RDP12 Final - Leinster v Ospreys 27/05/12 - KO 4pm - RTE/TG4/S4C

durkadurka

Do you have a view on the White sinbinning Justin?

liammur

thebaz wrote: »

I'm a big fan of French rugby in general, but there referees ?????- Inspector Clouseau or Clueless - yesterday just re-affirmed this , spoilt what should have been a great game

It WAS a great game.

RandolphEsq

thebaz wrote: »

I'm a big fan of French rugby in general, but there referees ?????- Inspector Clouseau or Clueless - yesterday just re-affirmed this , spoilt what should have been a great game

He messed up and it proved costly, but was a good game. He should be punished for it though.

thebaz

liammur wrote: »

It WAS a great game.

the handling of the scrums was a joke

jacothelad

M. Twoite completely ruined the game and i.m.o. robbed Leinster of the match. I'm sure the Ospreys don't give a flying £v*k but for me it has tainted their win. This scandalous state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue as it is ruining the game. Equally culpable are the two joke shop 'assistant' refs. Spineless jellys the two of them. Either of the Clanger brothers would have been better.

JustinDee

durkadurka wrote: »

Do you have a view on the White sinbinning Justin?

I'd say the AR called it. From what I saw, it looked like he did try to yank his opposition downwards. Whether his opposition meant it to look as such and instigated or a simple case of White doing it himself regardless, ref has to make a call at the end of the day. Somebody is to blame when a scrum goes down intentionally. Up to official to make the call instead of leaving it be. Don't know what the Leinster penalty at the end of the first half was for. They looked under big pressure and to have caved in. Poite called that in that their favour though not many seem to have too much of a problem with that interpretative call.

liammur

jacothelad wrote: »

M. Twoite completely ruined the game and i.m.o. robbed Leinster of the match. I'm sure the Ospreys don't give a flying £v*k but for me it has tainted their win. This scandalous state of affairs cannot be permitted to continue as it is ruining the game. Equally culpable are the two joke shop 'assistant' refs. Spineless jellys the two of them. Either of the Clanger brothers would have been better.

Ospreys have 4 leagues, more than anyone else. It ain't tainted.

Tox56

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd say the AR called it. From what I saw, it looked like he did try to yank his opposition downwards. Whether his opposition meant it to look as such and instigated or a simple case of White doing it himself regardless, ref has to make a call at the end of the day. Somebody is to blame when a scrum goes down intentionally. Up to official to make the call instead of leaving it be. Don't know what the Leinster penalty at the end of the first half was for. They looked under big pressure and to have caved in. Poite called that in that their favour though not many seem to have too much of a problem with that interpretative call.

We discussed earlier that it appeared Jones was making no effort to keep the scrum up (and Joe touched on it post-match), either to get another sinbinning or a penalty try.

The referee can get things wrong. Saying "someone has to make the call" is fair enough, but you have to also accept when a call of monumental importance was wrong.

JustinDee

Tox56 wrote: »

We discussed earlier that it appeared Jones was making no effort to keep the scrum up (and Joe touched on it post-match), either to get another sinbinning or a penalty try.

The referee can get things wrong. Saying "someone has to make the call" is fair enough, but you have to also accept when a call of monumental importance was wrong.

The Leinster coach is hardly going to say that his props struggled in each of these infringements following the loss in a tournament final.
My point was that in calls like these, it is usually only wrong to those who support the side losing out. It is always right and rarely questioned if the other way around.

Tox56

JustinDee wrote: »

The Leinster coach is hardly going to say that his props struggled in each of these infringements following the loss in a tournament final.
My point was that in calls like these, it is usually only wrong to those who support the side losing out. It is always right and rarely questioned if the other way around.

Joe could easily have not dealt with that issue, but he clearly felt genuinely aggrieved and he wasn't the only person to notice it.

I agree that people are one-eyed when it comes to these things, but that single yellow card possibly lost the tournament they had been working towards for 9 months, and referee's should not be shielded from criticism for a bad performance.

I personally don't agree on blaming a loss on a referee, and won't foolish enough to think all the bad calls went against Leinster, but referee's deserve criticism for a bad game as much as players do.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd say the AR called it. From what I saw, it looked like he did try to yank his opposition downwards. Whether his opposition meant it to look as such and instigated or a simple case of White doing it himself regardless, ref has to make a call at the end of the day. Somebody is to blame when a scrum goes down intentionally. Up to official to make the call instead of leaving it be. Don't know what the Leinster penalty at the end of the first half was for. They looked under big pressure and to have caved in. Poite called that in that their favour though not many seem to have too much of a problem with that interpretative call.

I think the reason for there being less of a fuss over that was the timing. I was in the far terrace so couldn't see what was going on exactly during that passage at the end of the first half so can't really comment on it. But with 8 mins to go Ospreys needed a penalty and converted try to win it. Carding White gave them the penalty and a man advantage going looking for the try.

Regardless of the decision made at the end of the first half, both teams had plenty of opportunity to set it right in the second. A sin-binning with 8 minutes to go doesn't give the team on the receiving end of the decision the same opportunity at all. So the decision itself had a massive bearing on the result.

Not having a ref-talk or anything I actually still don't know what the card was for. Can anyone tell me? Given that I don't think White was pinged any more than once before that call it seems extreme, especially on our own put in. If, as it seems from Justins post, it was for intentionally bringing down the scrum I would be very curious to see it again. Why in Gods name a player would do that on their own 5 metre line, on their own put in, is beyond me.

molloyjh

JustinDee wrote: »

The Leinster coach is hardly going to say that his props struggled in each of these infringements following the loss in a tournament final.
My point was that in calls like these, it is usually only wrong to those who support the side losing out. It is always right and rarely questioned if the other way around.

I don't really agree with that. I was down in Thomond last April when Munster beat our winning streak against them with a penalty in the closing minutes. There was a blatant forward pass in the build up to the winning penalty and a few of us Leinster fans were a bit, shall we say miffed, that it was missed. A few Munster fans in front of us turned around and agreed whole-heartedly that it was forward by a country mile.

I think most of us will acknowledge when a call is wrong but goes our way. We just won't complain about it. To say we think it's the right call though isn't true, or at least isn't always.

tolosenc

TBH, the TMO should be used to sort out scrums. Anything other than an understandable loss of footing should either be pinged by the ref on the first instance or sent to the TMO who can look at both sides of the scrum and judge from there.

Fishooks12

tolosenc wrote: »

TBH, the TMO should be used to sort out scrums. Anything other than an understandable loss of footing should either be pinged by the ref on the first instance or sent to the TMO who can look at both sides of the scrum and judge from there.

tbh more of a time delay around scrums is the last thing we need

tolosenc

Fishooks12 wrote: »

tbh more of a time delay around scrums is the last thing we need

Would have saved about 5 minutes yesterday...

fitz

What gets on my nerves is not the fact that he penalised White, even though I think that was the wrong call...I can accept that sometimes you get pinged in the wrong, fine.
But to sin-bin a player 32 minutes after the last warning was issued about scrum infringements was incredibly harsh.

The penalty brought Osprey's within a converted try of the win, against 14 men who had already had a previous ten minute period defending like lunatics against one of the most potent attacking sides in the league....the fatigue was always going to tell, particularly given that Ospreys were the fresher side going in and the pace they attack at.

I cannot see how the White binning (not the penalty) can be defended, and I fully believe that Leinster could have held out for 8 minutes with 15 men, they've done it all season. But against Ospreys, to go down to 14 at that stage was inevitably the kiss of death. Williams and Biggar did brilliantly to convert their opportunities, but to dismiss the impact of the binning, and to describe people's reactions and criticism of it as bitter or one-eyed is a bit much imo.

BoardsMember

Poite is renowned for siding with the dominant scrum. Once Ross went off the writing was on the wall that we'd concede penalties/points/cards at scrum time. The first card would appear to be more justified than White's, but I still think that Ospreys deserved their victory. Away from home their defense was huge and unrelenting, and I'm afraid we still looked a little like we thought we deserved to win. We were p1ss poor defensively at the start of the second half, no line speed, no intensity in the collision. We were the authors of our own downfall. A lot went our way - their breakaway should have been a try or a yellow against us, or both, Isa try came out of nothing/complete lapse on Ospreys part. We can blame Poite all we want, but Ospreys came and bat us and fair play to them. The better, more complete team performance on the day won.

Podge_irl

At the end of the day, Leinster had a chance to win that game and blew it entirely thanks to their own decision making. Its an area of the game that Leinster have become so strong in and I fully expected at least a shot at a DG to be made. But flinging it out wide when it was abundantly clear the backs were massively outmanned by Ospreys defenders and the support being so slow to getting to them is what cost Leinster the game.

castie

fitz wrote: »

What gets on my nerves is not the fact that he penalised White, even though I think that was the wrong call...I can accept that sometimes you get pinged in the wrong, fine.
But to sin-bin a player 32 minutes after the last warning was issued about scrum infringements was incredibly harsh.

The penalty brought Osprey's within a converted try of the win, against 14 men who had already had a previous ten minute period defending like lunatics against one of the most potent attacking sides in the league....the fatigue was always going to tell, particularly given that Ospreys were the fresher side going in and the pace they attack at.

I cannot see how the White binning (not the penalty) can be defended, and I fully believe that Leinster could have held out for 8 minutes with 15 men, they've done it all season. But against Ospreys, to go down to 14 at that stage was inevitably the kiss of death. Williams and Biggar did brilliantly to convert their opportunities, but to dismiss the impact of the binning, and to describe people's reactions and criticism of it as bitter or one-eyed is a bit much imo.

Suggesting that a final warning should be time based?
Havent seen the game but from whats been said it was not a team yellow warning it was a White yellow warning.

Hence Poite decided he was at it again (right or wrong i dont know) and binned him. Cant really argue with that. (I hate Poite btw)

jaansu

DSC_2234.JPG by Jacko004, on Flickr

The win was so tantalizing close. That's the last time I bring my camera to a match, the last time Leinster also lost by a point against you know who :mad:

Click on the link for more.

fitz

castie wrote: »

Suggesting that a final warning should be time based?
Havent seen the game but from whats been said it was not a team yellow warning it was a White yellow warning.

Hence Poite decided he was at it again (right or wrong i dont know) and binned him. Cant really argue with that. (I hate Poite btw)

The warning wasn't to White, otherwise Heinke wouldn't have been binned. He was warning Leo that further infringements would result in a card, and they did.
We then went 32 minutes without any further warnings. I've never seen a card given with that long a gap between the warning and a re-occurrence of the specific infringement the warning was issue for, and certainly not after the initial warning resulted in a card.

Imo, you can't really argue that penalising White and issuing the yellow on top of it was a fair and balanced piece of refereeing. If he'd just given the penalty, and Osprey's had gone on to win anyway, I'd have no complaint, but tbh, I don't think that would have happened if we'd had 15 men on the pitch with less than 8 minutes to go.

Tox56

The problem with the White binning was the actual offence, as I still have no idea what it was

Lelantos

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Cullen and Toner are not a good scrummaging second row partnership. When you couple that with the Healy and Ross injury and Cronin starting we were always going to struggle in the scrums.

Does this perhaps mean that Leinster don't have strength in depth in certain areas? Of they had a Munster like injury list, would they struggle? Missing 3 or 4 players yesterday & it did seem to tell

Lelantos

RandolphEsq wrote: »

thebaz wrote: »

I'm a big fan of French rugby in general, but there referees ?????- Inspector Clouseau or Clueless - yesterday just re-affirmed this , spoilt what should have been a great game

He messed up and it proved costly, but was a good game. He should be punished for it though.

He hasn't been punished for any other games he's messed up this season, can't see that changing

Tox56

Lelantos wrote: »

Does this perhaps mean that Leinster don't have strength in depth in certain areas? Of they had a Munster like injury list, would they struggle? Missing 3 or 4 players yesterday & it did seem to tell

If you have an injury list like Munster anyone would struggle, but Leinster have about enough strength in depth in almost every position, obviously it depends on who exactly does get injured.

cbyrne11

Agreed wasn't very funny but obvious joke no need for the moral PC bridage to start attacking the rugby forum!

Looked at the highlights there, can't for the life of me figure out the second yellow card, but seriously Shane Williams take a bow what a fantastic way to end to a career! Going to miss watching the little fella!

Higher

Lelantos wrote: »

Does this perhaps mean that Leinster don't have strength in depth in certain areas? Of they had a Munster like injury list, would they struggle? Missing 3 or 4 players yesterday & it did seem to tell

To be perfectly honest, playing in that kind of heat with only 7 days rest after a HC final started to tell. Then add to that, playing in that kind of heat with only 7 days rest and down to 14 men for 20 minutes of the game.

cbyrne11

Higher wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, playing in that kind of heat with only 7 days rest after a HC final started to tell. Then add to that, playing in that kind of heat with only 7 days rest and down to 14 men for 20 minutes of the game.

They shouhld really move that final to the week after if you ask me, would probably get more travelling fans as well with the June bank holiday.

castie

fitz wrote: »

The warning wasn't to White, otherwise Heinke wouldn't have been binned. He was warning Leo that further infringements would result in a card, and they did.
We then went 32 minutes without any further warnings. I've never seen a card given with that long a gap between the warning and a re-occurrence of the specific infringement the warning was issue for, and certainly not after the initial warning resulted in a card.

Imo, you can't really argue that penalising White and issuing the yellow on top of it was a fair and balanced piece of refereeing. If he'd just given the penalty, and Osprey's had gone on to win anyway, I'd have no complaint, but tbh, I don't think that would have happened if we'd had 15 men on the pitch with less than 8 minutes to go.

Again Im going off posts here.
Someone said it was a warning to the TH and the captain.

Before anyone comes in with the "ref before you criticise" I have reffed in Hong Kong and Singapore.
You also need to look at this from a different angle.
People say he got the penalty call wrong and then say it should never be a yellow. These are two different independent decisions.

Penalty was awarded against White. (whether right or wrong)
Now we have a seperate situation in which you must assume the previous penalty is a legitamite decision in order to make an informed decision.

So in this case here is what I think the details are.

Ref has warned TH on scrum conduct and informed him and captain a binning is coming.
Ref bins LH on a team basis for persisent infringements. (Again whether the penalty decisions were correct should not come into play as in the refs head it doesnt)
32 minutes later TH is up to the same tricks as the first half. He gets 10 minues as he is all out of chances.

Important point here is to seperate the penalty decisions from the cards as in order to judge if a card is merited you must first assume the penalty is correct as thats what the ref is going on.

"Joke of a card no idea what he did wrong" to me is not a genuine assessment of Poites decision to yellow White as of course if theres no penalty then theres no yellow.

From my own personal running of a game I think I would of done similar.

If I warn a prop and his team which it seems Poite did then the team yellow came for Heinke. This doesnt absolve the fact that in my opinion the TH is on the chopping block.

If I deem hes done it again (even 32 mins later) Im going to avoid the farce that was the result of the first yellow and off he goes for 10 mins. (Not going to give him 2-3 more times)

I hope this makes sense to people.
I am in no way saying the penalty decisions themselves were correct but I can see exactly the reasoning for the yellow for White.

Tox56

castie wrote: »

Again Im going off posts here.
Someone said it was a warning to the TH and the captain.

Before anyone comes in with the "ref before you criticise" I have reffed in Hong Kong and Singapore.
You also need to look at this from a different angle.
People say he got the penalty call wrong and then say it should never be a yellow. These are two different independent decisions.

Penalty was awarded against White. (whether right or wrong)
Now we have a seperate situation in which you must assume the previous penalty is a legitamite decision in order to make an informed decision.

So in this case here is what I think the details are.

Ref has warned TH on scrum conduct and informed him and captain a binning is coming.
Ref bins LH on a team basis for persisent infringements. (Again whether the penalty decisions were correct should not come into play as in the refs head it doesnt)
32 minutes later TH is up to the same tricks as the first half. He gets 10 minues as he is all out of chances.

Important point here is to seperate the penalty decisions from the cards as in order to judge if a card is merited you must first assume the penalty is correct as thats what the ref is going on.

"Joke of a card no idea what he did wrong" to me is not a genuine assessment of Poites decision to yellow White as of course if theres no penalty then theres no yellow.

From my own personal running of a game I think I would of done similar.

If I warn a prop and his team which it seems Poite did then the team yellow came for Heinke. This doesnt absolve the fact that in my opinion the TH is on the chopping block.

If I deem hes done it again (even 32 mins later) Im going to avoid the farce that was the result of the first yellow and off he goes for 10 mins. (Not going to give him 2-3 more times)

I hope this makes sense to people.
I am in no way saying the penalty decisions themselves were correct but I can see exactly the reasoning for the yellow for White.

I don't think the timing of warnings has any relevance, it's the offence itself that is the issue.