Leicester Tigers
Tigers v Saints Match Report
By JK
May 15 2011
Match Report: Leicester Tigers 11-3 Northampton Saints (Deep Breath, Incoming!) This was a fiery encounter from the off and it soon became very clear that neither team was prepared to take a step backwards. The much vaunted Saints front row was pitched against a Leicester scrum, traditionally an area of key strength on their home patch, and one was instantly reminded of an irresistible force meeting an immovable object. The threat of Ashton and Foden is such that they almost form one word in the vocabulary these days… AshtonandFoden… a bit like Jedward! Fo-ton (has a ring to it)? Ash-den?
Right from the very start there was a bit of niggle and plenty of “afters.” It was a real worry that neither referee Wayne Barnes nor his touch judges really had a grip on the game which was to prove problematic later on.
With my one-eyed view from my mid-altitude position in the CAT stand, it seemed as though Saints had a pre-meditated game plan to intimidate using methods slightly beyond the legal. Most commentators have picked up on the fact that Tigers seemed to have to endure a succession of late hits with Toby Flood bearing the brunt of Saints’ “attention” and losing his cool after one particular incident involving Dylan Hartley. Scott Hamilton too had a late meeting with a Saint – Courtney Lawes? Up in the CAT, we seemed to see a number of quick punches going in during early rucks and from our perspective they seemed to involve Saints’ arms but I’m sure Tigers were giving as good as they got. It’s probably a testament to Tigers early possession superiority that they seemed to be taking more late hits in the backs.
Play ebbed and flowed with neither team looking really like they would make the decisive break and open the try-scoring and we saw some of the hardest, tightest, most compelling and high-class rugby seen at Welford Road since... well, since the Saints last came marching into town.
With just under ten minutes to go until half-time, things blew up in spectacular fashion and subsequent events have drawn much comment in the national media and on the various fan websites alike.
I marvel at what other people seem able to see when everything happens at long distance and lightning pace and I am playing catch up trying to work out what’s gone on from the CAT stand’s upper tiers. With the benefits of replays, youtube, match reports and fan comment though, this is my view...
Chris Ashton, acting as a decoy runner in front of the ball was tackled high by Manu Tuilagi and a penalty was given although I could not say for sure whether the penalty was given for that or (as I suspect) something else, possibly an advantage from earlier.
Chris Ashton was first up after the whistle had gone and gave a shove to the back of the head or neck to Tuilagi Junior who was still on the ground whereupon Manu got up and confronted him aiming a left handed punch. There followed a prolonged confrontation during which Tuilagi aimed a further left hander and a cross-right handed punch which connected and drew blood from Ashton’s left eyebrow area.
Ashton aimed several open handed pushes at Tuilagi, in self-defence it could be argued, and his fist was clenched at the moment the final right connected.
Referee Wayne Barnes consulted Touch Judge Robin Goodliffe as he claimed not to have seen the event. Goodliffe reported that punches has been thrown by both players – Tuilagi first - and that both deserved a yellow card. Barnes followed this advice dismissing first Tuilagi then, when treatment had been completed, Ashton for ten minutes. Ashton tried to walk away after treatment but was called back for dismissal.
With hindsight and replays, to me it seemed that the decision to keep the penalty with Northampton was the correct one. Tuilagi could have had no complaints had the card been red as most observers seem to think he deserved. In my view he deserved at least yellow and probably red. Yellow would have reflected the fact that he was provoked by a push on the ground after the whistle had been blown for a penalty. Red would have reflected the fierceness of his blows, especially the third and connecting one. A yellow was probably the minimum censure he could expect to have received.
Ashton can have no real complaints at a yellow having pushed Tuilagi whilst on the ground. The whistle had blown and play had stopped meaning that his push was unprovoked although (in his defence) retaliatory for the high tackle. On another day, he might very well have got away without censure and could probably consider himself unlucky. A yellow was probably the maximum sentence he could have expected to have received. If Borthwick deserved yellow today then Ashton might not be able to consider himself so unfortunate.
In my view, a yellow for Ashton (partly based on cumulative team offences), a red for Tuilagi and maintaining the Saints penalty would have been the correct decision. I have no real sympathy or empathy with respect to refs and TJs but we are discussing this from our armchairs with the benefit of endless replays and the commentary of His Honour Stuart Barnes and it must have been much more difficult in real time whilst trying to keep your eye on a hundred and one other things. One message-board description of Goodliffe as “bent” is, in my view, well wide of the mark. At worst incompetent, at best trying manfully to do a difficult job. You decide.
I also don’t buy into the view that he was influenced by the crowd. It never usually sways him or improves his vision and he’s a big boy! I think he reacted to what he honestly thought he saw in real time with plenty of distraction and offered Barnes what he thought to be the right advice at the time. I wonder if he’ll ever publicly acknowledge that he might have made the wrong decision after he sees all the replays. I doubt it.
As for Ashton, not really blameless. There was no need for him to start the incident by pushing Tuilagi whilst on the ground, however light or retaliatory you may feel the push to have been.
I have read views that Tuilagi’s actions were pre-meditated and I don’t agree. This was heat-of-the-moment stuff in a niggly game where he had already seen late hits on a number of team-mates. This is not an excuse or a defence for what followed but a mitigating factor when the inevitable disciplinary hearing takes place (don’t touch the biscuits Manu, it’s a trap!).
I have also read the view that Manu was unprovoked and it ought to be obvious that I don’t agree with that either. Ashton was first with an illegal act even if Tuilagi’s response was completely disproportionate.
I’m sure Tuilagi will get and deserve a ban but talk of six months or a year are ridiculous in my view. A teenage player in his first season committing a spur-of-the-moment, provoked offence with no previous in a “fractious” (Paul Ackford’s word) game mean a minimum sentence reduced for good behaviour. His offence certainly doesn’t rank alongside Duncan McCrae/Ronan O’Gara (vicious), Corne ‘Saint’ Krige/the entire England team (pre-meditated) or that Bath player (was it Banahan?) who actually came back onto the pitch the other week having been substituted in order to join the fracas (clearly taken leave of his senses!).
Did Leicester fans react inappropriately to the big-screen replays? Yep, probably but let’s face it... what club’s supporters wouldn’t have clapped their player and marvelled at a punch like that? It’s as if we’ve never seen a punch on a rugby field before and some of the message-board posts I have seen today have raised sanctimony to a new level something approaching art form. Didn’t Tim ‘Saint’ Rodber get sent off playing for England for violent play? Why is JPR lauded for his role in the infamous ‘99’ call incident whilst Manu Tuilagi is castigated with such venom? I repeat, this is not a defence of his actions but every club has had someone hit an opponent and the heart beats a little faster when it happens. It’s a man’s game and a contact sport. We need to get our responses into perspective.
I’m under no illusion that I’ve settled this argument definitively but I’ve tried to be as even-handed as I can. Disagree at will although I’m sure you didn’t need my permission!
The incident seemed to act as a minor turning point for Tigers and yet another late hit on Flood was punished by the same with the first successful penalty and three points of the match shortly before half time. This was answered by an equalising penalty from Stephen Myler shortly after half time and the scene was set for the combatants to return.
Tigers seemed to hit a switch around now and started to turn the screw, increasing pressure on Saints and forcing them to play more and more in their own half. The throwaway rugby so much in evidence against London Irish was replaced by a much more intelligent game with Saints constantly being turned and having to play on the back foot. The major difference was Toby Flood who, a couple of missed penalties aside, had an immeasurably better game than last week looking much more composed and kicking excellently from hand to make sure that Saints could not mount any periods of sustained pressure. Percentage rugby executed excellently. Ben Youngs too had a much better game with a series of breaks and box kicks that kept the visitors guessing constantly. You have to wonder if they were reading our message-board last week with Toby’s chips over the line and a much more focused, professional and respectful attitude towards the game and the opposition.
Tigers looked better still following the introduction of Dan Cole and coming into the last quarter started to look superior in every aspect of the game although the scoreboard still did not fully reflect this at 6-3.
As so often in top-level rugby, games are decided sometimes by the smallest of details and margins. A looping pass on the wing from Tigers was almost intercepted by Chris Ashton but as he failed to collect the ball, he left a gap which the Tigers backs were quick to exploit leaving Alesana Tuilagi running directly into Bruce Reihana’s channel, ball-in-hand, at top speed.
There was only likely to be one winner in that situation and the league’s top try scorer made no mistake, brutally running over Reihana and crashing over gloriously for the decisive try. At eight points and two scores down with around ten minutes to play, Saints looked finished and cramp set in for a number of their players. I sincerely hope that this has not left them too exhausted to deal with the forthcoming exertions promised next week against Leinster.
And so it was that Leicester took control and kept it until the final whistle with Saints’ efforts at an improbable comeback becoming ever more desperate culminating in a horrendous mix-up at a twenty-two drop out and effectively the end of the game.
On reflection and on the day, Tigers were better and deserved their win. It was the best rugby they have played at WR for a while. On balance, our forwards were stronger and our backs faster in a very evenly matched game. The real difference came in the last ten minutes when Tigers’ superior strength and fitness really told. From players one to fifteen, Saints are anyone’s equal but once you factor in sixteen to twenty-three and beyond, Tigers look stronger. Someone commented on the message board that Saints would have won had the game been at Franklin’s Gardens but their lack of strength-in-depth over the season is the very reason it wasn’t. We get little enough recognition for winning the league as it is so a home semi- is the absolute least we deserve. I’m sympathetic to Keith Barwell’s view that his team have been hampered by international call-ups but hey, so has ours and Saints were a long way behind in the league.
Would the result have been different had the censure of Tuilagi and Ashton been different. I think probably yes (Manu made some muscular breaks in the last half-hour and always posed a threat) but it’s far from certain and that’s the way professional sport goes at this level. We’re never going to know and many’s the time when my teams suffer this kind of injustice. The early fury of the message-board is completely understandable but time usually heals the memory pretty quickly when a more philosophical view sets in.
Despite what a Saints fan said on our message-board this morning, my best wishes for next week’s final are sincere and heart-felt. In my view, the two Saints games at Welford Road have been the best two of this season for which the thanks and appreciation of our little group of supporters at least is due. My heart says they will best Leinster but my head probably says Leinster are a little too strong. Still, no disgrace in losing a final to Leinster is there chaps?!
By the way, I’ve read Paul Ackford’s accusations in the Telegraph which, if true, are more worrying than Manu in my view. Missed all that over in the CAT stand which is probably where the Ref’s assessors should sit in order not to be exposed to that nasty O’Cockerill creature.
The final whistle has just gone at Vicarage Road so Saracens and Twickenham here we come!
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon15/05/2011 20:09
If you do not already have an account Click here to Register.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:05:25:19:54:25 by Stephen Bath.
But you clearly pre-empt responses in your title, so here are a couple:
Quote:JK
Ashton was first with an illegal act even if Tuilagi’s response was completely disproportionate.
Disagree. MT's first tackle was a clothes-line and not at all legal - off the ball, no arms and arguably high. Dangerous in itself.
Quote:JK
Yep, probably but let’s face it... what club’s supporters wouldn’t have clapped their player and marvelled at a punch like that?
I can only speak for myself, but I certainly wouldn't, and to be honest I'd be very upset if other Sarries fans had done. I'd watch boxing if I wanted to applaud that sort of behaviour.
Otherwise, as I say, a good report - and I hope I don't sound too sanctimonious/holier-than-thou or whatever.
Good luck at HQ...
1. There was a high tackle
2. The referee blew the whistle and play stopped.
3. Ashton pushed Tuilagi on the head/neck.
(Having just watched the highlights, this looked much worse in real time than it did in slo-mo so I'm not surprised that the TJ may have interpreted it as a punch. He did say that Tuilagi threw the first punch though so this casts doubt on my interpretation).
4. Tuilagi retaliated with disproportionate force.
If Ashton hadn't pushed Tuilagi after the whistle had been blown, Tuilagi wouldn't have hit him. This is not a defence but a mitigating factor.
And come on Mr S4L, have a look at the Brtish Lions "99" call on the South Africa tour of 1974 - youtube has a selection of videos including:
">99 call
and tell me you don't have a sneaking admiration for JPR! (No. 15 red in case you need some info but I hope not!).
Someone said earlier that Alesana Tuilagi was almost on the edge but let's face it, many top class sportsmen play entire matches almost on the edge and it's going to spill over sometime. If the referee had had proper control, the whole thing wouldn't have happened.
Manu is a fine young player. he may well play for England one day and he's at the club to get the best out of him to assist him realise his huge potential.
But his punch at Ashton before the main event, when Ashton didnt have the ball was a yellow card and a stiff warning in itself.High and utterly deliberate.
Ashtons response was mild. A push. Big deal and probably a pen but certainly no yellow even taken in isolation.
The rest, Manu's response, was nothing more than an assault and I wouldn't be surprised if the police got involved
You cannot invoke the thuggery of 70's as a paradigm for what takes place now. What exactly is your point? That if its ok by the standards of that time for JPR and the rest to defend themselves against sustained thuggery in SA 40 years ago, then Manu can thump Ashton with impunity? The mind boggles if that is what you are saying.
How does being a dummy runner justify you getting a whack?
How can a girlie push in response ever justify an assault
And at the bottom of my sorrow are 2 points.
1. Manu Tuilagi has a big future. England, as you may have noticed, are not exactly awash with top class centers. He needs to learn and get this out of his system
2. The main point is that yesterdays was a big game and kids were watching and their mums. I'm sick of hearing mums tell me that they don't want little Sebastian playing our wonderful game cos its thuggery lightly enrobed in sportsmanship
what am I supposed to say in response to that tired old mantra after yesterday?
Seeya at HQ in 2 weeks.
Nev The Sarrieman
If just one person came on here and asked that when players from their clubs throw punches, they should have the exact bans being called for Manu, I would have some respect for them.
After all every club has players whom have done the exact same thing at some time.
Tiggs. even if we have done something once the propensity is in all of us to repeat the act. Thus he needs to stamp it out. I'm sure he will
best regards to you both
for the use of ar$ed, bu$$er now I've used it too, and bu$$er, oh no it's geting worse by the minute, I might have to ban myself !!! You could tell how both sides had very carefully applied the lessons they had learned from recent matches. Backs and forwards (especially). Castro v Soane v Barnes and the Cole. Mujati v Ajerza. I could go on and on.
In my opinion Rugby Union is the game it is precisely because it is a contact sport. How people react under pressure is an essential part of the thrill of following the game. We saw how people reacted under extreme pressure on Saturday. Manu didn't come out of it very well. You could tell he had absorbed to the full the contents of the team talks and the encouragement of the other players in his team. At the other end of the scale - neither Richard nor Matt demonstrated the behaviour we expect.
I trust that the citing commissioner will deal with all the incidents appropriately. Manu will probably get something north of the six weeks ban being talked about. He has almost certainly blown his chance of appearing in this year's RWC. (By the way - compared to Wendy ball - I think that the use of TV to remove dangerous play from the game and get fair decisions is almost perfectly applied).
What Manu and Ashton did AFTER the match was extremely important to me - the flip side of the intensity on the field of play has to be the mutual respect off it.
Do I want the essence of rugby so watered down so that no pressure is applied on young men.No! Do I want young men to be so fired up that they boil over. No - but I can't stop it happening!
I also think Paul Ackford is playing a very dangerous game himself. Does he really want rugby union completely neutered?
Last but not least - the job of a referee in Rugby is as difficult a job as I can imagine. You have to know the game inside out, be really fit, have a perfect temperament AND have eyes in the back of your head. We should treasure them - even when they do make inevitable mistakes! I just hope St Peter was a RU ref in his time (NH)!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011:05:16:10:01:20 by oldpomfretian.
Very good.
...
Neville's a solicitor, by the way. You'd probably all guessed that.
... and a post worthy of it's space, unlike many ...
JK ... excellent report, thank you, and close
I have seriously considered whether I can be bothered to get involved in this given the number of trolls on the subject but there is some seriously blinkered input from a number of non-Tigers. However for the avoidance of doubt:
I agree that Manu's punches were red card offences and the yellow card was lucky for us.
I have watched the entire incident repeatedly on frame by frame playback because I wanted to see truly what happened. The following are facts not bias, not speculation, so please do not troll responses saying that they are not. Watch it frame by frame to see for yourself.
1. Manu's tackle was not high. It was chest height. It was off the ball, it was one armed -which I think was enough to qualify as an illegal tackle, it was a penalty for either of these 2 reasons.
2. Chris Ashton, when he did his 2 handed push to the back of the head, simultaneously - and deliberately - drove his knee into the vertabrae at the top of Manu's back. Manu's face immediately shows an expression of intense pain. Manu, at that point - in my opinion due to the painful knee to the vertabrae - lost control and then punched Ashton as we have all witnessed.
The knee by Ashton is what caused the reaction. The reaction was wrong, it was a red card offence, he may get a ban; but I think that it is material to all the hang em high brigade to understand that it was not a reaction to a "girly push" - and Neville I think you let yourself down with that characterisation - but to a very painful, very deliberate foul.
But once again just for clarity, yes, Manu's reaction was a red card offence and yes we were lucky that it was punished as a yellow card only.
Of course dummy runners are fair game to be tackled when they are that close to play. Had Castro no given away the penalty it would have been a perfect tackle and lauded as another example of great Manu defence. To say that was worthy of even a penalty is rubbish. Manu can't control Castro batting the ball down and making it a dummy run rather than a active one.
...
Neville, you need to examine some facts.
1. Tuilagi tackled high. No punch involved.
2. The ref gave a penalty. On the highlights programme, you could clearly see his arm raised at 45 degrees to award the pen.
All players should have stopped at this moment and retreated to their respective positions for the penalty but...
3. Ashton pushed Tuilagi whilst he was on the ground. I haven't seen anything that convinces me of the knee accusation but I can't find a decent youtube feed now. Maybe my PC is running slow but they all seem jerky and only to be concentrating on the final punch.
4. The two squared up and Tuilagi hit him three times. Ashton made no attempt to retreat and had a clenched fist. The rest is beyond dispute.
Ashton provoked and he wasn't first - Hartley and LAwaes beat him to it earlier in the game. Tuilagi didn't disappoint him and reacted with disproportionate force.
I stand by my prognosis. pen to Saints, Yellow to Ashton, Red to Tuilagi.
My point about 99 relates to the crowd reaction. Tigers fans have been criticised for applauding the punch. Speaking as one who was at the stadium, I just thought it was a bit of handbags at the time and only realised the seriousness when I saw the highlights at home.
Nonetheless, I ask the question: why are Willie John and JPR lauded for the pre-meditated, extreme violence which was the 99 call - getting their retaliation in first - and Tuilagi is so roundly castigated for retaliating, however seriously, to an off the ball push, however slight you may think it was?
You'd think from the reactions that noone had ever punched anyone in a rugby match before.
I did not suggest or imply that the 99 incident was justification for Tuilagi's actions and to imply otherwise shows that you have not taken the trouble to read my report with the same level of care I took to write it.
Mind you Neville, I wrote it in front of the TV for about an hour and a half on the Sunday afternoon. ESPN was on at the time showing some utter tedium so I had nothing to distract me and about eighty minutes (plus a bit of injury time) to think.
Someone above said you were a solicitor. Not one I'd ever use if you read legal briefs as carefully as you read my report. Should have guessed your profession from the level of theatrical sanctimony shown in your posts.
@JK: I still don't buy the fact that this was equivalent to the 74 Lions - by that, I mean I'm not sure it was a situation where everyone knew what to expect and everyone gave as good as they got.
Also, maybe slightly sadly, I think there is an element of the game moving on: opinions on foul play have changed, and this was a contemporary incident - and not helped by the slo-mo images from Sky - not one of rugby folklore.
It is a fair point though.
And your response to Neville is unfair, however much you manifestly disagree with him.
You are, of course, correct in what cannot be assumed, but I don't think Chris's knee bend was accidental
'Profit Motive' .. the Vaseline of genocides.
'Reality' .. the new cynicism
How can you conceivably claim that I even inferred:
"this was equivalent to the 74 Lions" when I wrote:
"Nonetheless, I ask the question: why are Willie John and JPR lauded for the pre-meditated, extreme violence which was the 99 call - getting their retaliation in first - and Tuilagi is so roundly castigated for retaliating, however seriously, to an off the ball push, however slight you may think it was?"
So, 99 call "pre-meditated, extreme violence" and Manu: spur-of-the-moment retaliation. The 99 was much worse yet still everyone talks of Willie John, JPR and the rest in reverential terms and, as someone else pointed out, it has become part of Rugby "folklore."
Think what sort of a ban JPR would get if he did that stuff today.
Advice to Neville and S4L: Please read your legal briefs/exam questions* before making legal representation/writing your answers.*
* Delete as applicable.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011:05:19:16:41:48 by JK.
More Leicester Tigers headlines
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News from around the World
- All the Latets Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News From Around the World
- All the Latest Tigers News from Around the World