Champions Cup final thread

This is a clear knock on

Does Doris not tackle N'tamack without the ball?

Since when is your armpit between your head and torso???

Toulouse scored off this lineout IIRC

No the rip was over at that point so doesnt apply in this situation

How Was this missed

https://x.com/LOvaliste/status/1794651676944867499?t=6zm52Ozdrcy97Gwoz4np5A&s=19

Toulouse and dupont were good and well worth their win on saturday, but they wont like the video review of the many mistakes they made that ultimately kept leinster in the game. Their two disallowed tries would normally have been expected to be scored.

But look, at least it made the game exciting for us neutrals until the last 10 mins.

Watched the highlights on ATH and it reaffirmed to me that Carley had a good game. All the important calls on both sides of the ball were 100% correct .

Playing area looked very small. Was pitch narrower than it should have been , definitely shorter at 95m. Didn’t suit Toulouse gameplan

When three of the complaints against a ref are "He didn't give that turnover quick enough", "He didn't award my try quick enough", and "He didn't give that red card quick enough", it's hard not to think that people are clutching at straws.

Roumat and Lowe are two completely separate incidents. One is a alleged bat into touch (backwards), the other is a deliberate knock on. We all know what the interpretations are with deliberate knock ons - when its one handed and there's not a reasonable chance of regathering the ball, then its a penalty. If there's an overlap and a potential line-break is prevented, its a yellow card. This is not new, and this is exactly what happened with Lowe. This is not how a slap into touch is refereed - the law is not interpreted in the same way. As @awec has repeatedly pointed out, the question is whether Roumat has deliberately slapped the ball into touch. This is clearly not the case - he has stuck a hand out, the ball has gone backwards, and Roumat failed to regather the ball. As a result, it went into touch. You can argue all you want how the events are similar, but they are two different laws which have two different interpretations around them. If you're arguing, your issue is with the interpretation/application of the law, not with Carley who made the correct decision in both cases. If you're arguing they should be treated the same and the law should be changed, then fair enough, but saying Carley was wrong to treat them differently is simply incorrect.

As pointed out by @aloooof, McCarthy's try is unlikely to stand regardless due to Doris clearing Ntamack about five metres beyond the ruck - and preventing him from diving on the spilled ball. I'm not going to get into whether Jenkins touched the ball and knocked it on after the initial rip since its so marginal.

As pointed out elsewhere, for Lowe's try, McCarthy dummying a pick-and-go is a free kick offence (not a penalty). Law 15.16(g): "A player cannot take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has not". There is also zero guarantee that Lowe would've scored anyways since all of the inside drifting cover defence (i.e. Ntamack and Costes) stop playing once they hear the whistle. Some people also had issues with the tackle on Jenkins for some reason? Nothing wrong with it, arms up clearly attempting to wrap.

Ironically some people had issue with Carley taking so long to give VDF's try. In reality, Carley is the reason its rewarded. The TMO doesn't have evidence of the ball on the ground AND over the line - and its Carley's insistence that the ball was always over the line which actually results in the try actually being given at all despite there being no clear angle of the ball on the ground and over the line. That usually cannot be inferred (often the TMO will say in such situations that there's no evidence to overturn the on-field decision, as the ball could've been grounded short and therefore its not a clear and obvious try).

Someone also had the retort of "Well, did Toulouse have anything they could feel aggrieved about"? Well, before Byrne's 3 pointer at half time, it comes from a penalty on halfway for a jackal turnover where Baird does not roll away and prevents the ball carrier from presenting the ball. Baird flops like a dead whale over the ruck and Sheahan is rewarded for the turnover. (40:15). I also do not see much wrong with Baille's turnover at (17:25) before Byrne's first three pointer, although Carley is very clear with his call and Baille should leave it once he's been informed. Willis also has a stonewall turnover not given before VDF's try - he's on the ball for three full seconds (ET 12:40 1st half). I haven't done a full re-watch but that's 13 points that came from decisions going Leinster's way. Any suggestion that Carley rode Leinster or was biased in any fashion is ludicrous. I'm far from his biggest fan as a referee, but he wasn't the issue for Leinster.