Pro12 Officiating

Adbrowne

leakyboots wrote: »

Ah molloy look back at my posts on the match thread, I've consistently said he was poor for both sides. But I do think the decisions against us were particularly bad and led to scores against us.

Munsters 2nd try came 20 seconds after the ruck that Cronin stamped on JGP

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Ah molloy look back at my posts on the match thread, I've consistently said he was poor for both sides. But I do think the decisions against us were particularly bad and led to scores against us.

Well that's unfortunate, but not a whole lot more. I know there were lots of claims of a forward pass for our second but having just watched the highlights on YouTube I can't agree that it was. I'm not sure what other issues you had with our scores tbh. As has been pointed out you guys got a score following a missed stamp, Murray most likely deliberately knocked the ball into touch at one point which should have been a yellow and POM spent a lot of time in the first half illegally obstructing kick chasers. Despite all of that and more I still wouldn't class the officiating as anything more than a bit below average. It wasn't shockingly bad though.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Well that's unfortunate, but not a whole lot more. I know there were lots of claims of a forward pass for our second but having just watched the highlights on YouTube I can't agree that it was. I'm not sure what other issues you had with our scores tbh. As has been pointed out you guys got a score following a missed stamp, Murray most likely deliberately knocked the ball into touch at one point which should have been a yellow and POM spent a lot of time in the first half illegally obstructing kick chasers. Despite all of that and more I still wouldn't class the officiating as anything more than a bit below average. It wasn't shockingly bad though.

More often than not upon TMO review that Kearney pass for Nacewa try would have been forward. Originally from my view in the stands it looked like momentum carried it forward but having watched it back Kearney wasn't moving that fast and the ball definitely travelled forward.

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Well that's unfortunate, but not a whole lot more. I know there were lots of claims of a forward pass for our second but having just watched the highlights on YouTube I can't agree that it was. I'm not sure what other issues you had with our scores tbh. As has been pointed out you guys got a score following a missed stamp, Murray most likely deliberately knocked the ball into touch at one point which should have been a yellow and POM spent a lot of time in the first half illegally obstructing kick chasers. Despite all of that and more I still wouldn't class the officiating as anything more than a bit below average. It wasn't shockingly bad though.

You're one of the few claiming it wasn't forward to be honest. People on here who were at the game directly in line with it, people watching it on tv, it was a forward pass and he didn't go upstairs to check it in spite of a Munster player asking him. Poor officiating whether it was a forward pass or not.

The score after Cronin's stamp was a consolation at that point in the game. Noone actually mentioned the stamp on here until I brought it up having seen something about it on twitter after the match. But yeah, shouldn't have been given obviously.

Murray... you could argue he spilled it out of play in his rush to collect the ball. Ronan O'Mahony/Bleyendaal and Ringrose x 2 had trouble collecting the ball that day too Isa was in touch anyway.

Illegally obstructing kickchasers is something every team does, are you really going to bring that up as part of his poor officiating?? Anyway, did POM step into someone's line and blatantly shoulder them out of the way? He is entitled to hold his ground. Funny how noone else mentioned that complaint on here til now!

He was out of his depth, even with his interactions with the TMO - you could actually sense he didn't want to make a decision himself

irishbucsfan

leakyboots wrote: »

You're one of the few claiming it wasn't forward to be honest. People on here who were at the game directly in line with it, people watching it on tv, it was a forward pass and he didn't go upstairs to check it in spite of a Munster player asking him. Poor officiating whether it was a forward pass or not.

The score after Cronin's stamp was a consolation at that point in the game. Noone actually mentioned the stamp on here until I brought it up having seen something about it on twitter after the match. But yeah, shouldn't have been given obviously.

Murray... you could argue he spilled it out of play in his rush to collect the ball. Ronan O'Mahony/Bleyendaal and Ringrose x 2 had trouble collecting the ball that day too Isa was in touch anyway.

Illegally obstructing kickchasers is something every team does, are you really going to bring that up as part of his poor officiating?? Anyway, did POM step into someone's line and blatantly shoulder them out of the way? He is entitled to hold his ground. Funny how noone else mentioned that complaint on here til now!

He was out of his depth, even with his interactions with the TMO - you could actually sense he didn't want to make a decision himself

Basically what you're saying is that the the things that Munster got away with were OK because there's an argument against them, but the decisions that did go against Munster aren't OK even though there's an argument against them?

You're not going to agree with every decision. I've watched the try back and I don't think it's clear at all that the pass was forward, you could easily say Kearney was moving faster than the ball did given where he was when the pass was taken.

Adbrowne

leakyboots wrote: »

Isa was in touch anyway.

when?

leakyboots

leakyboots wrote: »

You're one of the few claiming it wasn't forward to be honest. People on here who were at the game directly in line with it, people watching it on tv, it was a forward pass and he didn't go upstairs to check it in spite of a Munster player asking him. Poor officiating whether it was a forward pass or not.

The score after Cronin's stamp was a consolation at that point in the game. Noone actually mentioned the stamp on here until I brought it up having seen something about it on twitter after the match. But yeah, shouldn't have been given obviously.

Murray... you could argue he spilled it out of play in his rush to collect the ball. Ronan O'Mahony/Bleyendaal and Ringrose x 2 had trouble collecting the ball that day too Isa was in touch anyway.

Illegally obstructing kickchasers is something every team does, are you really going to bring that up as part of his poor officiating?? Anyway, did POM step into someone's line and blatantly shoulder them out of the way? He is entitled to hold his ground. Funny how noone else mentioned that complaint on here til now!

He was out of his depth, even with his interactions with the TMO - you could actually sense he didn't want to make a decision himself

I agree with some of your points, but the last one I don't agree with. He was very clear with the TMO. For the first Munster try he said he was happy to award unless TMO said otherwise. For Munster double movement he said he didn't see grounding and asked the TMO to confirm if try or not.

For the forward pass he got the A-OKAY from the touch judge who was perfectly placed to judge (standing beside Nacewa and studied flight of ball). I think he got it wrong, but that's not the ref's fault as the person with the best view of anyone said the pass was fine:

leakyboots

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that the the things that Munster got away with were OK because there's an argument against them, but the decisions that did go against Munster aren't OK even though there's an argument against them?

You're not going to agree with every decision. I've watched the try back and I don't think it's clear at all that the pass was forward, you could easily say Kearney was moving faster than the ball did given where he was when the pass was taken.

Errr no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I agreed with you about Cronin's one. My point was that it was a consolation score and hadn't any bearing on the result. It could be argued that some of Leinster's scores contributed to their victory, there's quite a points swing on a few of those decisions. However I think Leinster would have won anyway even if he did ping them in these instances.

Either way, I don't know how people can't say he was atrocious, he was awful.

leakyboots

Deleted User wrote: »

I agree with some of your points, but the last one I don't agree with. He was very clear with the TMO. For the first Munster try he said he was happy to award unless TMO said otherwise. For Munster double movement he said he didn't see grounding and asked the TMO to confirm if try or not.

For the forward pass he got the A-OKAY from the touch judge who was perfectly placed to judge (standing beside Nacewa and studied flight of ball). I think he got it wrong, but that's not the ref's fault as the person with the best view of anyone said the pass was fine:

Did he have an interaction with the touchjudge after the score? I didn't see/hear it. I've only seen the match once though.

If you see where the ball ends up (well beyond the cut in the grass from your screenshot) I dunno how the touchjudge can give it. Big error on his part.

Look it, it's not like Leinster weren't the better team and it's not like we're whinging that we lost because of the ref - but some of the officiating was abominable. That's hard to take when there's a loss to boot, and a loss against rivals. It can be the difference between a losing bonus point or none.

Keep an eye on this ref in his future games, see what you think.

leakyboots

leakyboots wrote: »

Did he have an interaction with the touchjudge after the score? I didn't see/hear it. I've only seen the match once though.

If you see where the ball ends up (well beyond the cut in the grass from your screenshot) I dunno how the touchjudge can give it. Big error on his part.

Look it, it's not like Leinster weren't the better team and it's not like we're whinging that we lost because of the ref - but some of the officiating was abominable. That's hard to take when there's a loss to boot, and a loss against rivals. It can be the difference between a losing bonus point or none.

Keep an eye on this ref in his future games, see what you think.

There was a brief interaction but the ref is well off the ball and the touch judge is right there. If he didn't raise his flag it's going to be the main deciding factor.

I'm only making the point that people are complaining about the ref in situations where he was reliant on his touch judges and TMO as much as his own view of things.

leakyboots

Deleted User wrote: »

There was a brief interaction but the ref is well off the ball and the touch judge is right there. If he didn't raise his flag it's going to be the main deciding factor.

I'm only making the point that people are complaining about the ref in situations where he was reliant on his touch judges and TMO as much as his own view of things.

Yeah, I getcha. My point though was I believe Munster players (did the commentators say Murray?) brought it to his attention after the ball was dotted down but he didn't seem to act on it.

But if he did indeed ask his TJ and he said it's fine... well then that's on the TJ, like you said.

NiallBoo

leakyboots wrote: »

If you see where the ball ends up (well beyond the cut in the grass from your screenshot) I dunno how the touchjudge can give it. Big error on his part.

I don't get why people have such problems with the forward pass laws.

They clearly allow for the ball to travel forward in absolute terms, so the lines on the pitch have nothing to do with it.

It just seems like it's ok to pretend the laws don't exist because they don't fit with some people's idea of what it should say.

NiallBoo

NiallBoo wrote: »

I don't get why people have such problems with the forward pass laws.

They clearly allow for the ball to travel forward in absolute terms, so the lines on the pitch have nothing to do with it.

It just seems like it's ok to pretend the laws don't exist because they don't fit with some people's idea of what it should say.

As a die hard Leinster fan and having watched it back on tg4 player a couple of times I can only see a forward pass, even taking momentum into account.

Adbrowne

leakyboots wrote: »

Errr no, that's not what I'm saying at all. I agreed with you about Cronin's one. My point was that it was a consolation score and hadn't any bearing on the result. It could be argued that some of Leinster's scores contributed to their victory, there's quite a points swing on a few of those decisions. However I think Leinster would have won anyway even if he did ping them in these instances.

Either way, I don't know how people can't say he was atrocious, he was awful.

Apart from Nacewa's second try, which other decision did they get wrong which led to a leinster score?

molloyjh

Where Kearney was when he gave the pass:



Where Kearney was after he had bumped into Earls and as Isa took the pass:



The ball did travel forwards, but not relative to Kearney from what I can see.

Isa was on top of Zebo and not touching the ground anywhere that I saw so not sure how he was in touch. There's no angle that shows he was in the highlights anyway.

leakyboots

I don't know how you can say this is not forward to be honest

Adbrowne

molloyjh wrote: »

Where Kearney was when he gave the pass:



Where Kearney was after he had bumped into Earls and as Isa took the pass:



The ball did travel forwards, but not relative to Kearney from what I can see.

Isa was on top of Zebo and not touching the ground anywhere that I saw so not sure how he was in touch. There's no angle that shows he was in the highlights anyway.

I think the TJ sees RK ahead of where the Ball was fielded by Isa. Great smarts by RK to keep moving forward after the pass.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

I don't know how you can say this is not forward to be honest

Can't see that pic I'm afraid, but I'd have thought the 2 that I posted illustrated quite clearly why I thought it wasn't forward. The ball ended up behind where Kearney was even after Kearney bumped into Earls. Therefore the pass was fine.

EDIT: At the very, very least it makes any mistake the officials may have made (they didn't) a very simple and understandable one.

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Can't see that pic I'm afraid, but I'd have thought the 2 that I posted illustrated quite clearly why I thought it wasn't forward. The ball ended up behind where Kearney was even after Kearney bumped into Earls. Therefore the pass was fine.

EDIT: At the very, very least it makes any mistake the officials may have made (they didn't) a very simple and understandable one.

I'd encourage you to see it in real time molloy - taken from here, post #811

https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/37016-G12-G6%29-Leinster-in-Lansdowne-2-05KO-Saturday-TG4-SKY-Oct-8th/page21

jacothelad

molloyjh wrote: »

Can't see that pic I'm afraid, but I'd have thought the 2 that I posted illustrated quite clearly why I thought it wasn't forward. The ball ended up behind where Kearney was even after Kearney bumped into Earls. Therefore the pass was fine.

The pass would only have been fine if in the act of passing RK's hands moved backwards and forward momentum took the ball forward. None of those pics shows that. It was a forward pass, not a pass that went forward due to the laws of physics.

NiallBoo

leakyboots wrote: »

I don't know how you can say this is not forward to be honest

It does go forward, but it's not a forward pass. The laws are the laws.

(Also, that link doesn't have general permission)

leakyboots

Adbrowne wrote: »

Apart from Nacewa's second try, which other decision did they get wrong which led to a leinster score?

Nacewa foot in touch. ROM touching the ball down in goal (I think they got it right but based on one angle some posters on MFans maintain otherwise).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Bogwoppit

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=box08lq9ylg

Old rules

awec

leakyboots wrote: »

Nacewa foot in touch. ROM touching the ball down in goal (I think they got it right but based on one angle some posters on MFans maintain otherwise).

The Gibson-Park try was definitely fine IMO, don't think ROM got it down at all.

Nacewa's second definitely a forward pass.

The first Nacewa try I am not sure, a lot of people saying it should have been a Munster lineout but they don't show the tackle in the highlights.

NiallBoo

jacothelad wrote: »

The pass would only have been fine if in the act of passing RK's hands moved backwards and forward momentum took the ball forward. None of those pics shows that. It was a forward pass, not a pass that went forward due to the laws of physics.

The pass couldn't have travelled backwards relative to their final positions (which you can see it clearly does from the second picture), without his hands having moved backwards/flat.

Are there passes that aren't subject to the laws of physics?

I think part of the issue here is that longer (legal) passes are often called forward in error, and we're just used to seeing that as the standard. Inconsistent, but officials shouldn't be criticised when they do follow the rules.

sydthebeat

leakyboots wrote: »

I'd encourage you to see it in real time molloy - taken from here, post #811

https://www.munsterfans.com/threads/37016-G12-G6%29-Leinster-in-Lansdowne-2-05KO-Saturday-TG4-SKY-Oct-8th/page21

not in the least bit indicative of a forward pass....

if anything the real time just reinforces the point that kearney was ahead of isa when he threw the pass and was ahead when isa caught it

Adbrowne

leakyboots wrote: »

Nacewa foot in touch. ROM touching the ball down in goal (I think they got it right but based on one angle some posters on MFans maintain otherwise).

For the first try I think ISA was fine. He grounded the ball before his foot touched the line.

ROM didnt touch the ball when the ball was in touch with the ground. Have only seen the one angle on the pro12 youtube channel and slowed it down. I think ROM pushed the ball away from himself but he never touched the ball when it was on the ground

NiallBoo

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Old rules

The wording has been changed but the effect and intent is exactly the same - except that you could now be pinged for momentum when running backwards.

sydthebeat

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Old rules

are there new ones?