discuss here.
The application of the law is different though.
Both intentionally knocking it on and intentionally slapping it into touch are offences, but Roumat was given the benefit of the doubt around intention and Lowe wasn’t. Both incidents happened quickly but the difference in outcome is enormous - Roumat gets no sanction whatsoever, Lowe gets a penalty and a yellow, which immediately results in Leinster conceding a try.
This law doesn’t dispute what I said?
How could Lowe get the benefit of the doubt???
there was no doubt whatsoever that he knocked it on. There was no doubt whatsoever that he just threw an arm up and had no prospect of catching it.
It was a blatant, textbook example of a deliberate knock on, and it stopped a line break hence the yellow card.
thougth Carley and his team had very good games. They got the crucial decisions right and let the game flow so it was good entertainment for the viewers .
Yea, i feel like these rugby only fans think fans of other sports literally cannot co exist. If my friend supports a team that is my team's rival, i will happily take joy in them losing. And there is no way he'd expect little head pats and hugs in that situation. Its just sport. We are still friends. Also, the chance to be a little petty in sports fandom is a good outlet for something you should keep out of your real life important interpersonal relationships.
Yeah, he’d a great game apart from missing the obvious high shot on Doris after a minute that was a minimum yellow card, apart from disallowing a legit Leinster try for getting a decision clearly wrong (McCarthy’s try) and blowing up another potential try (Lowe’s one) for a phantom knock on, and for the general inconsistent application of the rules (Dupont turnover v Sheehan, Roumat incident v Lowe) .
Every single big decision that was in doubt went Toulouse’s way, every single one.
A good few years ago, Munster played Leinster in the Aviva, iirc, the hooker from one team knocked the ball on, the ref saw it as deliberate and carded him, later, the centre from the other team knocked the ball on, the ref saw it as just a knock on and awarded a scrum to the other team.
It absolutely isn’t - go and look at it again in real time. The ball is fired at him, it’s a textbook example of ball to hand rather than his arm meeting the ball.
Why does Roumat get the benefit of the doubt? He goes to catch (similar to Lowe) with only one hand, resulting it the ball being slapped into touch (a penalty offence). Why the inconsistency?
If people are actually outraged by a rip being called a knock on, prepare to spend a large part of your life feeling outraged. They are called as rips like 5% of the time at most.
What do the laws of rugby say about rips?
We got a rip against SA in the WC defending our line where it went behind the goal line and we ended up conceding a 5m scrum. That wasn’t seen as a knock on.
Who cares? We know they very rarely get called.
Who cares? That’s a complete cop out response.
A basic expectation is that the refs and TMO know the rules and apply them fairly.
It was a 100% legit try that was chalked off because of utter refereeing incompetency, in a game of incredibly fine margins.
Yea, and the vast majority of the time they are called as knock ons.
Welcome to rugby. Ireland literally runs an offensive system that is off their feet at the breakdown, or clearing way beyond the breakdown often. We do that because it doesn't get called. That's rugby.
Yeah, nice statistically valid source there. The “vast amount of the time”. 😒
You’re literally not worth engaging with. Can’t give straight answers, constant deflection and bullshit.
It’s a 100% irrefutable fact that the refereeing team got that decision (alongside a multitude of others) completely wrong on Saturday, utterly ignoring the laws of the game in doing so. It cost Leinster a certain try. That’s exactly the sort of thing fans are going to be extremely frustrated by.
They needed to recognise that it wasn't going to be a high scoring, tries aplenty type of game. And stop going for the corner. Kick the points on offer. Going to the corner likely makes sense over a 25 game season where things balance out and stats play out as you'd expect but in a tight final against a top team it's often not going to be the case.
This actually ties in with why you've said. Ball wasn't going to hand, things weren't working smoothly... So take the handy points on offer. Recognise that it isn't your day and that you might have to grind it out.
Same with working the ref. Stop going to the corner where he'll be looking for an excuse to ping your maul or breakdown. Especially given how toulouse were lording the breakdown.
I think management made poor choice in having bryne at out half if you're not going to be taking your kicks. Frawley was a noticeable step up in open play when he came on.
There was no phantom knock on, it was a knock on. And im fairly sure it should have been a penalty to Toulouse rather than a scrum.
As for the inconsistent application of the rules. Dupont turnover was a penalty to Toulouse, Sheehan turnover was a penalty to Leinster. You can't get anymore consistent than that.
This kind of raw passion 48 hours later is admirable honestly. I feel bad for you guys.
I'm sure you'll get it done next year with the big money upgrades coming in.
Who knocked it on? It went slightly forward off a boot. A Toulouse player shouted for a knock on and Carley blew it immediately. The replays are clear as day.
The contrast in the Dupont and Sheehan incidents are night and day - Dupont never lifts, leans on the ruck and then flops over on the Leinster side. Sheehan has the ball clearly off the ground for probably 4 seconds before the ref blows it.
It could equally have been a penalty for McCarthy dummying taking the ball from the back of the ruck.
You're clutching at straws.
The Lowe incident is given as a yellow almost all of the time. He tried to play the ball, stopped a break, and knocked it on.
In the other incident, the French player tried to play it, it went backwards and it happened to go into touch.
You've latched on to the law about deliberately playing it into touch, which doesn't apply to either.
He didn’t dummy to pick it - he went to pick it as was told to leave it, the same thing happens at probably 25 rucks a game ffs.
It would have been one of the most ridiculous penalties ever awarded.
McCarthy did. And if he didn't. Who did he bind onto when he joined the ruck and why is he running upfield into Toulouse players? You can't just leave a ruck and run in opposition players for the laugh.
As I said, they were both given as penalties. Sheehan was holding the ball in the ground preventing Dupont from taking it. Clear as day.
He arguable gave away three separate penalties in the space of about 5 seconds. But yet the ref was favouring Toulouse.
Except - it didn’t go backwards when Roumat swiped at it, it clearly goes forward of him and into touch.
He throws up his arm wildly to try and simply obstruct the ball getting back in field to a potential Leinster player. In doing so, he clearly commits a penalty offence by slapping the ball intentionally into touch.
Either neither of these incidents are penalties or both are. There is absolutely no reason for Roumat to be given the benefit of the doubt, the ball is thrown with even less velocity and he’s not as close as Lowe was.
You know what - that pretty much says it all. Good luck to you.
Who is he bound to during the ruck? Where is he wandering off to when he moves beyind the ball? Are you claiming he didn't touch the ball at all?
He absolutely dummied the pick & go.
I also think he has contact with the ball as it went forward, so to me it's a knock on too.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/bc2fc647ead03112f34ab15102cdc6cb.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://we.vanillicon.com/v2/e7ef1946e92d84157dc464ad6c3ddaab.svg)
