George Clancy

The IRB, the IRFU, anyone with the authority,

can we please, please remove George Clancy from the game of Rugby?

I have no bias, I am a South African, Sharks and Natal supporter, who currently lives in Wales.

If George Clancy was in any other industry then he would have been sacked. His performances are not only bad, they are baffling. He's come to my attention on a few occasions. Wales v Italy (2012) and Blues v Ospreys (14.04.2012) are the two most recent examples. In these games he handed out yellow cards like they were advertising flyers, he gave penalties on a whim, his handling of the scrum was farcical, and the games had no flow due to his terrible 'style.'

Everyone knows Rolland, Owens, Barnes, Pearson and Joubert makes mistakes but generally I think they are good refs and far more akin to great refs such as Stuart Dickinson, Jonathan Kaplan and Chris Pollock, who I regard as the best 3.

I think George Clancy is dangerous. I don't trust him to control a match and I think that non rugby supporters who are trying the game out initally, will be forever discouraged with Clancy in charge. I know I would be. He is harmful to the game that cannot afford to put off casual or new viewers. Think of the product, remove him from the elite list of referees for goodness sake. He is ruining the game I love, and causing it harm. Commercially, morally and aesthetically our game is suffering with George Clancy.

Jaco, I just rewatched the Ospreys Blues game. The Blues were awful, particularly in the second half, but Clancy was arguably even worse.

Kaplan isn't a great referee as he doesn't know the Laws.

Clancy is poor though as are Peter Fitzgibbon, Wayne Barnes, Peter Allan, James Jones etc. but better to have a poor ref and a game than no game at all!

Great Aukster, this is the problem. By saying there are loads of bad refs that dilutes the arguement. What I am saying specifically is that Clancy needs to be removed from the elite panel first and possibly all forms of rugby. Barnes, Fitzgibbon and Jones are not very good but Clancy is in a different league even from them. With Clancy I'd rather not have a game, becuase that's what you end up with - no game.

Oh and as for Kaplan not knowing the rules - I assume you are talking about Mike Phillips try v Ireland. Though I sympathise, he did specifically ask Peter Allan if it was the legal ball and was told in no uncertain terms that it was. So I can't blame Kaplan for that I'm sorry.

JF2012 - Kaplan watched the ballboy hand the ball to Rees. Obviously he didn't know the Law that when the ball is touched by anyone else a quick throw cannot be taken, (even if it had been the right ball).

Clancy is on a par with Fitzgibbon, the latter at least does not ref internationals. Clancy appears to watch a different game to everybody else. The game with the Ospreys and the Blues was a joke, how many players were laughing at his decisions? If you don't have respect from the players you should not be on the park, maybe I am being harsh, he should run the line.

The Great Aukster wrote:JF2012 - Kaplan watched the ballboy hand the ball to Rees. Obviously he didn't know the Law that when the ball is touched by anyone else a quick throw cannot be taken, (even if it had been the right ball).

Aukster that is just a weak argument, how do you know the eyeline of Kaplan? How can you dispute the scenario from a television screen?

Couldn't agree more. I saw him ruin three ospreys matches and Wales vs Italy this season.

I now won't buy tickets to a game he is refereeing. As you know it will be a stagnant and frustrating affaire

Biltong ...er the IRB have sanctioned the use of a television screen to determine disputed scenarios - commonly referred to as the TMO. What's wrong with video evidence?

The footage shows Kaplan running towards the touchline as the ballboy is drying the ball. Maybe JK can run without looking directly in front of him and take no notice of what's happening with the the ball even if it was only 5m away? Maybe he didn't look for assistance from Peter Allan who was standing right beside the ballboy as he dried the ball? So what on earth was Kaplan looking at?

If Kaplan knew Law 19.2 (d) then it is his responsibility to ascertain if anyone else touched the ball, or find out from his assistant, otherwise he is not doing his job. He allowed the quick throw to be taken so he had obviously convinced himself that it was valid throw. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that either he did not know the Law or wasn't doing his job.

Aukster, I would disagree with your take on the Mike Phillips incident.

On George Clancy it is a good discussion about whether he should be an elite panel ref or not.

However I am digusted and apalled by the suggestion that he should be banned from all levels of rugby simply because he is a bad referee.

If we banned all the bad referees we'd have a lot of trouble getting any kind of games together!

Notch wrote:If we banned all the bad referees we'd have a lot of trouble getting any kind of games together!

Indeed

I was at the stadium last night - he did have a shocker, again.

It's not about the odd mistake , it's the consistent inconsistencies that on average makes every match he refs a bore fest.

I'd argue he is amazingly consistent, enforces the letter of the law to every situation, and follows the directives stringently...

I hate that guy!

Yes indeed a complete knob but a consistent one !

The Great Aukster wrote:Biltong ...er the IRB have sanctioned the use of a television screen to determine disputed scenarios - commonly referred to as the TMO. What's wrong with video evidence?

The footage shows Kaplan running towards the touchline as the ballboy is drying the ball. Maybe JK can run without looking directly in front of him and take no notice of what's happening with the the ball even if it was only 5m away? Maybe he didn't look for assistance from Peter Allan who was standing right beside the ballboy as he dried the ball? So what on earth was Kaplan looking at?

If Kaplan knew Law 19.2 (d) then it is his responsibility to ascertain if anyone else touched the ball, or find out from his assistant, otherwise he is not doing his job. He allowed the quick throw to be taken so he had obviously convinced himself that it was valid throw. Therefore the only logical conclusion is that either he did not know the Law or wasn't doing his job.

The TMO couldn't used in that situation as it wasn't in goal. Also Kaplan clearly asked Allen if it was the right ball and Allen insisted that the try was good.

Also the IRB have issued new directives and they're partly focused on zero tolerance for tacklers not rolling away. Funnily enough I caught some of the Ospreys v Blues game and thought the ref was letting a lot go compared with what I was used to.

Well he helped gift the blues a win against ulster earlier this season by penalising John Afoa off the park. That being said I do agree he is a poor ref.

Pollock has potential to be very good
Owens I think is great bar the scrum
Poite is a decent
Rolland is usually decent
Pearson is a car crash of a ref.


I don't see every game he refs but I actually thought James jones was coming on quite well. He pinged us ruthlessly against the dragons last year at ravenhill but he was pretty spot on.
It's very difficult for refs in fairness and I think bar his performance in the RWC final (and I feel for any ref under that pressure) Joubert is streets ahead as the best ref about.

Great Aukster your knowledge of the laws are probably as bad if not worse than Clancy's. (disallowing a try through a forward pass on the advice of a TMO)

Over the last year or so the All Blacks copped a number of tests with Clancy in charge,the frustration with the man is not so much the isolated incidents of lack of knowledge or not seeing something as that criticism could be levelled at any human being,but rather his lack of feeling or empathy for the game.

I not yet convinced about Pollock,but the young ref down here that is growing into the game and showing that he can manage a game as opposed to controlling it is Glenn jackson.

I am amazed that he is on the Elite panel as he really is not of that grade.

Geez...another bad ref post. Isnt it funny how theres no consensus around who is bad and who is good but the one rule that does apply is...
"If my team was done an injustice then that makes them a bad ref". That seems to be the general rule.

When its another team that is done an injustice- its...an inconsitency...an observation.

For me not one single ref alive is consistently applauded...google amy one and youll find an appauling example of injustice of the worst kind. An obvious sign of the complexity of the job.

I'm embarrassed for Taylorman. I guess he's missed the point!

red_stag wrote:Aukster, I would disagree with your take on the Mike Phillips incident.

Fine. Any reason?

Kaplan is an awful ref. Rolland, Owens, poitre joubert are the best refs for me. Nigel Owens has gone up in my estimation probably the best ref in the rabo. Are the changalang brothers still reffing?

aucklandlaurie wrote: Great Aukster your knowledge of the laws are probably as bad if not worse than Clancy's. (disallowing a try through a forward pass on the advice of a TMO)

Which part of the Laws did I get wrong?

Owens is a knob as well tbh !

Did you not say " Whats wrong with video evidence"...

Theres plenty wrong with it when its not sanctioned within the rules of the game.

The Great Aukster wrote:

red_stag wrote:Aukster, I would disagree with your take on the Mike Phillips incident.

Fine. Any reason?

I still blame Kaplan but for a different reason.

Basically he sensed something was up and asked his TJ for confirmation.

He made a balls of asking the question and the wrong info was given to him. He assumed he was given right info and did not take his time and find out all the facts.

Heres a full explanation:

http://redstagrugby.blogspot.com/2011/03/mike-phillips-try-wales-v-ireland.html

I find your list quite interesting. I've heard so so so many people say that Rolland is a dreadful ref worse than Clancy seems to be how English and Welsh regard him. Poite had an undeniably dreadful day at the office in the quarter finals.

Personally my own feeling is that the laws and the entire system of officiating needs a serious change.

HammerofThunor wrote:Also the IRB have issued new directives and they're partly focused on zero tolerance for tacklers not rolling away. Funnily enough I caught some of the Ospreys v Blues game and thought the ref was letting a lot go compared with what I was used to.

Two blatant interception attempts by the Blues players Ceri Sweeney and Gavin Evans warranted yellow Cards in Clancy's mind...!

That is bizarre.

Also his adjudicating of a dominant Ospreys scrum on the Blues line warranted penalties for the Blues when they were marching backwards.

Missed Bishop tackled well off the ball. In front of his eyes.

His main problem is that he offers one or two seconds to release the ball at the breakdown where as most refs give nearer five or six. Resulting in penalties going against the play.

Clancy has been poor since his return from the RWC. I actually felt up until then he was developing nicely.

It is ironic though that we all are blaming him for actually adhering to the rules.

The system needs looking at.

aucklandlaurie wrote: Did you not say " Whats wrong with video evidence"...

Theres plenty wrong with it when its not sanctioned within the rules of the game.

I take it you mean Laws? The context of the posts if you take the time to read them is not suggesting anything about a TMO issue. Biltongbek challenged my assertion that Kaplan made a mistake and I thought it was fair enough to support that assertion with video evidence. Sorry if that was too complicated for you.

red_stag wrote:Clancy has been poor since his return from the RWC. I actually felt up until then he was developing nicely.

It is ironic though that we all are blaming him for actually adhering to the rules.

The system needs looking at.

I blame the fact that the Laws adhere to interpretation by referees therefor the IRB are missing the consistency needed.

Clancy was slated on Scrum V for his pedantic use of cards and interpretation of the scrum, which he seemed to clearly not understand, that aside he didnt manage the scrum either. If there were consistent problems, which eight penalties awarded at the scrum mean that there are problems at the scrum and that the referee is not dealing with it well.

red_stag wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:

red_stag wrote:Aukster, I would disagree with your take on the Mike Phillips incident.

Fine. Any reason?

I still blame Kaplan but for a different reason.

Basically he sensed something was up and asked his TJ for confirmation.

He made a balls of asking the question and the wrong info was given to him. He assumed he was given right info and did not take his time and find out all the facts.

Heres a full explanation:

http://redstagrugby.blogspot.com/2011/03/mike-phillips-try-wales-v-ireland.html

I find your list quite interesting. I've heard so so so many people say that Rolland is a dreadful ref worse than Clancy seems to be how English and Welsh regard him. Poite had an undeniably dreadful day at the office in the quarter finals.

Personally my own feeling is that the laws and the entire system of officiating needs a serious change.

Thanks for that Red Stag. You have put together a good analysis of the mistakes.

Everyone thinks their home grown referees are better than those from other countries but that is largely because they don't have them in charge of their own Tests.

I watched Jonathan kaplin yesterday morning referee the Chiefs v cheetahs,and I was thinking how good a referee he is, In fact I would go so far as to say that he has been the best referee in International rugby for the past decade.
And I am not South African.

I actually like Kaplan think he's a good ref.

I think most improved referee in the Rabo this year is Scotsman Neil Patterson (still rubbish though )

I also like Vinny Munro from NZ - dont understand how he isnt reffing higher level matches.

red Stag
Have you seen the yellow cards in the Stormers Crusaders game from the weekend? Vinny Munro was absolutely brilliant.

No I haven't. What happened?

I really like his style (believe he is a policeman by trade).

But I think his age holds him back.

Anyway,wyatt Crockett got penalised and yellow carded for a high tackle,one of those one where the hand goes from the top of the shoulder and barely touched the side of the neck. Yes,it was a penalty,but no way a yellow card. and I think the only person in the ground that thought it was a yellow card was Pollock.
Anyway half an hour later the Stormers open side did a very similar tackle,Pollock blasts away on the whistle,calls time off and goes over to Vinny who was the touchy on that side.
Pollock asks vinny " Ok i've got a penalty do you think it is a yellow card?"
Vinny looks at pollock,with a look on his face of "Are you completely mad?"
So Vinny tells pollock "well it was as bad as the earlier one"
Pollock blows the whistle,awards a penalty,flashes a yellow card sending Erhard 9sorry about spelling) to the bin,everyone including Erstad and Vinny are absolutely confused and cant believe it.
As the Erstad is trotting off the field,commentator justin Marshall says "justice prevails,hes got both decisions absolutely wrong"
Vinny didnt want be any part of it.

Taylorman wrote:Geez...another bad ref post. Isnt it funny how theres no consensus around who is bad and who is good but the one rule that does apply is...
"If my team was done an injustice then that makes them a bad ref". That seems to be the general rule.

When its another team that is done an injustice- its...an inconsitency...an observation.

For me not one single ref alive is consistently applauded...google amy one and youll find an appauling example of injustice of the worst kind. An obvious sign of the complexity of the job.

I think I'm big enough to be embarrassed enough for myself if it warrants it.

The post contains a personal opinion that a professional should be sacked and uses the guise of 'no bias' to somehow support it. It contains sweeping generalisations about one set of referees (i.e that theyre generally good), and assumptions about others (i.e.- that 'everyone' knows...) yet contains no argument to support any consideration of the complexity of the rules nor can I assume whether Clancy was officially reported/ sanctioned or even spoken to on those occasions.

What point is being missed so I can unembarrass myself?

red_stag wrote:

Notch wrote:If we banned all the bad referees we'd have a lot of trouble getting any kind of games together!

Indeed

And what would we beeatch about on these boards?

It is only natural to complain about referees, unfrtunately there are cntentious issues in rugby and I think we complain more becuase of the incocnsistencies in the manner they officiate rucks and scrums than anything else.

It is fine if a referee sees a situation one way but we expect him to be consistent both ways.

The perception I get on these boards is that posters do not like referees that have an ego and sees himself as the most important person on the field of play, and those who ruin the spectacle by being pedantic.

red_stag wrote:Clancy has been poor since his return from the RWC. I actually felt up until then he was developing nicely.

It is ironic though that we all are blaming him for actually adhering to the rules.

The system needs looking at.

+1

He has dropped off dramatically. Up to and including the RWC he was reffing quite well, ok he had some clangers but who doesnt? Its just amazing how his level has dropped since then.

Bek do you not see the paradox in blaming a referee for adhering to the laws. I dont like ithe stop start whistlefest myself and am certainly not pretending Clancy is doing great. I think that it indicates though a change to our system is required when giving penalties for offences makes you a bad referee.

Stag, I agree with your sentiment and understand the conundrum of it all.

I have said this many a time before, simplification of laws is the only way forward.

If I could just have to issues adressed at the IRB it would be to bring back the the fact that the team putting the ball into the scrum dictates the engage, and hands in the ruck.

Hands in the ruck is a contradiction for a rugby player, he trains his backside off to gain possession of the ball, but during the match he has to let go, it goes against the grain of a rugby player to let go of a ball, so now the interpretation comes into it.

Simplify the bloody thing and half these contentious issues will go away.

Take the engage as a simple example, the referee dictates the engage and can penalise either team for going in early and the team putting in the ball thus gets no advantage.

It feels like it is a waste of time talking about this, I have discussed this too many times to remember.

Bek, any moron can see it apart from the morons at the IRB

Well seriously then WHY?

Why can they not see it, are us supporters living in lala land, or is there no collective effort to improve the game.

In all honesty I am getting the impression the IRB does not want to sort out these issues because if they take away contentious penalties, games will be more predictable and the top teams will most likely dominate more and thus the competition side of rugby will suffer and TV broadcast revenue may diminish.

Bek, what Paddy O'Brien says is that these are only problems at the very top level and are not issues for the rest of the game.

With hands in the ruck, I know that the IRFU made a petition to the IRB last year to go back to how the breakdown used to be - i.e. favouring jackler type 7s who will tackle and get back to their feet.

Ironic for a nation of 6.5s

I can see why Ireland would want that, they are mainly in the same boat as us, neither of us have specialist 7's apart from (Brussow), so our back rowers have all learnt the art of poaching the ball, hell our loosehead props and hookers are better poachers than our flankers.

Same with our centres. Darcy and O'Driscoll are very good at it. Even McFadden isn't bad.