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

connachta

aimee1 wrote: »

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:

McFadden Stamping?

And subjectivity is not only being a homer but also trusting his own 80% certainty to have seen a grounding (which may have happened btw).

But whatever,
some Pro12 referees overall are contested, we can agree with that at least, and this is a particular issue for Connacht. And that's my general opinion, beyond this game. Full blank AFAIC.

Interested Observer

connachta wrote: »

Yeah so much easier to believe refs are 100% objective

It's certainly much easier to believe Clancy saw the ball being grounded than to believe that nonsense you posted.

connachta

Interested Observer wrote: »

It's certainly much easier to believe Clancy saw the ball being grounded than to believe that nonsense you posted.

believe what you want, after all.

molloyjh

aimee1 wrote: »

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:

A homer who is biased to the "bigger" side. That's a double bias right there. Which completely explains why the smaller side playing away from home got away with both infringements. Or no, wait.....

connachta

molloyjh wrote: »

A homer who is biased to the "bigger" side. That's a double bias right there. Which completely explains why the smaller side playing away from home got away with both infringements. Or no, wait.....

connachta wrote: »

McFadden Stamping?

Mc Carthy never rolling away?


Bad decisions for both sides, but the one which caused 7-points with certainty was the question asked to the TMO (if it was a bad decision, not sure, nobody should be sure about it, both ways)

irishgrover

aimee1 wrote:

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?

At what point has anyone said its not possible. Of course its possible. But its also possible that he did not, that what he thought he saw was negatively impacted by his position or by his fall, or that he made a mistake.......I'm really at a loss to why you seem to be struggling with such a basic concept..... And I'm genuinely not taking the piss or baiting you here....I really can't understand how you cannot fathom an alternative position as an opinion...... This really is a very very basic example of the difference between an opinion and a fact

aimee1

connachta wrote: »

Mc Carthy never rolling away?


Bad decisions for both sides, but the one which caused 7-points with certainty was the question asked to the TMO (if it was a bad decision, not sure, nobody should be sure about it, both ways)

well answer me this. How can anyone be certain ? We can only go by a witness statement which was the ref asking "any reason not to award a try"

The TMO found no reason using video evidence.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

At what point has anyone said its not possible. Of course its possible. But its also possible that he did not, that what he thought he saw was negatively impacted by his position or by his fall, or that he made a mistake.......I'm really at a loss to why you seem to be struggling with such a basic concept..... And I'm genuinely not taking the piss or baiting you here....I really can't understand how you cannot fathom an alternative position as an opinion...... This really is a very very basic example of the difference between an opinion and a fact

because refs all the time ask that question. Clancy was better placed then anyone, camera's included to decide what course of action to take and despite his slip he was still looking at the spot where VDF dived over the line so he asked the question based on what he did see, and what he might have missed.

If Clancy saw nothing to make a decision on he would have asked try yes or no. By asking the 2nd question, you have to assume he saw a grounded ball

connachta

aimee1 wrote: »

well answer me this. How can anyone be certain ? We can only go by a witness statement which was the ref asking "any reason not to award a try"

The TMO found no reason using video evidence.

Agree.
So the real debate is "did Clancy really see the fraction of second when a grounding might have existed?" I do think it's less clear in his mind than the question implied. Just that

aimee1

connachta wrote: »

Agree.
So the real debate is "did Clancy really see the fraction of second when a grounding might have existed?" I do think it's less clear in his mind than the question implied. Just that

but he doesnt have to see the grounding. He could have seen a grounded ball and wanted to check there was no obstruction or double movement. He is perfectly entitled to make that call based on what he sees.

connachta

aimee1 wrote: »

but he doesnt have to see the grounding. He could have seen a grounded ball and wanted to check there was no obstruction or double movement. He is perfectly entitled to make that call based on what he sees.

Or didn't see it clearly, but persuaded himself enough to ask "reasons" rather than "yes or no". Two questions cannot cover the real world which is not "black and white". Refereeing is about estimation. Rucks are the same.

former total

connachta wrote: »

But whatever,
some Pro12 referees overall are contested, we can agree with that at least, and this is a particular issue for Connacht. And that's my general opinion, beyond this game. Full blank AFAIC.

Contested? What does that mean? Please tell me you don't mean that the refs are biased against Connacht. Please.

aimee1

connachta wrote: »

Or didn't see it clearly, but persuaded himself enough to ask "reasons" rather than "yes or no". Two questions cannot cover the real world which is not "black and white". Refereeing is about estimation. Rucks are the same.

VDF scored, AhYou saw it, clancy saw it. The TMO saw no reason to not allow the score. Thats clear enough to me.

Connacht assume every decision against them is now a conspiracy is small time thinking that will hold them back in the long term

connachta

former total wrote: »

Contested? What does that mean? Please tell me you don't mean that the refs are biased against Connacht. Please.

Subjected to the big team syndrome, yes. But among other things. Can't you just admit HCup is better ref than pro12 for example?
You will answer "because the best of the best are picked". that's what I want for Pro12, more Owens, more Mitrea, more N-Z refs.
And above all refs who had a mare heavily sanctioned rather than protected

stephen_n

connachta wrote: »

McFadden Stamping?
.

Maybe if the homer ref hadn't allowed Connacht players to spend more time on the Leinster side of the ruck than Reddan, McFadden wouldn't have got frustrated at a Connacht player deliberately impeding the ball coming back. That in no way excuses McFadden, but your suggestion that the ref was anything less than favorable to Connacht throughout the game is comical.

irishgrover

aimee1 wrote: »

VDF scored, AhYou saw it, clancy saw it. The TMO saw no reason to not allow the score. Thats clear enough to me.

Connacht assume every decision against them is now a conspiracy is small time thinking that will hold them back in the long term

I really don't understand how you are not getting this? How come if someone has an alternative view to yours they must be believers in a conspiracy. It really is an ridiculously juvenile stance.

It's a really simple concept... a lot of people think it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the ref got it wrong....

You're reliance on belittling those that disagree with you as believers in conspiracy, is mildly entertaining but ultimately annoying...

connachta

stephen_n wrote: »

Maybe if the homer ref hadn't allowed Connacht players to spend more time on the Leinster side of the ruck than Reddan, McFadden wouldn't have got frustrated at a Connacht player deliberately impeding the ball coming back. That in no way excuses McFadden, but your suggestion that the ref was anything less than favorable to Connacht throughout the game is comical.

Which is comical, despite "no excuse", is how you justify a stamping. In the 22 or in the mood it may have been a straight red.

former total

connachta wrote: »

Subjected to the big team syndrome, yes. But among other things. Can't you just admit HCup is better ref than pro12 for example?
You will answer "because the best of the best are picked". that's what I want for Pro12, more Owens, more Mitrea, more N-Z refs.
And above all refs who had a mare heavily sanctioned rather than protected

I'm sorry but it's impossible to take you seriously at this point.

Are HCup refs better than Pro12? Yes. But you're not talking about ability; you're talking about bias. That's ridiculous.

You're also overlooking the fact that Friday's game was refereed by a Pro12, HCup and World Cup ref. You can't ask for better than that.

The ref is not the problem; it is not the ref who is incurably biased and incapable of seeing things objectively. It's you.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

I really don't understand how you are not getting this? How come if someone has an alternative view to yours they must be believers in a conspiracy. It really is an ridiculously juvenile stance.

It's a really simple concept... a lot of people think it's not beyond the realms of possibility that the ref got it wrong....

You're reliance on belittling those that disagree with you as believers in conspiracy, is mildly entertaining but ultimately annoying...

because i dont think the ref was out to screw connacht, that he saw a grounded ball and asked question 2. He is an experienced ref who was one of 12 at the RWC. Not some newbie [or leighton hodges] incapable of backing his own judgement. If he saw nothing he would have asked "try yes or no".

Resorting to personal insults just because Ive offered an argument you dont agree with sums up just why none of this is being taken seriously.

Ive also formed my opinion on the reaction of a connacht player who had a clear view of VDF diving over the line and stopped playing because of what he could see from that side of the ruck, about 5-6 feet from where the ref was positioned.

stephen_n

connachta wrote: »

Which is comical, despite "no excuse", is how you justify a stamping. In the 22 or in the mood it may have been a straight red.

Did you read my post, I doubt you did or maybe you have comprehension issues, I didn't justify the stamp at all, never attempted to in anyway shape or form. Just highlighted the ref you were accusing of being a homer, allowed Connacht to consistently infringe at rucks fog the entire evening, something you'd clearly like to follow suit in ignoring.

stephen_n

connachta wrote: »

Which is comical, despite "no excuse", is how you justify a stamping. In the 22 or in the mood it may have been a straight red.

Did you read my post, I doubt you did or maybe you have comprehension issues, I didn't justify the stamp at all, never attempted to in anyway shape or form. Just highlighted the ref you were accusing of being a homer, allowed Connacht to consistently infringe at rucks fog the entire evening, something you'd clearly like to follow suit in ignoring.

stephen_n

connachta wrote: »

Which is comical, despite "no excuse", is how you justify a stamping. In the 22 or in the mood it may have been a straight red.

Did you read my post, I doubt you did or maybe you have comprehension issues, I didn't justify the stamp at all, never attempted to in anyway shape or form. Just highlighted the ref you were accusing of being a homer, allowed Connacht to consistently infringe at rucks fog the entire evening, something you'd clearly like to follow suit in ignoring.

connachta

former total wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's impossible to take you seriously at this point.

Are HCup refs better than Pro12? Yes. But you're not talking about ability; you're talking about bias. That's ridiculous.

You're also overlooking the fact that Friday's game was refereed by a Pro12, HCup and World Cup ref. You can't ask for better than that.

The ref is not the problem; it is not the ref who is incurably biased and incapable of seeing things objectively. It's you.

I wasn't talking about Clancy in particular FFS. Overall refereeing level AND ability to resist to the home and big team pressuse is better in HCup

CMOTDibbler

irishgrover wrote: »

I really don't understand how you are not getting this? How come if someone has an alternative view to yours they must be believers in a conspiracy. It really is an ridiculously juvenile stance.

Because what you're saying is ignoring the laws of rugby and how they work. You can't ask the question of the TMO that Clancy asked without having a definitive view of the ball on the ground with a Leinster player holding it. The alternative view is the ref was lying. Point blank lying through his teeth.

To believe that is to believe in a conspiracy, not an error. You cannot mistake a ball touching the ground with a player holding it for something else. Especially when you have a number of seconds to process what you're seeing. That includes seeing anything preventing the ball from touching a single blade of grass.

Squidgy Black

Can't believe this is still an ongoing argument.....

irishgrover

aimee1 wrote: »

well answer me this. How can anyone be certain ? We can only go by a witness statement which was the ref asking "any reason not to award a try"

The TMO found no reason using video evidence.

but is this not the whole point...nobody can be certain...

Ref: Any reason not to award the try
Ref: I did not see all of the ball all of the time
TMO: There is no clear and obvious reason not to award the try
Ref: Yeah, well I'm going to award the try then.

Your position: It was a try ....FACT.... because Clancy asked "and reason not.." as opposed to "yes or No"

My Position: I think he did not have a clear line of sight and he may have made a mistake...

Your Position: You Connacht fans and your stupid conspiracies...

My position: Oh ffs, how many times do I need to explain there is no conspiracy, only the possibility of a mistake

To give you another example and expand your horizons a little, and this time introduce some actual fact to the equation...previously we were only dealing with opinion, so we may all struggle.....

A Simple Quiz (with answers already provided)

~ 10 minutes later Kearney very clearly knocked on very close to the Leinster line. Clancy, very well placed, without any obstruction to his line of sight said the ball went backwards. It very clearly and obviously did not. So in your opinion was a scrum not awarded because

a.) Clancy is part of a greater conspiracy to keep us country boys in our place
b.) There is some other conspiracy, in which Clancy is involved, which resulted in him making that call.
c.) The ball did in fact go backwards, but due to an optical illusion, which everybody but Clancy was fooled by, it looked forward
d.) Clancy make a mistake - because he is human

Oh yes, and using the logic that you have insisted on applying to the Try discussion up until now, you are not allowed to pick d.) unless you also admit to being part of a conspiracy, and admit that you have a huge chip on your shoulder..... (I'm just applying your logic to a different situation...)

best of luck...

connachta

aimee1 wrote: »

Ive also formed my opinion on the reaction of a connacht player who had a clear view of VDF diving over the line and stopped playing because of what he could see from that side of the ruck.

That's just a presumption.

And thank you for recognizing Hodges issue which impacted Connacht twice last season

irishgrover

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Because what you're saying is ignoring the laws of rugby and how they work. You can't ask the question of the TMO that Clancy asked without having a definitive view of the ball on the ground with a Leinster player holding it. The alternative view is the ref was lying. Point blank lying through his teeth.

To believe that is to believe in a conspiracy, not an error. You cannot mistake a ball touching the ground with a player holding it for something else. Especially when you have a number of seconds to process what you're seeing. That includes seeing anything preventing the ball from touching a single blade of grass.

no that is not what I'm saying at all..
people can make mistakes or get things wrong without there being malice intent...give the guy a break, he is human like all of us.
I can't get over how you all want to find conspiracies in everything, it's honestly just getting a bit weird...

CMOTDibbler

irishgrover wrote: »

no that is not what I'm saying at all..
people can make mistakes or get things wrong without there being malice intent...give the guy a break, he is human like all of us.
I can't get over how you all want to find conspiracies in everything, it's honestly just getting a bit weird...

No you can't get past the first sentence in my post. It's just not possible for you to understand that the referee saw the ball finish in a try scoring position.

That is all.

If you say Clancy made a mistake. Please outline exactly what his mistake was. Blow by blow.

flouncer

flouncer wrote: »

and thats funny. should i take a pop at stewie sexton or kockup kearney

Not my proudest post. It just riles me when folks post smug comments.