Ref's Decisions

redmca2

I am writing this in the light of the end to the Biarritz - Ospreys match. I fully believe like many others that Clancy bottled the decision in not awarding Ospreys a penalty for the deliberate knock-on / offside by BO in the dying seconds.

However, the issue I want to bring up is the confusion that arises from a ref shouting "advantage" without making it clear whether it is a scrum or penalty advantage. I know some refs try to make it clear, but there is no recognised standard for this, and it was clearly the Ospreys belief (and the tv commentators) that a penalty was about to be awarded as they virtually stopped playing. True, you have to play the whistle, but at such a crucial moment clarity was essential, and it was sadly lacking.

I think the IRB should issue some guidelines on how advantages are communicated.

bamboozle

i'm not a conspiracy theorist, but i firmly believe that Biarritz get the golden treatment in the HC thanks to Serge Blanco's power. they consistently get put in the easiest group of the heiniken cup, in the last 4 seasons they've had Glasgow, newport, calivasino, viadana, parma and border reivers in their group.

TitoPuente

Sure the Heineken Cup is as utterly corrupt as it comes. No surprises there.

thomond2006

TitoPuente wrote: »

Sure the Heineken Cup is as utterly corrupt as it comes. No surprises there.

Woah, stall the ball!

TitoPuente

thomond2006 wrote: »

Woah, stall the ball!

Yes! Sometimes!