Wayne Barnes' performance in the HEC semi-final.

I have to say that if I was an ASM fan then I'd be feeling even more grumpy than normal.

I felt that Leinster were extremely lucky not to be YCed at least once - probably twice and the balance of decisions was to my mind was seriously in favour of the Ladyboys particularly in the first half.

This post ain't going to be popular is it?

I thought that in the end Leinster were just about the better team.

However I definitely felt that Barnes interpretations seemed to favour Leinster.

Fair point. but leave out the ladyboys bit like a good man

Cullen could have been carded for his "punch" on Faure and Darcy for interfering in the ruck but Boss was taken out of it off the ball in the lead up to the try and Cullen was fish hooked and punched at the last ruck. Both sides got away with mischief and the best side one.

Cest la vie!

caoimhincentre wrote:Fair point. but leave out the ladyboys bit like a good man

I only use that term because Leinster fans use it commonly caoimhin.

As an Ulster supporter I don't have much sympathy for ASM, they got away with murder against us in the group stages down in Clermont, particularly Nathan Hines.

Fair play to Leinster, you make your own luck and they full deserve to be in the final after an epic defensive performance.

In fact if Sexton had of nailed that last penalty and SOB hadn't of knocked- on on 74 min deep in Clermont's half they'd have closed the game out comfortably enough.

Small margins but the better side are in the final imo.

Clermonts failure to adapt killed them. His interpretations favoured Leinster but he was reasonably consistent at the breakdown so it is Clermont who didn't adapt. If I was a Clermont fan I would be more concerned with Vern cotter and his substitutions

Portnoy wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:Fair point. but leave out the ladyboys bit like a good man

I only use that term because Leinster fans use it commonly caoimhin.

As a leinster fan i can tell you we don't.

if it wasnt meant to be offensive though thats fair enough.

Mickado wrote:Cullen could have been carded for his "punch" on Faure and Darcy for interfering in the ruck but Boss was taken out of it off the ball in the lead up to the try and Cullen was fish hooked and punched at the last ruck. Both sides got away with mischief and the best side one.

Cest la vie!

The Cullen 'punch' was a girly slap and met with a Hollywood dive. If I were God I would have YCed them both. But only Cullen will be attracting the interest of the citing committee.

There were a number of cynical Leinster interferences at the breakdown - I'm beginning to think that there been been secret McCaw DNA clinical procedures taking place in Dublin.

And I don't want to come across all Arsene Wenger on you, but I didn't notice the take-out or the fish-hook.

caoimhincentre wrote:

Portnoy wrote:

caoimhincentre wrote:Fair point. but leave out the ladyboys bit like a good man

I only use that term because Leinster fans use it commonly caoimhin.

As a leinster fan i can tell you we don't.

if it wasnt meant to be offensive though thats fair enough.

You'd best have a word in Gibbo's shell-like then.

So much for this article complaining about English refs showing bias against Irish sides.

https://www.606v2.com/t28168-english-refs-and-irish-teams

Portnoy, the man who likes the old days, the black&white TVs, the standing upside down with the TV balancing on the soles of your feet to pick up a reception that wasn't all BigBang static, the game of men....and yet HD TV shows him that Leinster deserved a few yellows.

Of course they did - they is Leinster of course. That's worth two yellows even before the game begins to give the opposing side a head start

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2SorgVK9c

SecretFly wrote:Portnoy, the man who likes the old days, the black&white TVs, the standing upside down with the TV balancing on the soles of your feet to pick up a reception that wasn't all BigBang static, the game of men....and yet HD TV shows him that Leinster deserved a few yellows.

Of course they did - they is Leinster of course. That's worth two yellows even before the game begins to give the opposing side a head start

Bollix, quite frankly, SF.

Once again I'm being anti-Irish.

But that goes along with the Anti-Welsh, anti-Scottish, Anti-French, Anti-English and even Anti-Tigers (on more than one occasion) in the past.

So I reckon that makes my heretical views are met with equal contempt.

Which is fine by me...

Clermonts failure to adapt killed them. His interpretations favoured Leinster but he was reasonably consistent at the breakdown so it is Clermont who didn't adapt. If I was a Clermont fan I would be more concerned with Vern cotter and his substitutions

In the main I agree with this, however, there were a couple of howlers in my opinion. D'Arcy and kicking the ball out of Parra's hands was cynical and moronic and should have gone as it was only 5 mins after Nacewa had done the same thing and was on the back of a few Leinster pens. Heaslip deliberatly killing the ball in the final drive brought a pen and should have been a yc (killing the ball on your own line everytime a yc). Those weren't to bad though, the worst decision of the game was the last penalty to Leinster when SOB was off his feet killing the ball and got the penalty for the attacker 'holding on'. Awful mistake when it looked almost certain Clermont would score.

Clermont really have themselves to blame: aimless kicking, Butch James twice bottling chances in the Leinster 22 and getting turned over (teach the man how to take contact!), awful missed 3 pointer which would have meant a penalty at the end would have won it for them and then worst of all the attempted show boat finish from Fofana, always hit the ground and then roll to place never try to place one handed as you hit the floor!

I 100% agree Leinster did deserve a few yellows and Barnes wasn't up for giving them. I think most will agree with that. BUT thats the way it goes in rugby. Clermont could have had a yellow or two when they were at home to Ulster, they might not have got this far. Ulster then should have had another yellow yesterday. And so on, and so on.

So, I agree Barnes had a poor game and should have given out a few yellows to Leinster and maybe one at the end to the Clermont player who seemed to start on Cullen. But, refereeing leniency aside, Leinster absolutely deserve their place in the final. Let's not overfocus on the negatives and ignore their irresistible form in the second half.

Neither Wayne Barnes or Roman Poite deserve to be anywhere near the final- not a good weekend for refs, I'm afraid.

Mickado wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2SorgVK9c

I didn't see any fish-hooking (finger in mouth, tugging on inner cheek). I see a clear-out in the style you see in every intensive match. Not nice in the eyes of the supporter, but nothing illegal.

Now you reference the incident, I did see it but just couldn't recall the 'fish-hooking' term.

If he's not fish hooking he's grabbing Cullens lower jaw with one arm and twisting his head in the other direction with the other hand.

I'm not complaining, sht happens. Happened to us and happened to them.

Portnoy wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Portnoy, the man who likes the old days, the black&white TVs, the standing upside down with the TV balancing on the soles of your feet to pick up a reception that wasn't all BigBang static, the game of men....and yet HD TV shows him that Leinster deserved a few yellows.

Of course they did - they is Leinster of course. That's worth two yellows even before the game begins to give the opposing side a head start

Bollix, quite frankly, SF.

Once again I'm being anti-Irish.

But that goes along with the Anti-Welsh, anti-Scottish, Anti-French, Anti-English and even Anti-Tigers (on more than one occasion) in the past.

So I reckon that makes my heretical views are met with equal contempt.

Which is fine by me...

I don't know what you are or really care what you are, Portnoy. You know what you are, and I'll leave the decision about that guff to youself and your mirror.

I'm only dealing in my observations of what you post. And what you post is seldom "Well done" and often the nit-picking detail of suggesting some of us are never quite good enough, some of us always need the rub of the green from a sympathetic ref, some of us don't have the rugby royalty running through our veins (ye olde English clubs of olde).

That's what I mostly observe Portnoy. I couldn't care if you're anti-Pope, anti-Nuclear, anti-whale killing, anti-corporate big money - but that's the mood you throw out there in print.

Portnoy wrote:

Mickado wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld2SorgVK9c

I didn't see any fish-hooking (finger in mouth, tugging on inner cheek). I see a clear-out in the style you see in every intensive match. Not nice in the eyes of the supporter, but nothing illegal.

Now you reference the incident, I did see it but just couldn't recall the 'fish-hooking' term.

I didnt see any fish hooking either but do you honestly believe that the attention that Cullen recieved was not illegal?

I do believe that Cullen could possibly have recieved a yellow earlier and that D'Arcy was a dead cert yellow but Barnes had been constantly warning ASM for their persistent infringing as well without producing a card. I am not a fan of Barnes at all and think that he is not the best man to ref a match like that. On a whole, i would say that his rulings at the breakdown were somewhat in favour of Leinster but for the rest he was pretty even.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Clermonts failure to adapt killed them. His interpretations favoured Leinster but he was reasonably consistent at the breakdown so it is Clermont who didn't adapt. If I was a Clermont fan I would be more concerned with Vern cotter and his substitutions

In the main I agree with this, however, there were a couple of howlers in my opinion. D'Arcy and kicking the ball out of Parra's hands was cynical and moronic and should have gone as it was only 5 mins after Nacewa had done the same thing and was on the back of a few Leinster pens. Heaslip deliberatly killing the ball in the final drive brought a pen and should have been a yc (killing the ball on your own line everytime a yc). Those weren't to bad though, the worst decision of the game was the last penalty to Leinster when SOB was off his feet killing the ball and got the penalty for the attacker 'holding on'. Awful mistake when it looked almost certain Clermont would score.

Clermont really have themselves to blame: aimless kicking, Butch James twice bottling chances in the Leinster 22 and getting turned over (teach the man how to take contact!), awful missed 3 pointer which would have meant a penalty at the end would have won it for them and then worst of all the attempted show boat finish from Fofana, always hit the ground and then roll to place never try to place one handed as you hit the floor!

That D'arcy one I'm not certain about. The ball was long since out of the ruck and barnes called him for playing the ball off his feet which he certainly wasn't as he was able to stretch his leg out. I'm not certain anyway and would need to have the rules in front of me watching the incident to form a proper opinion. O'Briens one at the end could go either way and like portnoy I agree on the Cullen punch, yellow to both.

Penalty count was even and what did Clermont do whenever Kearney nearly scored the try(should have passed) as that is a red zone penalty too. All in all I think the best side made it.

Notch wrote:I 100% agree Leinster did deserve a few yellows and Barnes wasn't up for giving them. I think most will agree with that. BUT thats the way it goes in rugby. Clermont could have had a yellow or two when they were at home to Ulster, they might not have got this far. Ulster then should have had another yellow yesterday. And so on, and so on.

So, I agree Barnes had a poor game and should have given out a few yellows to Leinster and maybe one at the end to the Clermont player who seemed to start on Cullen. But, refereeing leniency aside, Leinster absolutely deserve their place in the final. Let's not overfocus on the negatives and ignore their irresistible form in the second half.

Neither Wayne Barnes or Roman Poite deserve to be anywhere near the final- not a good weekend for refs, I'm afraid.

Is a fine enough sentiment Notch.

Except

But, refereeing leniency aside, Leinster absolutely deserve their place in the final. Let's not overfocus on the negatives and ignore their irresistible form in the second half.

But

With the aid of the 20-20 hindsight available to us all, the liability may have been that it would have taken a comeback of Northamptonian proportions to bring that game back.

I am on record stating that the Leinster played a blinder in the second half.
Also (not on record) is that ASM depleted their pack too early.

I did say in the match thread at half-time that I thought that a whole string of penalties would pile up against Leinster due to ASM's increasing pack dominance and the negativity of Leinster at the the breakdown that the ref would award a number of penalties against.

But ASM chose to de-power their scrum too early.
In that respect, Clermond's coaches made bad calls and paid the penalty.

Indeed, the substitutions Clermont made hurt them- and Van Der Merwe was a big improvement over Healy coming off the bench.

All referees view things slightly different, and change depending on what's happen recently; in their previous game, recent IRB, ERC or local union directives, previous games with the teams, etc. Some people like this as part of the game, others loath it. But it's there and it's not going to change unless they vastly simplify the rules. Barnes reffed it in a manner I don't particularly like. He was very forgiving around the ruck, which seemed to favour Leinster but it's not the first time he's reffed like this (see the Wales v South Africa game in the World Cup). The only times it's valid to question the refereeing is if it's way out there (deciding forward passes are ok if their less than 45°) or inconsistant (if he had yellow carded Clermont for things he didn't yellow Leinster for).

Some might know I'm a bit of law nazi and would prefer to sacrifice some dire games in the short term to improve the game in the long term, so prefer very strict reffing (as players will alway push and if you keep giving they keep pushing, until we're in the mess we're in now). BUT this is not a new issue and Clermont should have prepared better.

Ramble over. Well done Leinster on the 3rd final in 4 years. The final should be a cracker.

HoT, One thing that Barnes was entirely consistent on for both sides was that he didn't care how the SH fed the scrum.

Personally I think he would have allowed the 9 to just chuck the ball directly to his ten.

Yeah that had me laughing as well. Lineouts slightly not straight called up but 9's feeding straight to the second row was acceptable

That D'arcy one I'm not certain about. The ball was long since out of the ruck and barnes called him for playing the ball off his feet which he certainly wasn't as he was able to stretch his leg out

He was on the wrong side and lying on the floor so as to remain out of the way of the ruck. As Parra pulls away from the ruck with the ball he kicks it out of his hands whilst lying on his side. So offside and off his feet, take your pick. Normally a simple yellow but with Nacewa having done something very similar minutes earlier it made it look worse. Not sure why D'Arcy felt the need to do it either, same with Heaslip late in the game when he came in offside and gave Clermont the field position for the late surge. The offences were on the half way line, Clermont looked good in attack but Leinster looked good in defence. Why risk a long range shot at goal or a lineout in your own 22 when Clermont were on half way and were going to have to waste precious time getting that far up the pitch? Stupid decisions from experienced internationals.

Personally I think he would have allowed the 9 to just chuck the ball directly to his ten.

I remember being at junior level and us all being taught how to spin the ball into the scrum so that it would roll towards out team when we put it in. Which was cheating but nothing compared to the pass straight to the 8 seen at the weekend. Makes the scrum a farce, especially when the ref ignores the front rows to stand up.

I think having a topic discussing the performance of a referee highlights the problem with rugby at the moment. We shouldn't even know a referee's name. In my opinion a referee should be more of a passenger and not have such a critical role in the game.

The game was far to start and stop. No real fluency and Barnes was not consistent.

As Jonathan Davis said once on Scrum V we are in the entertainment business. So we should be looking at, as a few have said above, to simply the rules in areas to allow for attacking rugby.

A few things I would change in the interest of the game is that you can't knock on in the ruck or scrum. If the ball is out and you drop it then fine but knocking in on there with give no one any advantage and result in a scrum which would last 10 minutes.

Another thing for example is if the hooker throws it in and it's not straight but the defending team does not put someone in the air, just get on with it. There was no disadvantage to any one, not killing the contest for the ball.

I think this is the way the iRB should be going!

Was surprised how fair Barnes was. Penalty count was 15-14 to Leinster. It's very rare for Irish teams to come out on top on the penalty count and to win when barnes refs. In my opinion this was the difference.

Portnoy wrote:HoT, One thing that Barnes was entirely consistent on for both sides was that he didn't care how the SH fed the scrum.

Personally I think he would have allowed the 9 to just chuck the ball directly to his ten.

If I was a ref id allow crooked feeds too. What's the big deal. Don't understand why this keeps getting brought up. If the ref was to officiate this to the exact letter of the law then there is no advantage in being awarded a scrum. All teams do crooked feeds. Big deal.

ladyboy comments are a pretty lame attempt to rile Leinster fans. Cheap shop and fairly pathetic.

Yeah Barnes missed alot. 2 possible red card offenses from Clermont as well as cynical play from them.

If I was a ref id allow crooked feeds too. What's the big deal. Don't understand why this keeps getting brought up. If the ref was to officiate this to the exact letter of the law then there is no advantage in being awarded a scrum. All teams do crooked feeds. Big deal.

Well there is because you get to put in and your hooker is closer to you as you put it in. If you feed the ball straight to the 8 you might as well play passive scrums. Hookers are supposed to compete to try and hook the ball back not merely push. The scrum should be every bit as much as competition as the lineout is! Refs should clamp down on this, ignoring crooked feeds at the scrum is as bad as ignoring crooked throws at the lineout.

2 possible red card offenses from Clermont

Which were those?

If he's not fish hooking he's grabbing Cullens lower jaw with one arm and twisting his head in the other direction with the other hand.

Sadly this is becomming more frequent. It's coached as 'where the head goes, the body follows' and is used by a lot of teams (especially the Irish and Kiwis) at the ruck. It was grabbing the head and using it to lever a player out of a ruck that started the Ferris/Hartley incident, in that case fingers entered the mouth though.

the take out on boss was really quite nasty, not quite a yellow, but worst offence of that kind in the game. far worse than cullen's half assed slap! the clear out on cullen at the end, leading with the head is a citable offense, Bakkies botha was done for it during the lions tour, and again a year or so later.

Crooked feeds at scrums aren't at all like not throwing straight at the lineout. Enforcing a straight feed is like asking each teams hooker to throw to the same part out the lineout every time.

When you concede a scrum you should be at a disadvantage. Hence crooked feeds are allowed. It's the same for all teams so can't see what the problem is.

Crooked feeds at scrums aren't at all like not throwing straight at the lineout. Enforcing a straight feed is like asking each teams hooker to throw to the same part out the lineout every time.

When you concede a scrum you should be at a disadvantage. Hence crooked feeds are allowed. It's the same for all teams so can't see what the problem is.

According to the laws of the game they shouldn't be. It depowers the scrum. The scrum half often taps the arm of the hooker or has some sort of communication with his front row as he puts it in so as to guarentee a degree of advantage. At the minute seeing a scrum against the head is like seeing a blue moon. The only way the defence win a scrum is via a penalty hence why we see all the collapsed scrums, standing up and wheeling rubbish as each side try and con the ref. Scrums should be about shoving straight and hookers actually hooking!

I know the laws of the scrum. Crooked feeds have been going on for ever though. They certainly aren't the source of the problems at scrum time. Whichever team loses the ball is going to try to disrupt no matter what way the ball is put in. The scrum will be collapsed just as much. There should be am official on both sides of the scrum.

Penalising the feed is just another way to slow down an already painfully slow process. There is nothing to be gained from it.

[/quote]At the minute seeing a scrum against the head is like seeing a blue moon.![quote]

You must have missed Ireland v England this year or last years heineken cup final.

Saying that Clermont should feel agrieived at losing that game is one-eyed bunkum. Selecting a couple of incidents and suggesting that they might have changed the course of the game is pure speculation in the extreme and smacks of the green-eyed monster.

What gets me is that you and some of your fellow critics are so convinced that Leinster committed a smash and grab mission. Which is utter nonsense. If any thing, had Clermant got the touchdown, Leinster would have been robbed.

Leinster could and should have been out of sight on a number of occasions in the second half. Kearney's non pass and Sexton's missed penalty should have done it. Clermont's desperate kitchen sink effort putting a shine on a performance in which they were beaten by the better side,

Perhaps if there was more balance to your comments instead of an undisguised, bitter rant you might get a little more agreement. But I don't think that's what you want.

mankiaow wrote:Saying that Clermont should feel agrieived at losing that game is one-eyed bunkum. Selecting a couple of incidents and suggesting that they might have changed the course of the game is pure speculation in the extreme and smacks of the green-eyed monster.

What gets me is that you and some of your fellow critics are so convinced that Leinster committed a smash and grab mission. Which is utter nonsense. If any thing, had Clermant got the touchdown, Leinster would have been robbed.

Leinster could and should have been out of sight on a number of occasions in the second half. Kearney's non pass and Sexton's missed penalty should have done it. Clermont's desperate kitchen sink effort putting a shine on a performance in which they were beaten by the better side,

Perhaps if there was more balance to your comments instead of an undisguised, bitter rant you might get a little more agreement. But I don't think that's what you want.

well said mankiaow .

Leinster did get out of jail but theres no doubt in my mind that they deserved to win. It was a cracking game between two fantastic sides and the best side is in the final.

You must have missed Ireland v England this year or last years heineken cup final

Penalties as opposed to the hooker actually getting his boot on the ball and hooking it back though. Hartley never actually hooks he is just a third prop for Saints, they charge forward with all that bulk and try to force an error. Bl00dy destructive when it works though.

The oddest decision for me was the last penalty, when I expected Clermont rather than Leinster to be awarded the penalty.

If SOB was on his feet supporting his own weight throughout competing for that ball then Barnes better make sure that the world now knows that Isaac Newton's views on gravity were misguided.

That said, I'm pleased with the result and the line-up for the final. It's the right teams going through based on the semi-finals. Leinster have been the best side in this tournament and deserve to be competing at Twickenham.

Agree with the sentiment above though that this was not a great weekend for the referees.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

Crooked feeds at scrums aren't at all like not throwing straight at the lineout. Enforcing a straight feed is like asking each teams hooker to throw to the same part out the lineout every time.

When you concede a scrum you should be at a disadvantage. Hence crooked feeds are allowed. It's the same for all teams so can't see what the problem is.

According to the laws of the game they shouldn't be. It depowers the scrum. The scrum half often taps the arm of the hooker or has some sort of communication with his front row as he puts it in so as to guarentee a degree of advantage. At the minute seeing a scrum against the head is like seeing a blue moon. The only way the defence win a scrum is via a penalty hence why we see all the collapsed scrums, standing up and wheeling rubbish as each side try and con the ref. Scrums should be about shoving straight and hookers actually hooking!

In complete agreement with you here Sam. Just cos the crooked feed is something everyone gets away with does not mean it should be acceptable. It has devalued to scrum from being a power battle to being more of an annoyance to those watching.

funnyExiledScot wrote:The oddest decision for me was the last penalty, when I expected Clermont rather than Leinster to be awarded the penalty.

If SOB was on his feet supporting his own weight throughout competing for that ball then Barnes better make sure that the world now knows that Isaac Newton's views on gravity were misguided.

That said, I'm pleased with the result and the line-up for the final. It's the right teams going through based on the semi-finals. Leinster have been the best side in this tournament and deserve to be competing at Twickenham.

Agree with the sentiment above though that this was not a great weekend for the referees.

Strangely enough the latest IRB directive was about making sure players were supporting their own weight on their feet and not on their head or arms. Most of the RFU refs have been really harsh on it (and players not rolling away). Barnes however has been consistently the most lenient on this for a while.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

You must have missed Ireland v England this year or last years heineken cup final

Penalties as opposed to the hooker actually getting his boot on the ball and hooking it back though. Hartley never actually hooks he is just a third prop for Saints, they charge forward with all that bulk and try to force an error. Bl00dy destructive when it works though.

Even the two scrums England lost against the head to Italy were from the ball bouncing back off the second/back row rather than being won by the Italian Hooker.

Parra conned the referee to get the penalty clermont missed while barnes had his back turned, its nonsense. the only big decision was not giving darcy a yellow. I would have given the clermont diver a yellow for simulation, we dont need rugby turning into football.

funnyExiledScot wrote:
If SOB was on his feet supporting his own weight throughout competing for that ball then Barnes better make sure that the world now knows that Isaac Newton's views on gravity were misguided.

have a gander at the end again if you can, you can see clearly enough sob is on his feet, and not resting on his head.

And it looks like he's being prevented from standing up with the ball in his hands by a Clermont arm over his back. I presume the penalty was for not releasing by Clermont.

skiddy wrote:Parra conned the referee to get the penalty clermont missed while barnes had his back turned, its nonsense. the only big decision was not giving darcy a yellow. I would have given the clermont diver a yellow for simulation, we dont need rugby turning into football.

Ideally, I'd have liked a yellow for Cullen and a yellow for that diving prop. Cullen shouldn't have struck him and I certainly don't want to see people falling like that (particularly gnarled props).

It could have been worse; from what I've seen of Super Rugby this season, we'll soon be replacing fly halves/out halves/stand offs with quarter-backs. Apparently a pass isn't forward if it only goes a couple of metres forward. Ironic considering the Kiwis' hatred of 'that' forward pass in 2007.