Aviva Premiership Round 20

First topic message reminder :

Table:

Pos	Team	__Pld__	__Won__	_Drawn_	_Lost_	__For__	_Against_	__TF__	__TA__	__TBP__	__LBP__	__Pts__
1	Saracens	19	17	0	2	535	284	56	30	8	0	76
2	Northampton Saints	19	14	1	4	475	297	55	25	5	3	66
3	Leicester Tigers	19	13	2	4	449	357	47	32	5	2	63
4	Bath Rugby	19	13	1	5	428	330	42	33	3	2	59
5	Harlequins	19	12	0	7	364	300	36	28	3	3	54
6	Sale Sharks	19	11	0	8	335	323	33	29	2	5	51
7	Exeter Chiefs	19	8	0	11	362	382	33	38	2	6	40
8	London Wasps	19	7	0	12	356	391	35	37	2	9	39
9	Gloucester Rugby	19	7	0	12	345	443	34	48	2	7	37
10	London Irish	19	6	0	13	323	402	30	37	1	6	31
11	Newcastle Falcons	19	3	0	16	212	454	15	51	1	6	19
12	Worcester Warriors	19	1	0	18	257	478	22	50	1	7	12

Fixtures:


Fri 18th Apr 14
19:45 Harlequins  v   Leicester Tigers BT Sport

Sat 19th Apr 14
15:00 Bath Rugby  v   Worcester Warriors
15:00        Exeter Chiefs  v   Sale Sharks
15:15        London Wasps  v   Gloucester Rugby BT Sport

Sun 20th Apr 14
14:00 Northampton Saints  v   London Irish BT Sport
15:00 Newcastle Falcons  v   Saracens

True you could have gone on to win if that decision had gone your way - for which Saints would have had to consider just how they let the game get away. Switching off like they did was criminal from a professional sports team. LI then capitalised well on that.

They thought it was home and hosed when they got the 4th try just after the break. To be fair I would have been happy with a 28-29 loss and both the try and losing bonus points. I think that may have been a reasonably fair reflection of the 80 minutes.

Anyway, it's all done and dusted now. We have nothing left ot play for really, and I am already looking forward to September and hopefully hitting the ground running this time.

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

lostinwales wrote:And do you have an as accurate estimation of the number of things LI got away with but should have been picked up on?

LI get away with all sorts, like not playing in London, or being Irish for starters.

I don't think their season has been marred by decisions that went against them, it's more to do with the fact that they're cack.

Thanks for the constructive feedback and bringing up the old London and Irish thing ... that's been done to death and I'm not sure of the relevance to whether things even out or not ...

Oh goodness, you are a bundle of fun aren't you?

Maybe things don't even themselves out, maybe they do (evidently not in the case of the so hard done by Oirish). I think my point was that we don't need the introduction of team challenges, there are enough stoppages in the game as it is. Go with the Ref's decision and if players are getting into positions whereby they can be awarded a try but not ground the ball, then, er, don't let them get into that position....

I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't advocating the idea of challenges?  What I'd like is more consistent and less sloppy refereeing.

And yes I'm full of fun thanks  :thumbsup:

Heaf wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

lostinwales wrote:And do you have an as accurate estimation of the number of things LI got away with but should have been picked up on?

LI get away with all sorts, like not playing in London, or being Irish for starters.

I don't think their season has been marred by decisions that went against them, it's more to do with the fact that they're cack.

Thanks for the constructive feedback and bringing up the old London and Irish thing ... that's been done to death and I'm not sure of the relevance to whether things even out or not ...

Oh goodness, you are a bundle of fun aren't you?

Maybe things don't even themselves out, maybe they do (evidently not in the case of the so hard done by Oirish). I think my point was that we don't need the introduction of team challenges, there are enough stoppages in the game as it is. Go with the Ref's decision and if players are getting into positions whereby they can be awarded a try but not ground the ball, then, er, don't let them get into that position....

I'm pretty sure I said I wasn't advocating the idea of challenges?  What I'd like is more consistent and less sloppy refereeing.

And yes I'm full of fun thanks  

Full of something...   

I don't think any refree or official is intentionally 'sloppy' and i'm pretty sure they try to be consistent.

Unless we develop an infalliable refereeing automaton and productionise it, refereeing will never be consistent, because human nature ensures variation in thought process. No amount of extra cameras, officials or team cjallenges will resolve the issue satisfactorily.

Suggest we all accept that we live in an imperfect world, and all the better it is for it too.

I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

Heaf wrote:I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

I don't see how it is. Surely, the TMO looked at the footage available and made what he thought was the correct decision? Or are you suggesting he gave it a half hearted glance and went, 'meh...whatever'?

We should only try to improve things (in sport) if to do so would a) definately improve things and b) do so in such a way that it would not impact on the sport (spectacle) as a whole. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

I don't see how it is. Surely, the TMO looked at the footage available and made what he thought was the correct decision? Or are you suggesting he gave it a half hearted glance and went, 'meh...whatever'?

We should only try to improve things (in sport) if to do so would a) definately improve things and b) do so in such a way that it would not impact on the sport (spectacle) as a whole. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Jimpy, the TMO was never called on to look at it. The ref awarded the try without referring it to the TMO, which suggests the referee was confident it was grounded. The replays showed that it was clearly held up. That is poor refereeing. He cannot have seen it being grounded, as it wasn't, and if he wasn't sure should have referred it. From memory, and I've not watched it again, he looked to be in a decent position to be able to see, so it's poor refereeing that he got it wrong.

What are anyones thoughts on teams having say a challenge like the do in cricket? I think i like the idea, it would certainly stop the players going up to the ref asking for something to be checked - which seems to be happening more and more

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

I don't see how it is. Surely, the TMO looked at the footage available and made what he thought was the correct decision? Or are you suggesting he gave it a half hearted glance and went, 'meh...whatever'?

We should only try to improve things (in sport) if to do so would a) definately improve things and b) do so in such a way that it would not impact on the sport (spectacle) as a whole. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Jimpy, the TMO was never called on to look at it.  The ref awarded the try without referring it to the TMO, which suggests the referee was confident it was grounded.  The replays showed that it was clearly held up.  That is poor refereeing.  He cannot have seen it being grounded, as it wasn't, and if he wasn't sure should have referred it.  From memory, and I've not watched it again, he looked to be in a decent position to be able to see, so it's poor refereeing that he got it wrong.

I had assmed the TMO was involved, even so, i'm quite sure the Ref would only have made a decision he thought correct. If he had any doubts he should have referred it to the TMO. Suggests he didn't have any. So not intentionally sloppy IMO.

nathan wrote:What are anyones thoughts on teams having say a challenge like the do in cricket? I think i like the idea, it would certainly stop the players going up to the ref asking for something to be checked - which seems to be happening more and more

The players would still have to ask for a review, so not sure what you mean.

Jimpy wrote:

nathan wrote:What are anyones thoughts on teams having say a challenge like the do in cricket? I think i like the idea, it would certainly stop the players going up to the ref asking for something to be checked - which seems to be happening more and more

The players would still have to ask for a review, so not sure what you mean.

The aim of it would reduce the amount of times they can ask, so they will get 1 or 2 challenges per game. You could even go as far as saying if players shout at the ref it could be counted as a challenge - that would stop the players from badgering the ref all the time.

Jimpy wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

I don't see how it is. Surely, the TMO looked at the footage available and made what he thought was the correct decision? Or are you suggesting he gave it a half hearted glance and went, 'meh...whatever'?

We should only try to improve things (in sport) if to do so would a) definately improve things and b) do so in such a way that it would not impact on the sport (spectacle) as a whole. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Jimpy, the TMO was never called on to look at it.  The ref awarded the try without referring it to the TMO, which suggests the referee was confident it was grounded.  The replays showed that it was clearly held up.  That is poor refereeing.  He cannot have seen it being grounded, as it wasn't, and if he wasn't sure should have referred it.  From memory, and I've not watched it again, he looked to be in a decent position to be able to see, so it's poor refereeing that he got it wrong.

I had assmed the TMO was involved, even so, i'm quite sure the Ref would only have made a decision he thought correct. If he had any doubts he should have referred it to the TMO. Suggests he didn't have any. So not intentionally sloppy IMO.

I agree he has made a decision that he thought was correct.  However it has been shown not to be, and it's not one of those marginal calls like you get at the breakdown, the ball is either grounded or it isn't, there isn't a blurred line.  He can't ave seen it being grounded, because it wasn't, so you have to question either his eyesight or the way he goes about making decisions.  I can only guess that he has decided that it looked as if it was probably grounded so has awarded the try.  That isn't really good enough at any level, let alone at the top domestic level of the sport.

Ozzy - was the replay from the same pov that the ref had? We've all seen examples of things that look very different from different angles.

There were a number of replays, and as I say I haven't re watched it, but from memory there is one where you see the refs shoulder in corner of the shot so he would have had a similar view to it, and that replay was one that was particularly clear that Lewingtons hand was underneath ball.

Jimpy wrote:

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Heaf wrote:I didn't say they were sloppy intentionally - but I still can't see how awarding a try that you haven't seen grounded when you have a TMO available is anything other than sloppy - intentional or not ...

And yes of course it's imperfect (and always will be) - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve things - does it?

I don't see how it is. Surely, the TMO looked at the footage available and made what he thought was the correct decision? Or are you suggesting he gave it a half hearted glance and went, 'meh...whatever'?

We should only try to improve things (in sport) if to do so would a) definately improve things and b) do so in such a way that it would not impact on the sport (spectacle) as a whole. Otherwise it's a waste of time.

Jimpy, the TMO was never called on to look at it.  The ref awarded the try without referring it to the TMO, which suggests the referee was confident it was grounded.  The replays showed that it was clearly held up.  That is poor refereeing.  He cannot have seen it being grounded, as it wasn't, and if he wasn't sure should have referred it.  From memory, and I've not watched it again, he looked to be in a decent position to be able to see, so it's poor refereeing that he got it wrong.

I had assmed the TMO was involved, even so, i'm quite sure the Ref would only have made a decision he thought correct. If he had any doubts he should have referred it to the TMO. Suggests he didn't have any. So not intentionally sloppy IMO.

As I said before I don't think he was intentionally sloppy - but he was sloppy ... a bit like when he gave a red card when he thought he'd seen a tip tackle that neither of the ARs had seen and that was proved to be wrong after the event (but too late to stop us narrowly losing the game after playing with 14 men for 70 odd minutes) ...