Determined York side destroy Lancaster in Rugby Union

 538 total views

Lancaster men’s rugby union firsts saw their dreams of a Roses victory shattered by a determined York side this evening.

In a fantastic atmosphere complete with pyrotechnics and a daredevil streaker, Lancaster’s defence crumbled in the second half in the face of a strong attacking performance from York. The first half proved fairly equal with both teams putting up a convincing defensive display.

Points arrived slowly, coming from the boot of Anthony Coulson and the York fly half. It was not until the 30th minute that Lancaster broke the deadlock, a kick to the wing by Harry Roe being gathered and touched down by Edouard Whyte after a lightning quick sprint down the left flank.

It didn’t take long for York to respond and turn their obvious advantage in attack into points. A penalty near the five metre line gave York the opportunity for the quick take which they capitalised on by beating through the Lancaster defence, touching down in the corner. The first half ended all square at 8-8.

York began to shows signs of dominance in the second half, scoring in the 45th minute from a fantastic solo effort by their Scrum Half. They could have scored again, until a seemingly unstoppable break by York was hampered by an alleged forward pass.

Poor tackling and a flimsy defence cost Lancaster dearly when York’s flanker crossed over in the corner on the 63rd minute. By this time, Lancaster’s defence began to completely disintegrate and York’s attack took full advantage of this to touch down in the 80th minute clinching a deserved 30-8 victory.

, , ,
Similar Posts
Latest Posts from

76 Comments

  1. It may come as a surprise to many but there are two codes in rugby, league and union. The general term rugby is mostly applied to Rugby Union, Rugby League is played at Lancaster but not at York so Lancaster’s Rugby League players did not have a game in the roses tournament at all. I feel that the Rugby Union sides should be greatful for their oppurtunity to represent their university in such a prestigious contest as it is not something that all clubs and societies achieve. If the rumours about the Rugby Union sides conduct are true it is very damaging to a university with such a high reputation for behaviour and conduct on and off the field. Reports will never please everyone but if it does upset few then complaints should be welcomed, however, if these complaints are based on what seems to be the opinion of one side then those individuals must remember that the report is as accurate as possible and be mature about the situation and gratious in defeat.

  2. I am glad that i have agreement on this issue Tim. I have been thoroughly disappointed with the sarcasm directed at me with regards to my comments, which have been balanced, in particular from such a senior member of SCAN.

  3. Conor ? I might be slightly biased here as I have written a bit for SCAN but I do think that we try to get involved with the teams where possible. I also think that it is impossible to report in an impartial manner and we should accept that people?s versions of events will differ. I?m sorry that you found the comparison with the women?s team was unnecessary but I think it was an off the cuff remark that was not meant to demean the achievements of the men this season.

    Khairil Z ? I certainly agree that the responses from some members of SCAN were a bit knee-jerk. I would say however, that these were a busy few days for the team and perhaps the response was because people felt we had put a lot into the weekend.

    Tim Holloway ? I apologise to you personally for the 2010 report if you felt it was not of sufficient quality. I wrote this myself and I think it can still be found on the website. If you read it again, however I do think you may have picked up on certain aspects and taken them out of context.

    Dom ? Our coverage of the rugby has certainly been infrequent. However, other league winnings teams have received similar levels of coverage. It was unfortunate that the league winning game was not covered but I had a busy week on and could not devote the four or five hours to watch and report on the game. My plan is to compile a season review for the team and others within the university that have had successful seasons.

    Anthony ? I appreciate the point about people?s names. I know I have given you at least two different ones in the last couple of years. This is usually as a result of (the admittedly very helpful) supporters or substitutes providing me with the names of each player.

    Darren ? whatever your opinion is regarding the article, it would have been difficult for Rhys to reference the hours of training that the team put in because he did not know about it. I agree though, that the team is very professional in its approach to training.

    Gok ? while it is regrettable that the rugby team did not receive a great deal of coverage (3 articles this year) it is tough for us to cover all sports as much as they deserve with only 4 regular reporters currently on the books.
    http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2010/11/22/dominant-lancaster-rout-liverpool/
    http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2011/03/16/lancaster-knocked-out-by-uclan/
    http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2011/02/14/defiant-lancaster-earn-hard-fought-victory/

    Thomas ? while you may claim it was a very important match, and I tend to agree here; the rationale for us was that it was worth four points, as many other events over the weekend were.

    Ketchup ? the women?s teams general report of success was written by a supporter of the team who offered to produce the article for us. The problem with SCAN doing a summary article like this is that they can sound a bit contrived and just a list of facts and figures. Like I said before, I was going to attempt such an article to acknowledge the men?s teams efforts if I am still welcome to

    Gok ? the only people that write for sports in SCAN on this thread are me and Jack. We have not mentioned any of these rumours against you and I can assure you that they have never influenced our coverage of the team. The views expressed by Katherine, Sam etc are their personal views and not those of the SCAN sports team.

    I think that has just about cleared it up. Hopefully a little bit less defensive than some of the replies you have received on here.

  4. yeah just re-read last years SCAN report and the destroyed comment in it referred to the overall meeting where Lancaster picked up few of the points. Indeed, in the next line it mentions that the men’s firsts game was very close

  5. Collette, I’d be well up for writing the odd article for SCAN. Just tell me how.

  6. And this is better for 250-300 words. Relatively informative and gets a cheeky interview or two.

    http://scan.lancastersu.co.uk/sports/2011/05/14/rugby-mens-thirds-results-dont-match-teams-performances/

  7. @ Collette

    I have agreed with much of what has been written on this thread and those points that I questioned have previously been dealt with. However I take particular grievance to many comments made by you Collette.

    Your insistance on raising the point that “SCAN writers cannot, and will not, take responsibility for the loss of a side” displays a blatant lack of sporting knowledge. Do you honestly think that during the post-match discussions amongst our reasonings for losing that Conor or anyone piped up saying, ” Ahhh guys you know why we lost that game don’t you? It’s that pesky Scan not covering us earlier in our season, damn them. I shall write an angry comment on their website!” (If anyone present in the dressing room at that time can correct me then I shall eagerly await the responses at c.ramsden1@lancaster.ac.uk)

    The point Con]nor was making was that the club, and any club at the uni’ for that matter would have their chances of victory improved if the media coverage was better which could increase participation and attendances but as someone brought up earlier this isn’t purely down to Scan.

    Your poor sporting knowledge was later compounded by your claim that we were destroyed which I feel was quite well dealt with by Tim. But the fact that you would try and claim this, based on what I can only imagine being the article that we are all questioning in the first place is in fact damning of your journalistic ability.

    You have so far only served to incite more anger from viewers of this thread especially with your insistence that this thread has been too confusing to make note of the grammatical errors therefore I will take great pleasure in sending you an email detailing all of the problems. Why you feel we need to do this when you claim on your profile that you are “obsessive about grammar” and one of your main duties is to “keep a watchful eye over the content of the paper and website” is a little cheeky in my opinion.

    In regards to the article as a whole I recognise the author’s right to be impartial but I feel some of the semantic choice was a little harsh and when coupled with the lack of credit given to the team as a whole both in terms of this article and Scan as whole(I know there was a limit on the word count in this article) that the response of supporters of the club on here is justified.

    I feel that the immediacy of the report is also partially to blame for the angry responses as the loss is still fresh in the mind and the realisation that it is the last time many members of the club will play with each other is upmost in people’s minds. For the article as it stands to be the final documentation of those third years’ rugby careers would be a travesty so I look forward to the next version.

    @Collette I will send the corrections tomorrow can you just confirm the email address I send it to please?

  8. Andrew, to write for SCAN, you just speak directly to the section you want to write for.

    For example, for Sports, email myself and Nick O’Malley at scan.sports@lusu.co.uk, or come to one of our section meetings that are held every week in Lonsdale Bar on Tuesdays at 6pm.

    The information for all the sections is on the inside front cover of every issue.

  9. So – SCAN reports that Lancaster lost the rugby, rugby players claim reporter knows nothing about rugby, reporter says “sod off, I bloody love ruggers, me”, and rugby players are now cross with SCAN for reporting what happened and spelling someone’s name wrong?

    Please confirm if this is the case so that many, many tired people need not trawl through a lot of boring blatherly arseshine to understand just what is going on here.

  10. Firstly, thankyou to everyone who has posted on this thread, it has aided my examination procrastination no end over the past couple of days.
    I’m not going to do the @ replies because I cant remember who wrote what but a few things have caught my eye.

    I feel that the comments regarding the length are a little OTT. You’re correct, Rugby is an incredibly popular sport and one which I am passionate about. However, Roses is a collective weekend of sport and therefore SCAN’s decision to report each sport equally on the internet is fair. This is especially fair considering, as has previously been mentioned, there will be a longer report which will appear in the next issue. I feel the comment about ultimate frisbee was unfair (although I am a member of the ultimate frisbee team so I would). As I said above, Roses is a collective weekend of sport and, whilst many people would probably rather read about rugby, the frisbee team went unbeaten for a second year running in all three games, as did other teams, and scored points for Lancaster at Roses which, no offence, you guys kind of didnt.

    The comments about the low coverage of Rugby during the year is fair, but then there are other sports who are equally successful as you gents and who also receive very low recognition.

    I do agree with the comments about the quality of some of the articles that SCAN put out, however it is a student newspaper written by people who are amateur journalists who do this as a hobby in their free time (that of course excludes the editor), much as the rugby club are, as far as I know, amateur rugby players who play rugby in their free time. Hopefully this quality can be improved, as the SCAN team have said, if you’re passionate about this issue, do some writing for them.

    The partisan support comment is a bit far as well. We were in York after all. I’m sure next year the reception the York team receive will be equally hostile, however I imagine playing under that hostility must have been difficult and I commend you for performing so well. If that sounds sarcastic and condescending I promise it isn’t, I do think you played very well, however you were deservingly beaten by a good York side.

    Some of the responses from SCAN have been antagonistic and defensive, but then so have some of your comments.

    Finally, the comment about Rumours. The rumour that you were boozing the night before a game is daft because I know for a fact that you weren’t. I was there and saw the majority of the first team in James College bar relaxing and preparing for the game (for those who read the word bar, the bar wasn’t open, it was just the seating area where the team were sitting. They WERE NOT drinking alcohol of any kind). I do know that the seconds and thirds were drinking the night before their games but this thread isn’t about them. That said, you weren’t angels all weekend and your ‘few shandys’ on friday night culminated in you waking up everyone in the exhibition hall at about 4.30, many of whom had games the following morning, as well as at least one person insulting the York staff. Again this is not a rumour, I was there, you woke me up. I don’t want to be a killjoy, you are entitled to a few beers after a big game, but waking up the rest of the Lancaster teams, on a weekend where the universities sports clubs as a whole are competing as a collective is pretty twatish. Yes this has nothing to do with the article, but it has been mentioned and refuted by a number of rugby players so I feel I’m justified in making the comment.

    I appreciate it is hard to take criticism so close after such a huge game, and that many of you feel that the report was unjust. Hopefully the follow up report will be better received.

    Cheers again for aiding my procrastination and genuine congratulations on a great season on the pitch

  11. Just a quick one – I must thank Matthew Todd on his balanced and fair response to many of the comments made on this thread, if one of the more senior members of SCAN had dealt with these comments in a similar way earlier on this situation would not have worsened.

  12. Just a thought Ollie, considering the report from Scan and attitude of some of those who represent Scan would you also suggest that some members of Scan join the rugby team to improve our fortunes? Or should both stick to what they know and vow to improve the quality they produce?

    And your point is valid about the awakening of the rest of the hall but after a few drinkipoos I don’t think any team would have been able to prevent this, especially when the rugby team is so vast. The sleeping arrangements were definitely flawed, apparently the rugby team were housed somewhere isolated the previous York roses. This isn’t really the place though for this discussion but I apologise however judging by the performances of the rugby girls and yourselves it seems the awakening might have been beneficial!

  13. This thoroughly arid non-debate consists solely of nit-picking, goalpost shifting and SPAWT ANGAH, thus rendering it bloody boring as hell.

    Collette asked many, many times for someone to correct the spelling errors in the piece. Since the piece offers the result, flaws and strengths on both sides, further finickiting is unnecessary, so please stop the yawnfest.

    RR

  14. Nice one ?J. Piedmont Mumblethunder? for hitting the nail on the head – this is just typical of the rugby team! They make complaints like this all the time which obviously shows that this matter is purely ?nit-picking? and trivial. I am glad also that you feel your comments are so genuine as to use be able to use your real name as well!

    Congratulations must also go to Ronnie Rowlands being completely objective and realising that because these numerous, well written and polite complaints are from members of the rugby team, they can therefore can be dismissed as they are obviously ignorant. I mean anyone associated with rugby at all must be some kind of stereotypical jock; who has been hit on the head too many times and is only capable of making comments like ?sod off, I bloody love ruggers, me?.

    Collette as well, as Assistant Editor of SCAN, I have been thoroughly impressed at the way you have handled these complaints. Describing people?s genuine grievances as a ?ridiculous argument?, dismissing them out of hand and being incredibly antagonistic and sarcastic is just what everyone would expect someone in your position.

    On a serious note though, I would like to thank Ollie for having the ability to ignore the stereotypes that appear to be held by some of the members of SCAN and being able to make some kind of fair and balanced reply. If SCAN could perhaps make take note from this, I am sure that there would certainly not have been the volume of replies already received.

    One final note: Anyone who has had the audacity to comment that these complaints are purely down to bitterness (Katherine Utton to name one example), should take serious consideration with future posts. I simply do think you understand how incredibly offensive this is and I implore you and other SCAN posters to perhaps mirror the same respect and courtesy that the members of the rugby team have shown.

  15. “Nice one ?J. Piedmont Mumblethunder? for hitting the nail on the head ? this is just typical of the rugby team! They make complaints like this all the time which obviously shows that this matter is purely ?nit-picking? and trivial. I am glad also that you feel your comments are so genuine as to use be able to use your real name as well!

    Congratulations must also go to Ronnie Rowlands being completely objective and realising that because these numerous, well written and polite complaints are from members of the rugby team, they can therefore can be dismissed as they are obviously ignorant. I mean anyone associated with rugby at all must be some kind of stereotypical jock; who has been hit on the head too many times and is only capable of making comments like ?sod off, I bloody love ruggers, me?.

    Is the Straw Man apocalypse upon us?

    RR (Ronnie Rowlands)

  16. Why use the word ‘destroy’, the only thing that has been destroyed is SCAN’s integrity. I may be a no body and know nothing about rugby or journalism but this is just not right.

  17. They used the word ‘destroy’ which, in the opinion of some, was an inaccurate verb to use. They also spelled a name wrong.

    You’re right, George – This is right up there with the NOTW phone bugging scandal.

    RR

  18. Really the problem lies in the question of who does even what to any certain degree if there is no for what it’s even supposed to do? Do you people seriously think that who in many judgment would even be far as to be look more as is meant to be? I’m of the strong opinion that whatever is as what do want even to be sure of is as this far as is to meaning to. It’s an old idea that when is as down to what is any far as like or be in themselves there is to be even wanting of being more do as want. Shame nobody else has realised this.

  19. Ronnie aka RR, you are proving to be the epitome of everything that these arguments are trying to impress upon SCAN, with your sarcastic and frankly ridiculously childish point of view on a subject that is actually quite close to the rugby team’s heart. Please treat us with at least a little bit of respect and take our constructive criticisms seriously, as that is what these comment pages are intended to be about.

  20. I’m sorry, I didn’t realize that spelling errors and the word ‘destroy’ made such a negative emotional impression on your passionate hearts. I will withdraw hence.

    RR

  21. Ronnie Rowlands, I find it somewhat ironic that you choose to scold the Rugby team over semantics considering your own admirable efforts at word play; both in your comments and your articles.

    For someone who seems to pride himself so much on his prosaic ability, it strikes me as worryingly condescending for you to dismiss people’s concerns in such a way.

    What do I know? They may well not be any better than the locals who ‘come in and slip some Rohypnol into your rum and coke’ in Sugarhouse….

  22. Still here? Ah, more straw men.

    You’re the ones scolding the writer for semantics, I never once scolded you for yours.

    I don’t pride myself on my prosaic ability, I just write how I think. The concern seems to be that a name was spelt wrong and the word ‘destroy’ was used in the article. Do tell me if there’s some elephant in the room here.

    Also, you’ve completely misinterpreted the article you read. In the comments, I even made use of my much prized prosaic ability to explain exactly what I meant to people like yourself. So much use, in fact, that I’m tired of explaining myself.

    RR

  23. “Sugarhouse?s student-only policy and line-up of big, beefy bouncers who don?t take silliness, offers the security and assurance that no one is going to come in and slip some Rohypnol into your rum and coke”.

    I was saying that the bouncers reduced the risk of attendees within the Sugarhouse attempting to spike drinks, not that they reduced the risk of locals coming in and drink spiking.

    But go ahead and cherry pick – You may notice that in paragraph two, I use the word ‘Cuba’. In paragraph seven, I use the word ‘coke’. Yeah you got it – I blatantly accused the republic of Cuba of exporting narcotics. God I am a bad young bart, aren’t I?

    RR

  24. I don’t really care what you wrote in the comments, it’s the fact that you wrote something in the article in the first place which could so easily be misconstrued. Did it not occur to you that it make come across in the way it did?

    Enough with your ‘straw man’ references. I haven’t actually sided with anyone in the above argument and yet you’ve already decided for me that I have.
    You accuse me of cherry-picking, but am I actually cherry-picking if you’ve felt the need to explain the very thing that I pulled you up on to others?

    You used the student-only policy and bouncers as the reasons why drinks aren’t spiked. It is not hard at all to come to the conclusion that I raised.

    Every club I’ve been to in Lancaster and Morecambe house bouncers, and those who tend the doors at Sugarhouse are amongst the smallest. I’m actually bigger than most of them. What does that have to do with spiking drinks? The bouncers on the door stay mainly on the door. Drinks could be spiked in Sugarhouse as easily as in any other club.

    So it’s the student-only policy that does it then. Forgive me if you think I’m straw-manning again, but for me it’s a logical progression of argument. Apparently so for others. I would have thought as a journalist you’d have learned to consider the audience you are writing for and how it could be interpreted.

    I don’t deny that there’s an elephant in the room. This thing has gotten completely out of hand. Anyone can see that. It started off on an inflammatory note and continued down that route. My view is that it could have been solved rather easily (yes, I know no one emailed Collette) without the hostile reactions from Scan.

    It doesn’t take a genius to work out the fact that the lads would’ve been a bit peeved having lost what for many is the most important game of the year. Maybe they did react badly to the piece. I don’t know, and I don’t actually care that much, but would it not have been easier to have just asked for the corrections and gotten on with it instead of both sides using fallacies against one another?

    I await your sarcastic non-response eagerly.

  25. “Did it not occur to you that it make come across in the way it did?”

    Why should I bother ducking and diving and wiping the arses of people too angry to think for more than a millionth of a second about what I might mean? What a stupid question.

    “Enough with your ?straw man? references.”

    Stop setting them up then.

    “I haven?t actually sided with anyone in the above argument and yet you?ve already decided for me that I have.”

    So making veiled insults toward my writing ability and whinging about my fallacies and mine isn’t siding?

    “You accuse me of cherry-picking, but am I actually cherry-picking if you?ve felt the need to explain the very thing that I pulled you up on to others?”

    Yes.

    “I would have thought as a journalist you?d have learned to consider the audience you are writing for and how it could be interpreted.”

    You thought wrong. See above.

    “Drinks could be spiked in Sugarhouse as easily as in any other club.”

    No they couldn’t, because many of them are inside, roaming.

    “I don?t deny that there?s an elephant in the room. This thing has gotten completely out of hand. ”

    Oh, you don’t know what ‘elephant in the room means’. I’ll rephrase – Is there some part of their argument that I’m missing, or is their grievance simply that SCAN spelt a name wrong and reported the loss? Answer the damn question.

    “This thing has gotten completely out of hand.”

    Yet you decide to put in your oar four days after it’s simmered down and repeat what at least three other people have said to me already?

    “it could have been solved rather easily (yes, I know no one emailed Collette) without the hostile reactions from Scan.”

    Collette made a single, perfectly polite, reasonable and actionable response to the grievances. Then they continued to pile in saying the same thing over and over again. So I can only assume that SCAN got a bit bored of it all and decided that since reason wasn’t going to work, they may as well tell you to go away.

    “It doesn?t take a genius to work out the fact that the lads would?ve been a bit peeved having lost what for many is the most important game of the year.”

    Don’t care. They can take their anger out on a punch bag. At least that way no-one is bored to tears.

    “would it not have been easier to have just asked for the corrections and gotten on with it instead of both sides using fallacies against one another?”

    It would have been solved in an instant if the rugby team didn’t continue to shout on about nothing in particular.

    I won’t await your response, to be honest I’d be glad of none, I’m wasting too much time responding to you and everyone else.

  26. Hahaha.
    I’ll shut up for the sake of ending this then. Don’t want you getting any more ‘bored’ do we?

Comments are closed.