Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Leinster vs Connacht build up RDS Jan 1st tg4 17:00

Options
1…1617192122…24

Comments

  • Options
    #542
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishgrover wrote: »
    The Try: I disagree with the view, held by some Leinster fans that it was clearly and without doubt a try. I disagree for multiple reasons
    • a.) I do not believe that he had clear line of sign to the real or attempted grounding of the ball either immediately before or after the grounding.
    • b.) I believe that his falling during the period of play would have had an impact on his ability to focus on the subject matter and therefore a potential impact on the accuracy of his decision making
    • c.) I suspect that if a try or no try question had been asked the response from the TMO would have been much less certain.
    a) Based on what exactly? He was in a far better position than the camera and still photos on the inpho and sportsfile sites show his eyes firmly fixed on the action just after slipping.
    b) See above. You were the one I believe, who tried to characterise Clancy's reaction as embarrassment earlier on this thread. At no time did he look or sound anything other than composed. The very first question he asked the TMO was whether he could hear him. Not the words of a flustered or embarrassed man.
    c) "Try or no try" and "Any reason..." are separate questions used in different situations. This has been explained many times on this thread, yet you continue to ignore those explanations. Clancy knows (as does any ref) which one is appropriate. You're insistence that he asked "Try or no try" is based on the fact that you didn't see the ball grounded from the only TV angle that the ball was visible in. You completely disavow any possibility that Clancy saw it grounded (he clearly told the TMO that he didn't see the ball all the way through the act of being grounded).

    The bottom line is that Clancy clearly believed that he saw the ball on the ground with Van der Flier's hand on it. That's why he asked the question he asked. He even clarified this by saying he didn't see it all the way to the ground. That's what he wanted the TMO to check. To make sure that the act of grounding did not include some infringement that would prevent the try being awarded.

    Looking at it another way. If he hsaw the ball on the ground with VdFs hand on it and asked "Try yes or no" and the TV pictures didn't show what he'd seen, the try couldn't be awarded and that would have been a travesty.


  • Options
    #543
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »
    If you can't see clearly where your feet are in a pile of bodies you shouldn't be kicking. If you can see them you shouldn't be "accidentally" kicking someone in the head. Simple.

    Deserved the yellow that Leinster fans asked for:D


  • Options
    #544
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    I'm afraid I didn't see that game, so I'll suspend judgment until I see the incident.

    I just can't find you the link, I'll be tempted to see this extra-time again, with 2 k.o unseen, yellow card from nowhere and others silly stuffs falling like rain. Still a too much of trauma, really.

    It was either anti-Connacht ref or dire incompetence, in both case it's a very serious issue and was very costly in Connacht season.


  • Options
    #545
    irishgrover
    Registered Users Posts: 2,496 ✭✭✭irishgrover


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    a) Based on what exactly? He was in a far better position than the camera and still photos on the inpho and sportsfile sites show his eyes firmly fixed on the action just after slipping.
    b) See above. You were the one I believe, who tried to characterise Clancy's reaction as embarrassment earlier on this thread. At no time did he look or sound anything other than composed. The very first question he asked the TMO was whether he could hear him. Not the words of a flustered or embarrassed man.
    c) "Try or no try" and "Any reason..." are separate questions used in different situations. This has been explained many times on this thread, yet you continue to ignore those explanations. Clancy knows (as does any ref) which one is appropriate. You're insistence that he asked "Try or no try" is based on the fact that you didn't see the ball grounded from the only TV angle that the ball was visible in. You completely disavow any possibility that Clancy saw it grounded (he clearly told the TMO that he didn't see the ball all the way through the act of being grounded).

    The bottom line is that Clancy clearly believed that he saw the ball on the ground with Van der Flier's hand on it. That's why he asked the question he asked. He even clarified this by saying he didn't see it all the way to the ground. That's what he wanted the TMO to check. To make sure that the act of grounding did not include some infringement that would prevent the try being awarded.

    Looking at it another way. If he hsaw the ball on the ground with VdFs hand on it and asked "Try yes or no" and the TV pictures didn't show what he'd seen, the try couldn't be awarded and that would have been a travesty.

    Q A: Based on what exactly?
    Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.
    To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
    In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding

    Q B: Embarrassment?
    Yes, I put that forward as a hypothesis. However as with Question A, it should be quite clear and unambiguous that this was was is commonly referred to as an opinion (and a very throwaway one at that). I was obviously not stating it as a fact that Clancy was embarrassed, as I am very clearly not Clancy, and therefore am not privy to what was going on in his head.
    I'm really beginning to struggle with peoples inability to differentiate between a fact and an opinion....

    Q C: Try or No try: See answer to Question A which leads to my opinion on Q C

    The bottom line bit.....and looking at it another way bit........ If that is what happened then I totally agree with you..


  • Options
    #546
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    The only people who know if the ball was grounded are a few of the players and the ref.

    It may well not have been grounded but the ref had the best view of it so I'm happy to take his call on the try.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #547
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    irishgrover wrote: »

    Q A: Based on what exactly?
    Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.

    To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
    In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding


    http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/watch-connacht-fans-will-be-livid-over-this-leinster-try-decision/57405

    I think Rodney AhYou saw the ball being grounded. He was in a similarly close position to it as clancy was.

    How difficult is it to understand that the ref asked the question because he saw a grounded ball and was not checking for a try being scored, but to see if there was any other play which would give him reason to not award it.


  • Options
    #548
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishgrover wrote: »
    Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.
    You left out the critical part of it being grounded. As in on the ground, held by the scoring player. Grounded. His view may have been obstructed, so he just made it up?
    irishgrover wrote: »
    To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
    In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding
    No-one other than Clancy and the players involved will have that kind of certainty. We can't look for that here given the limited information we have. What we do know is that Clancy believed the ball was grounded but didn't know if it was lost forward in the act of grounding. That's what we know from the question he asked. Everything else is speculation. Although the body language of some of the Connacht players does seem to indicate they thought a try was scored.
    irishgrover wrote: »

    Q B: Embarrassment?
    Yes, I put that forward as a hypothesis. However as with Question A, it should be quite clear and unambiguous that this was was is commonly referred to as an opinion (and a very throwaway one at that). I was obviously not stating it as a fact that Clancy was embarrassed, as I am very clearly not Clancy, and therefore am not privy to what was going on in his head.
    I'm really beginning to struggle with peoples inability to differentiate between a fact and an opinion....
    Everything you've said here is opinion. I think I can tell the difference...


  • Options
    #549
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    The only people who know if the ball was grounded are a few of the players and the ref.


    Not sure about the ref. Tend to agree for players like AhYou making a desperate roll-eye.

    But why Lam would have said it was a big call, then?
    Either because Muldoon confirmed he was holding the ball, and AhYou eyes was just refecting tiredness.
    Or either, even if it's a possible try, he considered the question asked was the "big call" per se, and rightly want to mainting a bit of pressure on the refereeing standard, compared to what happened in the past


  • Options
    #550
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    Not sure about the ref. Tend to agree for players like AhYou making a desperate roll-eye.

    But why Lam would have said it was a big call, then?
    Either because Muldoon confirmed he was holding the ball, and AhYou eyes was just refecting tiredness.
    Or either, even if it's a possible try, he considered the question asked was the "big call" per se, and rightly want to mainting a bit of pressure on the refereeing standard, compared to what happened in the past

    so AhYou just stopped playing out of tiredness with leinster camped on the connacht line?


  • Options
    #551
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I said it before but Lam regularly calls out ref decisions after games and nearly all the time he's wrong.

    Him saying it wasn't a try doesn't mean it wasn't a try.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #552
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    You left out the critical part of it being grounded. As in on the ground, held by the scoring player. Grounded. His view may have been obstructed, so he just made it up?
    No-one other than Clancy and the players involved will have that kind of certainty. We can't look for that here given the limited information we have. What we do know is that Clancy believed the ball was grounded but didn't know if it was lost forward in the act of grounding. That's what we know from the question he asked. Everything else is speculation...


    You just omit the psychological part of Clancy himself "thinking" having seen the grounding, and considering a 80% certainty was enough to call "any reason", transfering the responsability by the oriented question to the TMO, who were not in position to deny the try.


  • Options
    #553
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    aimee1 wrote: »
    so AhYou just stopped playing out of tiredness with leinster camped on the connacht line?

    He stopped because he knew it would have been TMO anyway. Stopage is not an indication, rolling eyes a little more


  • Options
    #554
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    You just omit the psychological part of Clancy himself "thinking" having seen the grounding, and considering a 80% certainty was enough to call "any reason", transfering the responsability by the oriented question to the TMO, who were not in position to deny the try.

    or clancy saw the grounding and just wanted to check there was no obstruction etc and actually was 100% correct in his actions? Is that possible or not?


  • Options
    #555
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    connachta wrote: »
    You just omit the psychological part of Clancy himself "thinking" having seen the grounding, and considering a 80% certainty was enough to call "any reason", transfering the responsability by the oriented question to the TMO, who were not in position to deny the try.

    Do you mean like "I thought I thaw a puthy cat"?

    Clancy thought he saw a try because the tweety birds were flying around his head after his slip.

    Makes sense.

    :D


  • Options
    #556
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    connachta wrote: »
    You just omit the psychological part of Clancy himself "thinking" having seen the grounding, and considering a 80% certainty was enough to call "any reason", transfering the responsability by the oriented question to the TMO, who were not in position to deny the try.

    He said "I can't see all the ball all the time", which to me means he has seen some of it being grounded.

    He is in the best position to see any possible grounding.


  • Options
    #557
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    He stopped because he knew it would have been TMO anyway. Stopage is not an indication, rolling eyes a little more

    So why did he stop, what did he see? A grounding for a try possibly?

    There was a full 3-4 seconds between AhYou stopping and Clancy blowing his whistle.


  • Options
    #558
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    I said it before but Lam regularly calls out ref decisions after games and nearly all the time he's wrong.

    Him saying it wasn't a try doesn't mean it wasn't a try.


    Munster penalty try decision is unbelievable, whatever "possible" within the litteral rule, if it's what you refered to.
    And You really think Lam would have said this if AhYou told him it was a try? No, except for the reason I put forward, the "big call" was the question asked to TMO in itself


  • Options
    #559
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    aimee1 wrote: »
    So why did he stop, what did he see? A grounding for a try possibly?

    There was a full 3-4 seconds between AhYou stopping and Clancy blowing his whistle.


    He saw a POSSIBLE try, and above all Leinster over the line so a sure TMO, making him stop before the blowing


  • Options
    #560
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    He saw a POSSIBLE try, and above all Leinster over the line so a sure TMO, making him stop

    And clancy by asking the question he did saw a grounded ball. And he wanted to make sure Leinster didnt obstruct the connacht defence in getting there. How difficult is it to understand that refs ask the questions based on what they know and dont know

    Ah You saw the ball being grounded otherwise why stop when the ref hadnt blown his whistle????


  • Options
    #561
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    He said "I can't see all the ball all the time", which to me means he has seen some of it being grounded.

    He is in the best position to see any possible grounding.


    Best position when you fall is not smth I'm sure of
    And the way he said it to the TMO doesn't necessarily reflect the level of certainty he had


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #562
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users Posts: 7,415 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    connachta wrote: »
    Munster penalty try decision is unbelievable, whatever "possible" within the litteral rule, if it's what you refered to.
    And You really think Lam would have said this if AhYou told him it was a try? No, except for the reason I put forward, the "big call" was the question asked to TMO in itself
    Pat Lam never liked that question :D

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/5080759/Blues-coach-Pat-Lam-calls-for-refereeing-changes


  • Options
    #563
    Interested Observer
    Registered Users Posts: 13,051 ✭✭✭✭Interested Observer


    connachta wrote: »
    You just omit the psychological part of Clancy himself "thinking" having seen the grounding, and considering a 80% certainty was enough to call "any reason", transfering the responsability by the oriented question to the TMO, who were not in position to deny the try.

    That you actually typed this rubbish out and still thought it was worth posting is nothing short of embarrassing.


  • Options
    #564
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    aimee1 wrote: »
    Ah You saw the ball being grounded otherwise why stop when the ref hadnt blown his whistle????

    As I said because Leinster pack was over the line, scoring or not, so TMO expected.


  • Options
    #565
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    As I said because Leinster pack was over the line, scoring or not, so TMO expected.

    Well thats totally unprofessional to stop playing then. AhYou saw a grounding. Clancy saw a grounded ball. TRY time.


  • Options
    #566
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,147 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    connachta wrote: »
    Best position when you fall is not smth I'm sure of
    And the way he said it to the TMO doesn't necessarily reflect the level of certainty he had

    have you even watched what happened?

    yes he fell but it kept eyes on the ruck the whole time and then went and had a look into the ruck before he blew up.

    him falling has little to do with his call.


  • Options
    #567
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    aimee1 wrote: »
    Well thats totally unprofessional to stop playing then. AhYou saw a grounding. Clancy saw a grounded ball. TRY time.

    Your opinion, possibly true


  • Options
    #568
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    true

    FYP


  • Options
    #569
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    Interested Observer wrote: »
    That you actually typed this rubbish out and still thought it was worth posting is nothing short of embarrassing.

    Yeah so much easier to believe refs are 100% objective


  • Options
    #570
    connachta
    Registered Users Posts: 7,965 ✭✭✭connachta


    aimee1 wrote: »
    FYP
    What did I said about Leinster seft-sufficiency?:D
    Joke, don't panic :)
    I think every detailled opinion has been said about this, until Clancy talk. And he probably won't.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #571
    aimee1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,290 ✭✭✭aimee1


    connachta wrote: »
    Yeah so much easier to believe refs are 100% objective

    so Aki kicks the ball at the back of a ruck in his own 22 from an offside position and White went into a ruck with a swinging arm, both should have been YC but they got away with it but the ref was a homer :eek:


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement