Joe_ Public wrote: » Seemed just about better team overall to me, no disaster anyway, all still to play for!
Strazdas wrote: » Finished 0-0 but conditions in Dublin are horrendous this evening, the rain is absolutely bucketing down and really slowed down the pitch
secondrowgal wrote: » Anyone have a link for someone trying to watch in Japan?
Joe_ Public wrote: » Yep and not to mention compensation for the thievery in canada last week!
Strazdas wrote: » The weather forecast is better for the finale tomorrow evening anyway! It would be great if they can qualify......an Irish team competing in an Olympic Games with a fairly high profile among the public would be a pretty unique experience.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Not sure there'll be much issue with the watering system today. Huge crowd predicted at donnybrook this evening, the force is definitely with them at least!
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » I`m not up to speed with all the rules and regulations of hockey. If this decision is highly questionable is there a post match appeal process available or is this the end of the matter?
Strazdas wrote: » It's a very hard one to explain. You could understand the field umpire making an absolute howler, but for the video guy to do so and with the benefit of several replays. This wasn't a 50-50 decision, more like a 95-5 one (with him going for the 5 option).
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » So what is being claimed here? Officials favouring the home team? Happens in all sports and unfortunately the Ireland hockey team have been on the sharp end of it this time.
Joe_ Public wrote: » I wouldnt have a clue tbh. Sarah Scott, i think her name was on commentary, was adamant there was no foul, said the canadian stepped on the defenders stick and fell. Whether thats correct i dont know, will be interested to hear some informed opinion on it.
Strazdas wrote: » The umpire didn't even blow for a foul : the video guy overrules him and says it was the worst foul imaginable
Joe_ Public wrote: » Right. If thats the rule doesnt seem like correct decision to me, he was about to run ball over line in all likelihood. Dont understand it either quite frankly.
Strazdas wrote: » What I don't understand is how that foul could lead to a penalty stroke?? The attacker was nowhere near the goalmouth.....it's supposed to be only given when a "certain goal" is prevented (similar to a penalty try in rugby)
Joe_ Public wrote: » Had the match won twice there! Thats a sickener, gutted for them. Commentator seemed to think there was no foul there whatsoever, very hard one to take.
Joe_ Public wrote: » Some drama. Dont know enough to know if thst was peno or not, but incident was definitely before whistle anyway.