Champions Cup final thread

WTF is Roumat doing… it's a penalty

No it isn't - this has been explained repeatedly. The TNT commentator (if you're watching the game on Rugby24) literally calls it as it is in real time. There is not an "intentional bat" by Roumat - it is definitely an attempt to control the ball - and it is most definitely not "clear and obvious" gone forward from the angles we are shown. Even if there is an extended TMO check, that's not getting given as a knock on.

Claiming Carley is the reason VDF try is award is rich

When you can show me an angle which clearly and obviously shows the ball both on the ground and over the line in the same frame, I will concede this to you. Otherwise, I stand by it (see also Awec above)

Baird lands on the Leinster side

That's a nope from me, Chief. (Note for others, you're looking at the guy Sheehan is directly over - not Jenkins who is to be fair well out of the way and rolls after this too). He's directly over the ball carrier's torso.

Look at Doris' hit on Ntamack

I never said it was late. Even when a clearout is perfectly legally timed, you can't take someone out four or five metres beyond the point of contact. This is basic.

How good of you to watch the game in detail again

I literally didn't, as I highlighted above. I simply looked at the incidents which you have spent the last three pages complaining about. I don't know what the craic is with your Munster rant, but I think it's showing your true colours a little bit.

Willis is one of the tacklers, absolutely never has a clear release.

Since, I love being a pedant - Willis is a tackle assist; not a tackler. And I think you'll struggle to find a clearer release than that screenshotted below. I do appreciate your description about how Willis is clearly on the ball and not past the ball on the grass as you see with some jackals.

my lasting impression is that it was a good if not great final , exciting to watch due to the closeness of the score.

Congratulations to Toulouse and commiserations to leinster .

I will leave it there as this thread is turning into a ref bashing/munster bashing circle jerk for some posters.

There's a certain irony that the most toxic posters, who've done more to drive people away from this forum than anybody, are now patting themselves on the back for their outstanding comments and objectivity.

Mod: That's the end of this. You know that if you have an issue with a post etc to report it, and/or DM the mods, instead of giving out on thread.

And more generally:

• Any more off-topic posts not about the match are going to be warned.
• It's the Tuesday after the game. Any more sniping is going to be warned.

Even Lebel doesn't like the look of it 😂

Oh well if the TNT commentator says it wasn't a knock-on, well that's the case closed…. A lot of the other arguments are moot if it is a knock-on. But in fairness, it wasn't clear and obvious so that's the best argument against it being a knock-on. It's frustrating as it's nanometres away from being a professional foul. I think the intention was that, to kill the play, but obviously I'm biased. I disagree that it was definitely an attempt to control the ball.

Baird landing on the French side is marginal at best. As you said yourself, he's over the ball carriers torso, that's not lying on the wrong side. There's also an argument for DuPont trying to be cute and push it into him. I don't think that one is as obvious as you are making it out.

The rest are fine. Willis one in particular is robbery.

The Baille one you mentioned before isn't clear cut either. Ref seems to think he's not supporting his body weight and we cant see it from the camera angle.

Have a look at the wording I was quoting: "There is not an "intentional bat" by Roumat - it is definitely an attempt to control the ball".

I don't think that is definite at all. I think he is batting it to kill the ball, and he's very lucky it didn't go forward in a clear and obvious manner.