“We had our moment when we were dominant and they offended so many times on those mauls that I think it should have been a penalty try.

“When they had theirs five metres out, they dominated enough to get the score and that was the difference.”

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
LIVE

The Classics vs Pasifika Legends

South Africa v Argentina | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

France v New Zealand | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

England v Wales | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

Tattoos & Rugby: Why are tattoos so popular with sportspeople? | Amber Schonert | Rugby Rising Locker Room Season 2

Lions Share | Episode 3

Zimbabwe vs Kenya | Rugby Africa Cup Semi Final | Full Match Replay

USA vs Spain | Men's International | Full Match Replay

Portugal vs Ireland | Men's International | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

1 Comment
D
Daryl 913 days ago

Absolutely should have been a penalty try, or at least a second yellow when they infringed 4 separate times on the passage of play after the 1st yellow.

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

T
TWAS 8 minutes ago
How the Lions will heap pressure upon Australia's million-dollar man

I’m sorry but this just seems like incredibly selective analysis attempting to blame all team failures on JAS.


Looking through the examples:


Example 1 - long place by JAS, all support overruns the ruck. Pilfer also achieved by a player resting his arms on JAS - so should be a penalty for of his feet anyway. No failure by JAS there failing to secure the ball. By his team mates, yes.


Example 2 - a knock on punched out by the first defender who’s tackle he initially beat, from behind. An error by JAS absolutely. But every player makes the odd handling error.


Example 3 - JAS just beaten to the ruck because defender shoots to make a good tackle He passes and immediately follows. Potentially should have been a penalty to Aus because the tackler had not released and swung around into JAS’s path preventing him securing the ball, and had not released when the jackal went for the pilfer. Tackler prevented a clean release by Potter and if there was any failure, it was the ball carrier who got into a horrible position.


I am struggling how you try and blame 1 on JAS and not support, but then blame JAS when the tackler fails to make a good placement.


Example 4 - JAS flies into this ruck out of nowhere, seemingly runs past the 12 to get there. Also did you miss McReight and Williams just jogging and letting JAS run past them? Anyway he busts a get to get there but was beaten to the contest. Any failure here is on the supporting players, McReight and Williams and JAS showed great instinct to charge in to try and secure.


Example 5 - JAS is following the lead of players inside him. How this is his fault I don’t know what you are thinking


Example 6 - Gleeson misses a tackle so JAS has to drift in off his man to take the ball carrier, leaving a larger overlap when he offloads. Failure by Gleeson not JAS


Examples 7 and 8 - Wallabies defensive line isn’t aggressive. But noting to do with JAS. Fisher has actually said he is not coaching a fast line speed. To try and blame JAS is again selective.


Seems like an agenda in this rather than the genuine, quality analysis I’ve come to expect from the author.

37 Go to comments
J
Jfp123 39 minutes ago
France push All Blacks to 80th minute in narrow Dunedin defeat

So, you think top rugby players’ wages ought to be kept artificially low, when in fact the forces of “demand and supply” mean that many can and indeed are commanding wages higher than you approve of, and even though players regularly get injured, and those injuries can be serious enough to cut short careers and even threaten lives, e.g. Steven Kitshoff.

.

As far as I can make out your objections amount to

1) they’ve sent a B team, which is not what we do and I don’t like it. Is there more to it than that? You haven’t replied to the points I made previously about sell out Tests and high ticket prices, so I take it reduced earnings are no longer part of your argument. Possibly you’re disappointed at not seeing Dupont et al., but a lot of New Zealanders think he is over rated anyway.


2) The Top 14 is paying players too much, leading to wage inflation around the world which is bad for the sport.

Firstly, young athletes have a range of sports to choose from, so rugby holding out the prospect of a lucrative, glamorous career helps attract talent.

Above all, market forces mean the French clubs earn a lot of money, and spend a large part of that money on relatively high wages, within a framework set by the league to maintain the health of the league. This framework includes the salary cap and Jiff rules which in effect limit the number of foreign stars the clubs employ and encourage the development of young talent, so there is a limit on Top14 demand. The Toulon of the 2010s is a thing of the past.


So yes, the French clubs cream off some top players - they are competitive sports teams, what do expect them to do with their money? - but there’s still a there’s a plentiful supply of great rugby players and coaches without French contracts. The troubles in England and Wales were down to mismanagement of those national bodies, and clubs themselves, not the French


So if you don’t want to let market forces determine wage levels, and you do want to prevent the French clubs from spending so much of their large incomes on players, how on earth do you want to set player wages?


Is the problem that NZ can’t pay so much as the Top 14 and you fear the best players will be lured away and/or you want NZ franchises to compete for leading international talent? Are you asking for NZ wage scales to be adopted as the maximum allowed, to achieve this? But in that case why not take Uruguay, or Spain, or Tonga or Samoa as the standard, so Samoa, a highly talented rugby nation, can keep Samoan players in Samoa, not see them leave for higher wages in NZ and elsewhere.

Rugby is played in lots of countries, with hugely varying levels of financial backing etc. Obviously, it’s more difficult for some than others, but aside for a limited amount of help from world rugby, it’s up to each one to make their sums add up, and make the most of the particular advantages their nation/club/franchise has. SA are not the richest, but are still highly successful, and I don’t hear them complaining about Top14 wages.


Many, particularly second tier, nations benefit from the Top14, and anyone genuinely concerned about the whole community of world rugby should welcome that. England and NZ have laid down rules so they can’t make the most of the French competition, which is up to them. But unlike some NZ fans and pundits, the English aren’t generally blaming their own woes on the French, rather they want reform of the English structure, and some are calling for lessons to learned from their neighbours across the channel. If NZ fans aren’t satisfied, I suggest they call for internal reform, not try to make the French scapegoats.


In my opinion, a breach of standards would be to include on your team players who beat up women, not to regularly send a B team on the summer tours for reasons of player welfare, which in all the years you’ve been doing this only some of the pundits and fans of a single country have made a stink about.


[my comments here are, of course, not aimed at all NZ fans and pundits]

266 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ What does the data tell us about Andy Farrell's first Test Lions combinations? What does the data tell us about Andy Farrell's first Test Lions combinations?