Wayne Barnes' performance in the HEC semi-final.

First topic message reminder :

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?

Interesting. There was f-all complaints about Romain Poite reffing the Munster/Ulster match. I wonder why...

Cryptoyourisan wrote: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.

It wasnt only the forward pass crypto. The main issue was his non ability to differentiate between the French and AB backs in the AB backline, in the second half, unable to issue a single penalty where at least 30 were counted.

From comments here...'I'd like to have seen a few yellow cards on the Leinster side' and "he shouldnt be near a final ", "Clemont should have adapted' are all strangely familiar words. Case of an inept ref doing nothing as he's done many times before.

I don't understand you're reference to "Clermont should have adapted". That's used to say that Barnes refereed in an even and consistent manner, which Clermont didn't adjust to.

He was not that bad.

D'Arcy should have been carded.
SOB did nothing wrong in the last minute.
The Clermont prop who went down after Cullen's slap was a joke

As Rodders said what goes around comes around. Against Ulster Person was a joke and gave Clermont an undeserved win.

Leinster deserved it because for a 20 minute period after half time they played rugby at a level Clermont didn't match the whole game

geoff998rugby wrote:He was not that bad.

D'Arcy should have been carded.
SOB did nothing wrong in the last minute.
The Clermont prop who went down after Cullen's slap was a joke

As Rodders said what goes around comes around. Against Ulster Person was a joke and gave Clermont an undeserved win.

Leinster deserved it because for a 20 minute period after half time they played rugby at a level Clermont didn't match the whole game

Hang on, geoff, so when Clermont win, the ref is a joke, but when they lose, they should suck it up? Or to put it another way, when an Irish team lose to Clermont, the ref is a joke, when an Irish team win against the same oppo, they deserved to win? I don't think you need to moan about the ref from your game against Clermont any more, you're in the final!

ASBO Pearson had a very poor game against Ulster.
I did not moan about it at the time, not much anyway, as we were through to the QF's anyway.

I made the point merely to illustrate that Clermont were not the victims of much bad luck against Leinster and any luck Leinster got pales into insignificance compared to the good fortune that Clermont got in an earlier match.

Clermont have nothing to complain about
Barnes had a far better game than Pearson on French soil.

geoff, would you care to comment on Poite's performance in the semi-final between Ulster and Edinburgh?

geoff998rugby wrote:ASBO Pearson had a very poor game against Ulster.
I did not moan about it at the time, not much anyway, as we were through to the QF's anyway.

I made the point merely to illustrate that Clermont were not the victims of much bad luck against Leinster and any luck Leinster got pales into insignificance compared to the good fortune that Clermont got in an earlier match.

Clermont have nothing to complain about
Barnes had a far better game than Pearson on French soil.

see this is exactly what ASBO was mentioning ... there is nothing wong in being biaised as its natural to be behind your team or other Irish team but at least accept it. Some irish posters here seem to have a problem with that : some who were pestering about Pearson after clermont- Ulster game seem to have trouble to accept the fact that barnes or poite did help their team. this has nothing to do with the fact that Ulster or Leinster are mostly seen as deserved winners but everytime someone has a moan or point out facts you will have some self-righteous poster calling for "begrudging", "sour grapes" etc.

am a french and while I was very p*ssed off against Barnes during the 1st half (had to go outside for 20 minutes to calm down and missed the beginning of the 2nd half so he did ruin par of the game for me), I acknowledge that Pearson helped a bit ASM vs Ulster , that France were luckly to win against Wales in last RWC SF (although that was not down to Rolland performance) and that the same Barnes was instrumental in an infamous French victory against NZ a while back.

It seems the REF has become the STICK thrown for the dog to chase and the STICK used to beat him with when he fetches it

That is to say, critics use the ref to besmirch the winners - critics use the ref to besmirch the losers.

The Ref is a happy neutral. You're not saying the opponents are bad, and you're not admitting they are good. You're just saying it's always the ref wot done it

SOB did nothing wrong in the last minute.
The Clermont prop who went down after Cullen's slap was a joke

1) SOB was off his feet and in no way supporting his own weight (his arms were resting on the player and ground). That is killing the ball.

2)Cullen's strike was with a closed hand and is therefore a punch. In no way worth citing but could have got him in trouble at the time if the ref had only seen a flailing fist.

ASBO Pearson had a very poor game against Ulster

Did he card two players simultaneously for high tackles despite one clearly not being a high tackle? Pfft, Rolland in the Clermont vs Tigers game now that was awful. Refusing to use the TMO to review Fofana's double movement when Murphy politely asked him to and then actually blocking Murphy for Fofana's second try. Thanks Alain, as if playing Clermont in Clermont isn't tough enough.

SecretFly wrote:It seems the REF has become the STICK thrown for the dog to chase and the STICK used to beat him with when he fetches it

That is to say, critics use the ref to besmirch the winners - critics use the ref to besmirch the losers.

The Ref is a happy neutral. You're not saying the opponents are bad, and you're not admitting they are good. You're just saying it's always the ref wot done it

not sure if this is adressed to me but I am just implying that in modern rugby, the ref can have some sort of influence on the game with his decisions. Rugby Union is the only sport (I watch) where it is that obvious.

he's obviously not the one who score the tries though...thanks for reminding me

whocares wrote:

SecretFly wrote:It seems the REF has become the STICK thrown for the dog to chase and the STICK used to beat him with when he fetches it

That is to say, critics use the ref to besmirch the winners - critics use the ref to besmirch the losers.

The Ref is a happy neutral. You're not saying the opponents are bad, and you're not admitting they are good. You're just saying it's always the ref wot done it

not sure if this is adressed to me but I am just implying that in modern rugby, the ref can have some sort of influence on the game with his decisions. Rugby Union is the only sport (I watch) where it is that obvious.

he's obviously not the one who score the tries though...thanks for reminding me

No. Not directed at you whocares . Just a general comment on how much the ref is capable of being twisted to suit and support most arguments in rugby these days. We hear that they are wrong for letting minor infringements go unpunished and wrong for punishing minor infringements and not letting the game flow. We hear they are wrong to show a red card for a dangerous tackle and wrong for not showing one. Wrong for looking for assistance from the TMO and wrong for not looking for that assistance.

The ref is always wrong - but I'm saying it's also a tool used to criticise our respective teams without being seen to.

"Leinster's dark arts against Clermont (well every side does them innit) but they should still have been punished like" - that kind of thing

I think both Poite and Barnes were ok - not great but ok.
In what way did Poite screw up ?

WHen SOB got the ball at the end of the game he was not being supported. He was subsequently taken off his feet but by then he had affected the steal. I think Barnes got it spot on.

I made no reference to Cullen's action but the dying swan act by the Clermont prop was disgraceful and worthy of Drogba.

I do think D'Arcy should have got a YC as I mentioned above.

Pearson by contrast should have send Hines to the bin, He missed a clear bodycheck on Humphreys. These were two clear try scoring opportunities.
He also seem to want to make himself the centre of attention by two theatrical changes of decision (1 each way) which were small minded to say the least.
Pearson had a poor game that day. As I said I did not make a big thing of it then because we qualified so I was perfectly happy.

This doesn't alter the fact I reckon Poite was an 8 out of 10, Barnes a 7 out of 10 and Pearson, on the day in question a 5 out of 10.

Those assessments have nothing to do with the results

When I think back on Ulsters games this year the worst referee we had was Irish.
That is my assessment of the referees nothing to do with being Irish or the results of the game.

George Clancy by the way

it's all true SecretFly,

its worth noting that the ref just cannot be right all the time.
its also natural though for a disapointed fan to blame the ref before blaming their own team.
that said I would blame Fofana first and then Barnes!, Leinster had their job done and won : how could I criticise them?

formerly known as Sam wrote:

1) SOB was off his feet and in no way supporting his own weight (his arms were resting on the player and ground). That is killing the ball.

2)Cullen's strike was with a closed hand and is therefore a punch. In no way worth citing but could have got him in trouble at the time if the ref had only seen a flailing fist.

ASBO Pearson had a very poor game against Ulster

.

As i have pointed out before, watch the game again mate. Sob was on his feet, his arms were around the ball, about a foot off the ground, you can see his feet, and his head isn't touching the ground either. He is very clearly only supported by his feet and to suggest otherwise at this stage is redundant. Cullen should have been binned, but so should Cudmore for taking out boss miles off the ball at the time of the try, and Bardy should be cited for leading with his head into a ruck at the end, butting cullen precedent in Bakkies botha getting cited for the same thing twice before

SecretFly wrote:No. Not directed at you whocares . Just a general comment on how much the ref is capable of being twisted to suit and support most arguments in rugby these days. We hear that they are wrong for letting minor infringements go unpunished and wrong for punishing minor infringements and not letting the game flow. We hear they are wrong to show a red card for a dangerous tackle and wrong for not showing one. Wrong for looking for assistance from the TMO and wrong for not looking for that assistance.

The ref is always wrong - but I'm saying it's also a tool used to criticise our respective teams without being seen to.

"Leinster's dark arts against Clermont (well every side does them innit) but they should still have been punished like" - that kind of thing

Well that's becasue the comments are coming from different people isn't it? I've said I'd prefer a harder line taken on infringments (mainly around the ruck and forward passes) and I've never complained about refs being strict in these areas. Others don't like the strict view and say so.

The problem ones are those that complain/support the same ref for acting in the same way, depending on teams. For example, complaining about areferee during an international game (missing things, etc) and telling other to that they're jealous if they complain about the same ref in another game (for again missing things, etc).

HammerofThunor wrote:
Well that's becasue the comments are coming from different people isn't it? I've said I'd prefer a harder line taken on infringments (mainly around the ruck and forward passes) and I've never complained about refs being strict in these areas. Others don't like the strict view and say so.

The problem ones are those that complain/support the same ref for acting in the same way, depending on teams. For example, complaining about areferee during an international game (missing things, etc) and telling other to that they're jealous if they complain about the same ref in another game (for again missing things, etc).

Correct on both accounts, Hammer. People see things differently... and yes, people see things differently. I personally didn't complain about Barnes in the International game you refered to and I'm not complaining about him now.

So there are also people who don't complain about refs period. We have a vote too!!

Ah, the missing link. The legends were true!

kunu wrote:

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.

I'll take a look again. Looked pretty obvious to me at the time though. As I recall, he went in legitimately at first, came off his feet falling forwards, continued to grab at the ball (whilst not supporting his weight on his feet), then the penalty was given for Clermont holding on.

I'll look again. I've only seen it once.

The final moments are in that YT clip i posted on the first page lads

If not staying on your feet ( supporting your own body weight) is penalty territory...and holding on is penalty territory, which of those actually has priority for first ping? As it is first ping that decides who benefits but it still infers two sides infringed.

Regardless, i don't think he was supporting his body weight. But he obviously made it look like he was to Wayne Barnes. So fair play.

@ 2.32 - Check out Cudmore's forearm smash on Isaac Boss...

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

Also, check out Rougerie’s “hit” on Rob Kearney as he passes to Healy for the try. No arms at all. good thing he missed…

Cudmore was a blatant card - good spot.
Also SOB was pulled in after he got the ball.

So to answer the OP no Clermont do not have good reason to be agrived.

There was lots of naughtiness in this match, including Cullen putting his hands on the parts of a bloke he really shouldn't be going anywhere near

I think it's just a bit of a shame that such a fiercly contested SF, that had both sides playing some great rugby, had to have such an inconsistent ref to again be the talking point. I don't think it's fair on either side when it sometimes can seem that a ref's decision has affected a match one way or another. I also don't think it's fair for all the blame to be placed on the ref when there are so many different things he can penalise both teams for, he's bound to favour one team over the other (depending on what team you're supporting!)

The laws are the main problem. Something really needs to be done about them, as too often now the laws are too open to interpretation, and it makes the ref's job almost impossible sometimes. It's certainly detracting from what should be fabulous games of rugby. Well for me, anyway.

SecretFly wrote:If not staying on your feet ( supporting your own body weight) is penalty territory...and holding on is penalty territory, which of those actually has priority for first ping? As it is first ping that decides who benefits but it still infers two sides infringed.

Entirely encapsulates the tackle law paradox.

The tackled player must release the ball immediately (although may place it to his team's advantage)
The tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

Unfortunately the laws don't define the word 'immediately'.

"There are no facts, only interpretations", Friedrich Nietzsche

rugbydreamer wrote:There was lots of naughtiness in this match, including Cullen putting his hands on the parts of a bloke he really shouldn't be going anywhere near

I think it's just a bit of a shame that such a fiercly contested SF, that had both sides playing some great rugby, had to have such an inconsistent ref to again be the talking point. I don't think it's fair on either side when it sometimes can seem that a ref's decision has affected a match one way or another. I also don't think it's fair for all the blame to be placed on the ref when there are so many different things he can penalise both teams for, he's bound to favour one team over the other (depending on what team you're supporting!)

The laws are the main problem. Something really needs to be done about them, as too often now the laws are too open to interpretation, and it makes the ref's job almost impossible sometimes. It's certainly detracting from what should be fabulous games of rugby. Well for me, anyway.

I whoeheartedly condem that. The "punch", not so much...

Also, check out Rougerie’s “hit” on Rob Kearney as he passes to Healy for the try. No arms at all. good thing he missed…

Looked like he was pulling out of a big smash tbh. Kearney bounces away and seems unconcerned, if it was a big shoulder then Kearney wouldn't have been getting up as Rougerie is a big bloke and Kearney was focussed on passing so not in a position to drop his shoulder and protect himself.

The cudmore thing is a big shove with the forearm to Boss's chest. A penalty maybe a yc if he gets caught but that's not citing territory.

Clermont fought tooth and nail to keep us from their door because they knew Leinster operate on confidence. They attacked to defend but in defending they attacked badly.

Even as they were going for the final attempt, the one O'Brien intervened for, you can see them lulling in a huddle as the eventual savior was slowly and cumbersomely getting to his feet after a previous assault.

There was a real and present gap there for some seconds that the Clermont players were looking at but not taking advantage of. The more I look at the detail, the more I believe Clermont can think themselves luck that they kept Leinster from their door so effectively. They stopped Leinster playing (by their means), we didn't stop them (by ours).

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!

He was brutally and blatantly head-butted and then strangled, trying to defend the line. It was a red card. Soooo swings and roundabouts.

Watch the game again Portnoy and give me your views on it then. Most of the calls were spot on and both sides cheated like feic at the breakdown. Its what happens when great sides clash and are looking for a Final - at all costs. But that's probably alien to you at this stage. Tigers won their titles through consistent cheating. We didnt.

You play the ref. We earned that luck - the hard way, over the years. Barnes shafted us before a few times. It all evens out in the end.

Besides, we didn't play half as well as we can do and still made the Final, in a cauldron away from home. I think that says it all. Barnes or no Barnes, we are the best side in Europe.

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

Not hard to do mind, you are fairly precious

SecretFly wrote:The more I look at the detail, the more I believe Clermont can think themselves luck that they kept Leinster from their door so effectively. They stopped Leinster playing (by their means), we didn't stop them (by ours).

care to explain what that has to do with luck?

I do get your point that Clermont was safer when playing within Leinster own 22 as waiting for Leinster to drop the ball while defending would have been a bad option. maybe something for Ulster to look at...

munkian wrote:

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

Not hard to do mind, you are fairly precious

There's a poster on here called Jennifer McLadyboy. We don't take it very seriously, well i don't anyway. Its funny now, kind of ironic wouldn't you say?

Munkian, nope, we just answer the riling with some studious homework.

And yep, Leinster is a 'precious' commodity - all Europe should be proud

Ulster are guaranteed the moral victory in the final at least.

It's quite clear that Leinster are a shower of cheating shoitehawks.

rodders wrote:Ulster are guaranteed the moral victory in the final at least.

It's quite clear that Leinster are a shower of cheating shoitehawks.

whocares wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The more I look at the detail, the more I believe Clermont can think themselves luck that they kept Leinster from their door so effectively. They stopped Leinster playing (by their means), we didn't stop them (by ours).

care to explain what that has to do with luck?

I do get your point that Clermont was safer when playing within Leinster own 22 as waiting for Leinster to drop the ball while defending would have been a bad option. maybe something for Ulster to look at...

Meant 'lucky' of course and what's a 'y' between friends

Lucky in the sense that the general suggestion doing the rounds outside the realms of the Leinster affectionados is that Leinster were lucky that their defence and the ref kept them in the game that Clermont were easily dominating. I say Clermont weren't dominating, they were bluffing - using attacking blusters to keep ball and keep Leinster (the real attacking side) at bay. Parra was doing his usual routine of taking the points when continuing attack might have been more productive. The objective was to box in Leinster - that they did. But in doing so, they were the lucky side that it worked - in all but victory

SecretFly wrote:Munkian, nope, we just answer the riling with some studious homework.

And yep, Leinster is a 'precious' commodity - all Europe should be proud

Roish, roish, loike totes agree with you there, Sexton's on foire

The Leinsterfication of Europe Continues! Or should that be the DublinFourification?

Next part of the master plan is the pink jumpers and chinos with standyup collars on the kids - as EU law

I bumped into a Leinster fan at a Blues game - could've sworn it was Ivor

SecretFly wrote:

whocares wrote:

SecretFly wrote:The more I look at the detail, the more I believe Clermont can think themselves luck that they kept Leinster from their door so effectively. They stopped Leinster playing (by their means), we didn't stop them (by ours).

care to explain what that has to do with luck?

I do get your point that Clermont was safer when playing within Leinster own 22 as waiting for Leinster to drop the ball while defending would have been a bad option. maybe something for Ulster to look at...

Meant 'lucky' of course and what's a 'y' between friends

Lucky in the sense that the general suggestion doing the rounds outside the realms of the Leinster affectionados is that Leinster were lucky that their defence and the ref kept them in the game that Clermont were easily dominating. I say Clermont weren't dominating, they were bluffing - using attacking blusters to keep ball and keep Leinster (the real attacking side) at bay. Parra was doing his usual routine of taking the points when continuing attack might have been more productive. The objective was to box in Leinster - that they did. But in doing so, they were the lucky side that it worked - in all but victory

good to see that you even had some excuse ready in the event of a Leinster defeat

at the end of the day, ASM alleged domination or bluff whatever you call it was sterile...the passing was clumsy and 9 and 10 didnt work well with their backs. they would have been better off going for a low risk pick and go from the start.

from a neutral point of view, if you remove the intensity and what was at stake, it was probably boring to watch. loads of slowing down the ball, bodies piling around the rucks, one well excecuted try, one DG and a few penalties.

Leinster didnt show much (maybe they didnt need to ?) but could well have lost for some details : Darcy tackle that turned Fofana on his side hence preventing him to put the ball down correctly without dislocating his shoulder, Parra decision making at the end (he could have gone for a scrum at the last penatly, might have been a better platform), one or two more penalties for Clermont scrum during the 1st half (wouldnt have been shocking) that could have resulted in a 15-3 score at half time etc etc

ahhhhh Ifs and buts....if Sexton's last Penalty had of went a millimeter to the left or Rob Kearney had of passed to Fitzgerald Leinster would have been home and hosed with 10 minutes to go.

The bottom line is if Clermont have of scored more points then they'd be in the final but they didn't .

Wonder who the ref for the final will be.

If it's Poite - Advantage Ulster
If it's Barnes - Advantage Ulster (he'll have to make up for his indescretions in the semi )

Mickado wrote:Wonder who the ref for the final will be.

Brian O'Driscoll usually refs when Leinster play doesn't he?......

It shouldn't be either of the SF refs

I hoping for Nig and praying its not Pearson.

I am led to be believe that Nig is officiating in some capacity at that weekend but no idea what capacity.

We've won one with Nige in the saddle before.

Advantage Leinster.

whocares wrote:
Leinster didnt show much (maybe they didnt need to ?) but could well have lost for some details : Darcy tackle that turned Fofana on his side hence preventing him to put the ball down correctly without dislocating his shoulder, Parra decision making at the end (he could have gone for a scrum at the last penatly, might have been a better platform), one or two more penalties for Clermont scrum during the 1st half (wouldnt have been shocking) that could have resulted in a 15-3 score at half time etc etc

You're right, with a bit of 'luck' Clermont might have actually won a game they should have won anyway with the 'home' advantage, the potent Top14 credentials, the published This Year intent to do the HC, the volatile fans that booed Leinster's cheating as they emerged from the tunnel , the belief between Rougerie and Fofana, and indeed Hines, that they'd make Leinster's pretensions crumble under the strain of Clermont's punch.

Yep, a little luck might have gone a long way for poor Clermont.

For Rugby's sake, I really hope its Nige. Both teams, will get a fair crack of the Welsh whip. Ooooeer missus.