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

Stheno

flouncer wrote: »

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

Learn to rise above them?

flouncer

Stheno wrote: »

Learn to rise above them?

That's about right

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

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...

but you are taking your position based on what you want to believe, my position is based on what we know as fact and what we have to assume as correct. The ref used the TMO according to his best judgement. Surely that is what we want, the ref to actually make the best decision just like we expect players to do when they play the game?

You are claiming the ref didnt have a clear line of sight when in fact he had the best position of all, better then any camera angle which was replayed. Clancy is the sole arbitor n the field and goes by the evidence of what he sees. In this case he asked the TMO to check, presumably for obstruction or double movement, in the lead up to the ball being grounded.

As for the alleged knock on, I dont recall it so cant comment on it.

irishgrover

aimee1 wrote: »

You are claiming the ref didnt have a clear line of sight when in fact he had the best position of all, better then any camera angle which was replayed. Clancy is the sole arbitor n the field and goes by the evidence of what he sees. In this case he asked the TMO to check, presumably for obstruction or double movement, in the lead up to the ball being grounded.

As for the alleged knock on, I dont recall it so cant comment on it.

Re Clear Line of Sight: Yes of course that is what I am basing my opinion on, what else could it be? There were 2 to 3 players between him and the ball prior to the grounding and then him falling and a couple more when he quickly regained his footing...

RE: As for the alleged knock on, I don't recall it so cant comment on it.
lets, for ****s and giggles assume that my description is correct. No doubt it will be challenged otherwise........and have a stab at answering the question

wp_rathead

aimee1 wrote: »

You are claiming the ref didnt have a clear line of sight when in fact he had the best position of all, better then any camera angle which was replayed. Clancy is the sole arbitor n the field and goes by the evidence of what he sees. In this case he asked the TMO to check, presumably for obstruction or double movement, in the lead up to the ball being grounded.

I'm not being smart but did Clancy say he saw it grounded? I haven't brought myself to watch the match on the TG4 Player so I genuinely don't know.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

Re Clear Line of Sight: Yes of course that is what I am basing my opinion on, what else could it be? There were 2 to 3 players between him and the ball prior to the grounding and then him falling and a couple more when he quickly regained his footing...

RE: As for the alleged knock on, I don't recall it so cant comment on it.
lets, for ****s and giggles assume that my description is correct. No doubt it will be challenged otherwise........and have a stab at answering the question

Clancy was 1m away from VDF. If he can see a grounded ball surely he should ask question 2? There was not 2-3 players between Clancy and VDF. There was a gap between 2 connacht players who tackled VDF and clancy got up and looked between them to see if he could award a try.

Based on what he could see, he asked question 2. It is far more likely Clancy got this correct then made a mistake. If he did not see the ball grounded he would have asked question 1.

Like how much closer does clancy have to get for it to be believed he made the correct call?

aimee1

wp_rathead wrote: »

I'm not being smart but did Clancy say he saw it grounded? I haven't brought myself to watch the match on the TG4 Player so I genuinely don't know.

He asked "any reason to not award a try"

"i didnt see all the ball all of the time"

See pic in my above post to see the view clancy got of the try

flouncer

wp_rathead wrote: »

I'm not being smart but did Clancy say he saw it grounded? I havn't brought myself to watch the match on the TG4 Player so I genuinely don't know.

Just watched it again on setanta. Clancy had no view whatsoever and the TV replays show there was no obvious grounding. Then you look at the tg4 analysis of the game and the ball is clearly held up. For some reason the tmo wasn't supplied that view.

Anyway who cares. Its over now. Positives is no injuries. Is it just me or would others like to see blade at 9.

irishgrover

Sorry I missed this and feel compelled to reply...

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".

Nor do I think that the ref was out to screw Connacht at all. It has been and still is my opinion that he may have made a mistake as he was unsighted. I could absolutely be wrong. By your insistence, along with others, to catagorise me, and others, as tin foil hat wearing, chip on the shoulder, conspiracy theorists in insulting in the extreme. It's unwarranted, not hugely educated and I will defend it

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.

No personal insult was intended, and if one was inferred I apologise unreservedly. However the irony in this does not escape me. I'm a conspiracy theorist if I disagree with you?

I've 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.

At no time was Rodney close enough to be engaged in the play. He was there to provide defence to the next phase of place that never materialised. I would not read too much into his body language...(again that is just an opinion)

connachta

aimee1 wrote: »

what we have to assume as correct. The ref used the TMO according to his best judgement.

That's our main bone of contention. We have nothing to assume at all. That's what debate is for. All has been said for both sides though.

aimee1

flouncer wrote: »

Just watched it again on setanta. Clancy had no view whatsoever and the TV replays show there was no obvious grounding. Then you look at the tg4 analysis of the game and the ball is clearly held up. For some reason the tmo wasn't supplied that view.

Anyway who cares. Its over now. Positives is no injuries. Is it just me or would others like to see blade at 9.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/686103/373596.jpg

really no view?

Stheno

connachta wrote: »

That's our main bone of contention. We have nothing to assume at all. That's what debate is for. All has been said for both sides though.

This has turned into complete nonsense, you've gone from "we were robbed of a losing bonus point due to a homer ref", to "AhYou acknowledged it was a try so it must be so", to "AhYou was tired so he stopped playing" to "sure the ref didn't see it"

Honest to God how many different view points can one person have.

typhoony

it was a big call from Clancy in such a close game, if not deciding the final outcome it definitely gave away any chance of a bonus point, the smartest thing for Clancy was to play the percentages and award the scrum to Leinster. i just watched the toulouse v stade francais game and there was a similar decision to be made but with a slightly clearer view from the TMO which they took an age to review and deciding eventaully to award the try. Unless Clancy actually saw the grounding in which case fair enough but i don't think the TMO spent much time reviewing because he couldnt see anything.

aimee1

typhoony wrote: »

it was a big call from Clancy in such a close game, if not deciding the final outcome it definitely gave away any chance of a bonus point, the smartest thing for Clancy was to play the percentages and award the scrum to Leinster. i just watched the toulouse v stade francais game and there was a similar decision to be made but with a slightly clearer view from the TMO which they took an age to review and deciding eventaully to award the try. Unless Clancy actually saw the grounding in which case fair enough but i don't think the TMO spent much time reviewing because he couldnt see anything.

irishgrover wrote: »

It has been and still is my opinion that he may have made a mistake as he was unsighted. I could absolutely be wrong.

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/686103/373596.jpg

How was he unsighted when this was his view.

flouncer

aimee1 wrote: »

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/686103/373596.jpg

really no view?

Sorry, just looked at that. Clear and obvious?. As said it doesn't matter. It is annoying that the tmo didn't get the pictures that were available at the end of the match but **** happens. Think what knawed at me most was a huge first half performance (strangely without a yellow card) and then a forgettable second half.

irishgrover

aimee1 wrote: »

Clancy was 1m away from VDF. If he can see a grounded ball surely he should ask question 2? There was not 2-3 players between Clancy and VDF. There was a gap between 2 connacht players who tackled VDF and clancy got up and looked between them to see if he could award a try.

Based on what he could see, he asked question 2. It is far more likely Clancy got this correct then made a mistake. If he did not see the ball grounded he would have asked question 1.

Like how much closer does clancy have to get for it to be believed he made the correct call?

I said there were between 2 and 3 players between him and the ball prior to the attempted grounding and prior to him falling. You have misquoted me and taken a screenplay of the situation post him getting up again. Once again I'm not sure if you are doing this purposely or if there is an inability to understand and comprehend my position.
Either way I have wasted too much time trying to convince a very small group of Leinster fans that if is possible to have an alternative position without being involved in a conspiracy theory.
Your inability to grasp that fact is exasberating, but really no longer worth the effort.
Your memory of the game appears to be as selective as you ability to take an objective screen shot....
I disagree with you, I do not believe there is any conspiracy and I cannot understand your inability to process this information.....

flouncer

aimee1 wrote: »

https://us.v-cdn.net/6034073/uploads/attachments/686103/373596.jpg

How was he unsighted when this was his view.

Strange in that picture clancy is in the perfect position to award a try. Problem is he was on his arse when the supposed grounding occurred?

Stheno

flouncer wrote: »

Strange in that picture clancy is in the perfect position to award a try. Problem is he was on his arse when the supposed grounding occurred?

Which is why he went to the tmo and asked him to check what happened prior to the grounding?

Seriously get over yourselves, this has gone beyond ridiculous, if Connaught end up in seventh in the Interpros, we'll never hear the end of this if they are out by a point.

Connaught didn't turn up on the day, it's that fupping simple. They were outclassed by a better team.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

I said there were between 2 and 3 players between him and the ball prior to the attempted grounding and prior to him falling. You have misquoted me and taken a screenplay of the situation post him getting up again. Once again I'm not sure if you are doing this purposely or if there is an inability to understand and comprehend my position.
Either way I have wasted too much time trying to convince a very small group of Leinster fans that if is possible to have an alternative position without being involved in a conspiracy theory.
Your inability to grasp that fact is exasberating, but really no longer worth the effort.
Your memory of the game appears to be as selective as you ability to take an objective screen shot....
I disagree with you, I do not believe there is any conspiracy and I cannot understand your inability to process this information.....

But clancy said "i didnt see all of the ball all of the time" [i think that is correct]. So at some stage he did see the ball and the screenshot is taken just after he blew his whistle and he moved to within 1m of the leinster player and based on what he saw he awarded a try.

Are you really telling me you think he didnt see a grounded ball and just awarded a try anyway?


I didnt see the entire game. It was new years day, it was spent with family so i was unable to fully engross myself in the game. But based on your theory about the knock on, thats one decision that Clancy got wrong, and the McFadden stamp was missed, but Aki and White on another day would have got YCs. So the ref made calls which both teams benefitted from?

flouncer

Stheno wrote: »

Which is why he went to the tmo and asked him to check what happened prior to the grounding?

Seriously get over yourselves, this has gone beyond ridiculous, if Connaught end up in seventh in the Interpros, we'll never hear the end of this if they are out by a point.

Connaught didn't turn up on the day, it's that fupping simple. They were outclassed by a better team.

Its this type of opinion which drives me nuts. Outclassed? In what universe were we outclassed. Yes we did lose. I do agree with that.

Stheno

flouncer wrote: »

Its this type of opinion which drives me nuts. Outclassed? In what universe were we outclassed. Yes we did lose. I do agree with that.

Leinster spent the first 30 minutes in your 22 e.g.? You never looked like scoring?

Actually Connaught didn't score a single point in the game?

Zzippy

My God this thread is difficult reading. Some people making right muppets of themselves. Clancy might be prone to howlers but he wasn't bad on Friday. I was at the game and conditions were absolutely atrocious, he made allowances for that and let the game flow about as well as it could. Thought we were lucky not to get a team yellow in the first half. Was a bit surprised he gave the try, but it was far end of the ground and the rain was in my eyes looking at the big screen :pac:

Half time I was really optimistic, restricting Leinster to 3 points in those conditions was superb. Second half was a disaster. We need to recognise when conditions aren't suitable for the expansive game we try to play all the time, and we need a pack that can pick and go and make the hard yards in those conditions. We didn't do the first, and some of our pack just aren't cut out for the second. It's so hard to chase a game in those conditions, and Leinster really upped their game against the wind.

Leinster were good value for the win. Sexton is just so good at distributing and creating space. We scored 3 points over 160 minutes of rugby, that's just not good enough. The intensity and pace of the first part of the season is gone. Worrying. Scarlets next week could be another tough one - I don't expect to win it, but would be happy with a bit more creativity and a close game.

(I was very glad for the top quality waterproof gear on Friday. So many miserable people in the north stand. Been going to the Sportsground for many years now but I think those were the worst conditions I've ever watched a game in)

aimee1 wrote: »

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

Please don't generalise based on one or two posters here.

Stheno

Zzippy wrote: »

(I was very glad for the top quality waterproof gear on Friday. So many miserable people in the north stand. Been going to the Sportsground for many years now but I think those were the worst conditions I've ever watched a game in)

That makes me feel a bit better about deciding to go home at half time and watch the last of the second half on tv.

I was in the South Stand, it was truly miserable, on the way out, we met a woman with three kids who were in ribbons from the cold and wet.

connemara man

Zzippy wrote: »

My God this thread is difficult reading. Some people making right muppets of themselves. Clancy might be prone to howlers but he wasn't bad on Friday. I was at the game and conditions were absolutely atrocious, he made allowances for that and let the game flow about as well as it could. Thought we were lucky not to get a team yellow in the first half. Was a bit surprised he gave the try, but it was far end of the ground and the rain was in my eyes looking at the big screen :pac:

Half time I was really optimistic, restricting Leinster to 3 points in those conditions was superb. Second half was a disaster. We need to recognise when conditions aren't suitable for the expansive game we try to play all the time, and we need a pack that can pick and go and make the hard yards in those conditions. We didn't do the first, and some of our pack just aren't cut out for the second. It's so hard to chase a game in those conditions, and Leinster really upped their game against the wind.

Leinster were good value for the win. Sexton is just so good at distributing and creating space. We scored 3 points over 160 minutes of rugby, that's just not good enough. The intensity and pace of the first part of the season is gone. Worrying. Scarlets next week could be another tough one - I don't expect to win it, but would be happy with a bit more creativity and a close game.

(I was very glad for the top quality waterproof gear on Friday. So many miserable people in the north stand. Been going to the Sportsground for many years now but I think those were the worst conditions I've ever watched a game in)



Please don't generalise based on one or two posters here.

Can we close the thread on this note, nothing more can be said that is in anyway helpful or insightful as this

its_phil

Just watched the Aki incident from first half.

I'm very much open to interpretation here but Aki makes the tackle, therefore he has joined the ruck and is entitled to compete and kick the ball. He is in an onside position.

Again, open to interpretation here. More of a law question than anything else?

flouncer

connemara man wrote: »

Can we close the thread on this note, nothing more can be said that is in anyway helpful or insightful as this

Good heavens no. There is always the uneducated (I most definitely include myself) who wish to share our cringe viewpoint. I would be, as such, most upset!

BrokenMan

Jaysus guys give it up, it's making us all looks bad. That screenshot clearly shows Clancy in a perfect position to see if the ball is grounded. He then correctly went to the TMO to see if there was anything wrong as he fell in his ass and didn't see everything in the build up.
I'm way more annoyed with no one picking up on Mcfaddens stamp. That could have been red as he went back for a second bite.

sheep?

BrokenMan wrote: »

Jaysus guys give it up, it's making us all looks bad. That screenshot clearly shows Clancy in a perfect position to see if the ball is grounded. He then correctly went to the TMO to see if there was anything wrong as he fell in his ass and didn't see everything in the build up.
I'm way more annoyed with no one picking up on Mcfaddens stamp. That could have been red as he went back for a second bite.

He's been cited.

BrokenMan

sheep? wrote: »

He's been cited.

I know. Meant it should have been picked up on the day.

Tox56

its_phil wrote: »

Just watched the Aki incident from first half.

I'm very much open to interpretation here but Aki makes the tackle, therefore he has joined the ruck and is entitled to compete and kick the ball. He is in an onside position.

Again, open to interpretation here.

You dont "join the ruck" by virtue of making the tackle. You can compete for the ball from whatever angle you want as the tackler but it has to be before the ruck is formed, once there is a ruck formed you have to come through the gate like normal