More Of Clancy's Blunders

First topic message reminder :

Anyone remember this from just two years ago?

http://m.smh.com.au/rugby-union/union-news/irb-must-act-to-ensure-against-rogue-refereeing-20110826-1je8g.html

"The fact is that Clancy altered the laws of rugby to give an advantage to the home side" ...

"The worst officiating mistake in the modern era..."

Gosh, sound familiar?

Already reprimanded by IRB head referee boss for not knowing the laws, Clancy was let lose again to mess up another international. How many chances will this guy get?

Or just last year?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2113149/Warren-Gatland-frustrated-referee.html

On other news, a "seething" Ewen McKenzie is to follow up Clancy's performance with the IRB following a video review of the match:

http://m.theaustralian.com.au/sport/rugby-union/penalties-cost-wallabies-dearly-as-england-wins-20-13-in-rugby/story-e6frg7o6-1226752119754

It will be interesting to see how NZ v
England pans out with the worlds best referee Craig Joubert named,
With european top whistler Nigel Owens handling the ireland v NZ game. Did Australia's falling reputation see them landed with the most notoriously problematic and least favourable referee?

No fan of Clancy me but you cannot blame him for the two big calls in the match.

The 'obstruction' was close but he got it right - the 4th official agreed

As for Brown and being in touch - the linesman missed that not Clancy

 has to blame someone for england winning. because they couldnt actually have beaten a SH team without extraneous help  

Brown being in touch was the touch judges call not Clancy's.

 

okay...so let's pick on the linesman. Who was he and what's his e-mail address?

Likewise your defense of him is that England won and you don't want anything to detract from that, not that you actually approve of his performance. If the calls were reversed you'd be whining like babies.

Bear witness to the six years we heard about how cueto deserved a try even though his foot was in touch.

 I was referring to the 17 scrums and your assertion that the resulting penalties put Aussie out of the game.
Mr Allen's scrum analysis provides more substance than yours on this point.
The touch line non call was as much down to Clancy's assistant as much as Clancy himself who was some way back for what was a long kick. I accept that the catch & non call were controversial. That controvery has its own thread in fact.
Not sure that this really caused the subsequent Aussie errors leading to the England skipper's try.
The 'obstruction' was referred by Clancy so he did not exactly miss it, both he and the TMO were satisfied the fat boy was not obstructed so much as not making an adequate effort.
I do not assert that England played well that day, plenty of errors, but also I have not seen Aussie play that poorly here before. They do seem generally off form judging by their recent run of losses.
What is your opinion on the England v AB game last year ?

Is there a ref around that doesn't get abuse these days? If not give them time.

In the end 50% of the viewers will blame them in part for the ref and find something wrong with them.

They can get 99 things right but they will invariably be remembered for the 1 thing they get wrong.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Bear witness to the six years we heard about how cueto deserved a try even though his foot was in touch.

I forgot all about that!

 

 

I'd also like to see some references to real experts to back up GE's assertions. Too much 'such and such boderline decision we all agree on' (not) - and 'lots of experts agree on' without any substance whatsoever

If you watched the game and seriously think Clancy did a good job and you need to go find an "expert" to explain it to you then you maybe need to brush up on your knowledge of the laws.

I'm actually stunned that you can't see the issues for yourselves.

I often underestimate the power of denial.

What did you think of Farrell's try GE?

Clancy referred it for a 2nd opinion.... and the TMO agreed with him. Thats after both had multiple views on the large screen. Can't have better then that. May not agree with it but these chaps know the law and both came up with the same opinion.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Likewise your defense of him is that England won and you don't want anything to detract from that, not that you actually approve of his performance. If the calls were reversed you'd be whining like babies.....

But as it happens.. it seems you are.

Ok, there is no denying it ... England won.

GloriousEmpire wrote:If you watched the game and seriously think Clancy did a good job and you need to go find an "expert" to explain it to you then you maybe need to brush up on your knowledge of the laws.

I'm actually stunned that you can't see the issues for yourselves.

I often underestimate the power of denial.

Clancy is not responsible for line calls so the Brown in touch wasnt his call to make.

The "obstruction" was marginal and most refs would have agreed with him as do most observers of the game.

His only real mistake was some knock ons which happens in a lot of games.

He was nowhere near as bad as you are making out.

"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

I think GE's whinging has achieved the impossible - virtual unanimity amongst everyone else on the board over the following:

1 - Clancy may not be the best referee, but this game was far from his worst.

2 - Brown's foot on the line should have been called by the touch judge. Clancy could not have seen it from the 40m away that he was.

3 - He was right to refer the Farrell try, and also both he and the 4th official were right that any obstruction Hartley may have caused was not significant in the scoring of the try and therefore not penalisable.

There were three officials on the field and a fourth on camera. Given the penalty was kicked for the corner how is that none of them were in the right position?

I've had my say. I think it was probably the worst display if refereeing this year. This opinion is widely held across other forums, and media publications, the Australian coaching staff and players.

There is nothing more to say because your denial precludes you from accepting reality.

Why don't you just get on with rewriting history about how great England were/are and I'll be here to say I told you so later.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

Was he out of position. He was on the 22. Toouma was inside his own half.... anything beyond the 22 was pushing it for a kicker. He was in the right position. He made a difficult call and got it wrong... only verified by numerous replys.

If referees were to refer every marginal decision then we would have 5hr matches. You have to go with them and say, they will get say 95% of their decisions right. Its the referees job not only to officiate but to keep the play going and for the match to be entertaining. Asking them to get everything right is simply unrealistic.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

GE - what was Clancy supposed to check, the touch judge didn't call for the infringement so no help there and during the game none of the Austrailan players seemed to call it from what I saw on the TV, so on what grounds would he go back to it, when in "real time" nothing was wrong with the catch ?

How far do you suggest the ref. goes back before a try is scored to see that there was no infringment in the build up?

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

Its up to the linesman to indicate that a check is required. Not Clancy.

It might be my opinion but I have actually seen enough tries where blockers, lazy runners and obstruction is used as part of rehearsed moves to know that allowing Farrell's opportunist try wasnt really out of the ordinary.

I've said I'm done. My opinion is well known and isn't going to change.

fa0019 wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

Was he out of position. He was on the 22. Toouma was inside his own half.... anything beyond the 22 was pushing it for a kicker. He was in the right position. He made a difficult call and got it wrong... only verified by numerous replys.

If referees were to refer every marginal decision then we would have 5hr matches. You have to go with them and say, they will get say 95% of their decisions right. Its the referees job not only to officiate but to keep the play going and for the match to be entertaining. Asking them to get everything right is simply unrealistic.

Spot on Faa. It was an honest mistake. If you look at the replays Browns feet barely touch he line. Id understand outrage if he had his whole foot in touch for example but it was hard for anyone to pick up in real time.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I've said I'm done. My opinion is well known and isn't going to change.

Your opinion is incorrect though as pointed out.

Nope.

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

GloriousEmpire wrote:There were three officials on the field and a fourth on camera. Given the penalty was kicked for the corner how is that none of them were in the right position?

I've had my say. I think it was probably the worst display if refereeing this year. This opinion is widely held across other forums, and media publications, the Australian coaching staff and players.

There is nothing more to say because your denial precludes you from accepting reality.

Why don't you just get on with rewriting history about how great England were/are and I'll be here to say I told you so later.

Well if you go on Australian forums what do you expect? Green and gold can be very funny, but even there some people acknowledge that Australia were pants, particularly at scrum time and at the breakdown.

More and more Of Clancy's, and line judge, and TMO's Blunders

There you go , a revised title for your OP

 

Go
Home
Or
Stop
Trolling

Clown Shoes Clancy is, and always will be, an incompetent idiot !

Clown Shoes Clancy is, and always will be, an incompetent idiot !

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

I'm a neutral so able to judge more objectively. I think your patriotism is getting the better of you.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

I'm a neutral so able to judge more objectively. I think your patriotism is getting the better of you.

.......... then you're not too neutral when Gatland chat crops up - are you GE? ...........

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

I'm a neutral so able to judge more objectively. I think your patriotism is getting the better of you.

I would agree on your neutrality if 90% of your posts aren't anti English/NH, how can you call yourself neutral when you constantly criticise everything English, that is the opposite of neutrality, it's a big fat chip on your shoulder, your name tells us everything we need to know, baby... brother... syndrome!

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

I'm a neutral so able to judge more objectively. I think your patriotism is getting the better of you.

Neutered maybe.

There is one overriding test to establish GE's real motives. Ie, would he be whinging and whining like a soft headed pig like he is if instead of an English foot in touch it was an Aus foot in touch? I think we could all safely bet the crown jewels that he wouldn't.  Clearly his spoilt brat attitude stems directly from his anti English mind set. There is no way he would have spent so much time and angst in support of England or denigrating an international referee. That says it all about the hypocrite I think.

Well on reflection I'm just wrong. I apologise and will attempt to display better behaviour and learn from my gracious and morally robust hosts here in England how to behave after a disappointing loss.

Or perhaps Erm, the welsh.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/9942210/Six-Nations-2013-JPR-Williams-accuses-England-of-sour-grapes-and-tells-them-to-accept-Wales-were-just-better.html

Errm. Still doesn't make you any less of a hypocrite does it? Or will you spend as much time and energy defending England when we are next on the wrong end of a refereeing decision? I'll look forward to that.

GloriousEmpire wrote:

GunsGerms wrote:

GloriousEmpire wrote:Nope.

Youre entitled to your opinion but could you not at least acknowledge it is completely innacurate?

I'm a neutral so able to judge more objectively. I think your patriotism is getting the better of you.

Patriotism? I was born in Australia so if anything I am being fair.

Re Clancy he is Irish so I take your point however, for the Brown incident it wasnt his fault/responsibility and the "obstruction" there are a mountain of examples on youtube of legitimate tries scored in this manner. Therefore, to conclude he didnt do a awful lot wrong excluding the knockons which I accept were sloppy reffing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:"Most refs" - that's subjective and your opinion.

If the linesman was out of position then Clancy should've called for a check.

If you actually look at the video you will see the linesman was in a perfect position.

HE simply made a mistake

Has GE  been banned or has he just got his knickers in a twist?

Scrumpy wrote:Has GE  been banned or has he just got his knickers in a twist?

When he suddenly realises he was wrong all along he tends to just disappear like a forum phantom.

 GE is a legend in his own mind.
He is never wrong.. but he does run off and get himself a bit isolated then sometimes pinged for not releasing.

That's not true and unfair.

When I'm proven wrong I admit it gracefully and move on.

Like when I said Australia would beat South Africa

GloriousEmpire wrote:That's not true and unfair.

When I'm proven wrong I admit it gracefully and move on.

Like when I said Australia would beat South Africa

What about when it was proven to you that France dont have a history of intentionally trying to permenently injuring players?

I disagree. That wasn't proven.

 

GE so when you said previously "It's interesting how some posters believe it is valid to criticise a referee when the outcome doesn't suit them …" were you talking about yourself or are you now just being hypocritical?

Pssst Guys, GE seems to have taken a very rare break from this forum. Lets all hide so the place looks empty when he comes back later     

GloriousEmpire wrote:I disagree. That wasn't proven.

So are you saying that

a. They are just really bad at intentionally injuring people - Cant think of one player that has been perminently injured v France.

or

b. The fact that they have had 0 red cards in 13 years means nothing? If you approach every match with the intention of perminently injuring players surely you would receive red cards every match.

Did you know that no French player has ever got a ban for eye gouging in an International match?

What I am surprised from that cards table earlier on is how many the Wallabies got. I always think we're the nicest bunch of blokes that would never do any dirty plays, well now that Harrison and McRae (never a Wallaby) are out the picture!!