Pro12 bosses must act NOW to solve major refereeing issues that are undermining its credibility

by LordDowlais Wed Mar 02 2016, 15:56

First topic message reminder :

Right, now I know people on here do not like WOL, but this article is so accurate and spot on, I do not know how people can argue with it. Also this paragraph is right:-

On Saturday night in Galway, all four officials for the Connacht-Ospreys game were Irish, so when a crucial decision goes the way of the home team it’s hardly surprising some people will point to the nationality issue.

I have been called tin hatted and a wum for even mentioning such a thing in the past, but how can we have it that ALL the officials are from the same country as the team that is playing, then get a controversial decision like we had then not expect cries of bias ? I always thought that there was supposed to be a Welsh ref whilst IN ireland and an Irish ref when IN Wales, wh ywas this changed for this game ?

Please read, and give your views:-

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/pro12-bosses-must-act-now-10978612

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:12

LordDowlais wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:If you concentrated less on the great Irish conspiracy perhaps you'd see a little more of what really goes on and not just the evil leprechauns in your head.

I do not think that though.

I am just saying that there is far too much circumstantial evidence for it to be paranoia.

We keep arguing the toss about this week after week, season after season.

So, where's this very, very, long list of deliberate wrong calls (cheating) by Irish refs?

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:15

marty2086 wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:Firstly, to say that the Davies try was a completed tackle is just plain wrong. It was a push if anything with not much contact, I'd suggest that statistically, a tackle like that would be chalked up as an unsuccessful one.

'A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.'

Davies was simply not held.

Can you define held? I think this is where the problem arises, Marmion had a handful of shirt when Davies knee went to ground, hes obviously not being held down but has got a hold of him

Well, held is simply not hands on as Marmion's were. I guess it needs to be though of as a completed tackle.
The issue, as with most refereeing decisions, is interpretation. However, to say that this was a tackle, particularly with the TMO, is unbelievable.

The real issue of this thread, as I hoped would be when I opened it, was that something needs to be done to improve the level of officiating in the competition. I'm not sure there's been a suggestion yet.

Are the Pro12 officials full time?

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:20

MonkeyOwain12 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:Firstly, to say that the Davies try was a completed tackle is just plain wrong. It was a push if anything with not much contact, I'd suggest that statistically, a tackle like that would be chalked up as an unsuccessful one.

'A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.'

Davies was simply not held.

Can you define held? I think this is where the problem arises, Marmion had a handful of shirt when Davies knee went to ground, hes obviously not being held down but has got a hold of him

Well, held is simply not hands on as Marmion's were. I guess it needs to be though of as a completed tackle.
The issue, as with most refereeing decisions, is interpretation. However, to say that this was a tackle, particularly with the TMO, is unbelievable.

The real issue of this thread, as I hoped would be when I opened it, was that something needs to be done to improve the level of officiating in the competition. I'm not sure there's been a suggestion yet.

Are the Pro12 officials full time?

I think it was a tackle, and that Davies was held. Davies was brought to ground. For me, that has to be a tackle. He wasn't pushed. Davies was pulled down by his shirt. He was held just long enough as he was still held when he went to ground.

It was a harsh call though, but technically right.

by marty2086 Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:22

MonkeyOwain12 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:Firstly, to say that the Davies try was a completed tackle is just plain wrong. It was a push if anything with not much contact, I'd suggest that statistically, a tackle like that would be chalked up as an unsuccessful one.

'A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.'

Davies was simply not held.

Can you define held? I think this is where the problem arises, Marmion had a handful of shirt when Davies knee went to ground, hes obviously not being held down but has got a hold of him

Well, held is simply not hands on as Marmion's were. I guess it needs to be though of as a completed tackle.
The issue, as with most refereeing decisions, is interpretation. However, to say that this was a tackle, particularly with the TMO, is unbelievable.

The real issue of this thread, as I hoped would be when I opened it, was that something needs to be done to improve the level of officiating in the competition. I'm not sure there's been a suggestion yet.

Are the Pro12 officials full time?

Like you said its interpretation, Clancy and the TMO deemed it as held, like a said earlier slow motion replays don't help as it looks a lot more pronounced at it actually was but it does tick the boxes of the definitions for a completed tackle according to the laws as his knee went to ground and Marmion had hold. It may not be within the spirit of the game though

The issue of officials in the Pro 12 has been debated to death on here and a few posters always come back on it being the fault of the Irish whereas its a problem of poor officials who maybe aren't working at this level regularly enough though it is a problem across all leagues with poor officials visible in all top competitions

by geoff999rugby Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:24

Being tackled is being held, at the time of the tackle - any other interpretation is made up by commentators and fans.

Remember this law

When a player tackles an opponent and they both go to ground, the tackler must immediately release the tackled player.

If the Connacht guy had held onto Davies he would have been guilty of the above - damned if you do damned if you don't

The issue here is inconsistency of referees.
Clancy applied the letter of the law most of the time referees dont

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:25

Munchkin wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:Firstly, to say that the Davies try was a completed tackle is just plain wrong. It was a push if anything with not much contact, I'd suggest that statistically, a tackle like that would be chalked up as an unsuccessful one.

'A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.'

Davies was simply not held.

Can you define held? I think this is where the problem arises, Marmion had a handful of shirt when Davies knee went to ground, hes obviously not being held down but has got a hold of him

Well, held is simply not hands on as Marmion's were. I guess it needs to be though of as a completed tackle.
The issue, as with most refereeing decisions, is interpretation. However, to say that this was a tackle, particularly with the TMO, is unbelievable.

The real issue of this thread, as I hoped would be when I opened it, was that something needs to be done to improve the level of officiating in the competition. I'm not sure there's been a suggestion yet.

Are the Pro12 officials full time?

I think it was a tackle, and that Davies was held. Davies was brought to ground. For me, that has to be a tackle. He wasn't pushed. Davies was pulled down by his shirt. He was held just long enough as he was still held when he went to ground.

It was a harsh call though, but technically right.

There is no way that he can be 'held' in this. Even in technicality. This is another example, in my opinion, of officials having absolutely no empathy for the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsS8jK3bKUU

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:34

MonkeyOwain12 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
MonkeyOwain12 wrote:Firstly, to say that the Davies try was a completed tackle is just plain wrong. It was a push if anything with not much contact, I'd suggest that statistically, a tackle like that would be chalked up as an unsuccessful one.

'A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground. A ball carrier who is not held is not a tackled player and a tackle has not taken place.'

Davies was simply not held.

Can you define held? I think this is where the problem arises, Marmion had a handful of shirt when Davies knee went to ground, hes obviously not being held down but has got a hold of him

Well, held is simply not hands on as Marmion's were. I guess it needs to be though of as a completed tackle.
The issue, as with most refereeing decisions, is interpretation. However, to say that this was a tackle, particularly with the TMO, is unbelievable.

The real issue of this thread, as I hoped would be when I opened it, was that something needs to be done to improve the level of officiating in the competition. I'm not sure there's been a suggestion yet.

Are the Pro12 officials full time?

I think it was a tackle, and that Davies was held. Davies was brought to ground. For me, that has to be a tackle. He wasn't pushed. Davies was pulled down by his shirt. He was held just long enough as he was still held when he went to ground.

It was a harsh call though, but technically right.

There is no way that he can be 'held' in this. Even in technicality. This is another example, in my opinion, of officials having absolutely no empathy for the game.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsS8jK3bKUU

Technically, I can't see how it can be interpreted as anything other than 'held'. I agree with you on lack of empathy, but a 'lack of empathy' suggests officials sticking to the letter of the law. I'm not sure I can blame the officials for this lack of empathy though, even if Clancy does have form in this regard, because it went to TMO, and the TMO has to apply the letter of the law. For me, the question is why did it go to TMO?

by True Raven Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:42

How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

by mikey_dragon Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:48

True Raven wrote:How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

Ah so that's who Tandy is referring to then.

by Sin é Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:50

True Raven wrote:How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

Is there a link to what Jutge said about the try?

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:54

Agreed, that is another question entirely.
I think that says it all about Clancy as a ref and even the refereeing in the league as a whole,

Unfortunately, I think that this competition has a real chance of being a great one, but most of the officiating is spoiling what chance there is of a spectacle in matches. It's a fundamental issue with the league.

I also think that it's time to let the Italian teams go, I don't see what they offer at the moment. But that's another subject for anther time.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:55

True Raven wrote:How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

No offence taken, Raven. I agree with you that I would rather trust a Match official than a fan, but there were two other match officials who disagreed with Jutge. None of these helped me in my conclusion though. Rugby law, and the guidelines did.

by mikey_dragon Thu Mar 03 2016, 12:58

Munchkin wrote:
True Raven wrote:How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

No offence taken, Raven. I agree with you that I would rather trust a Match official than a fan, but there were two other match officials who disagreed with Jutge. None of these helped me in my conclusion though. Rugby law, and the guidelines did.

The laws don't really back up something this subjective, when you have those saying it was a tackle and others saying it wasn't. Personally I thought it was a bit of a push or tap tackle - either way he wasn't really held.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:04

mikey_dragon wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
True Raven wrote:How could it have applied to the letter of the law when World Rugby High Performance Match Officials Manager Joël Jutge thinks he wasn't held and a try should have been allowed. I'd rather trust Joel than rugby fans personally, no offence meant

No offence taken, Raven. I agree with you that I would rather trust a Match official than a fan, but there were two other match officials who disagreed with Jutge. None of these helped me in my conclusion though. Rugby law, and the guidelines did.

The laws don't really back up something this subjective, when you have those saying it was a tackle and others saying it wasn't. Personally I thought it was a bit of a push or tap tackle - either way he wasn't really held.

The law fully supports the decision of the two officials, Clancy and the TMO. It isn't subjective that Davies was brought to ground by a player holding him. It was neither a tap tackle or a push. Both of these suggest a strike, rather than an actual hold, which simply isn't true. The tackled player was brought to ground while the tackler still had hold of him, and so the tackled player had to release the ball.

by mikey_dragon Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:08

If he wasn't held in the tackle then the law does not. Another higher official also doesn't support their decision, apparently. You see where I'm coming from?

by Pete330v2 Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:09

Does the defender only have to be in contact with the attacking player when he goes down on the knee or does he actually have to be holding him. In this case the defender was in contact but only barely and never really has Davies held at any point.

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:11

That's exactly where we disagree. Marmion did not hold the player in tackle, therefore, no tackle.
I feel that it's pretty clear that Marmion is in absolutely no control of the 'tackle' and certainly is not holding the player when he goes to ground.

The thing is, we could talk about one incident for years and still disagree.
The issue of officiating in the league doesn't come down to that one decision, it comes down to a whole lot of decisions and a whole lot refereeing that's awful for the spectacle of the game.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:13

mikey_dragon wrote:If he wasn't held in the tackle then the law does not. Another higher official also doesn't support their decision, apparently. You see where I'm coming from?

I do, mikey. I actually think the try should have been given, but that's because I favour the spirit of the law, over the letter of the law. Davies was technically held in the tackle, and the reason I say this is because he was still held when his knees touched the ground.

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:23

He wasn't 'held' at all. Not at all.
Having not seen the Clancy/TMO exchange, I can't comment on what they spoke about.
The only way that I can see them coming to that decision is if they went frame by frame where it appears as though Davies could've been held.

Was that the case? If so, it lacks a load of common sense in my opinion.

by marty2086 Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:24

MonkeyOwain12 wrote:That's exactly where we disagree. Marmion did not hold the player in tackle, therefore, no tackle.
I feel that it's pretty clear that Marmion is in absolutely no control of the 'tackle' and certainly is not holding the player when he goes to ground.

The thing is, we could talk about one incident for years and still disagree.
The issue of officiating in the league doesn't come down to that one decision, it comes down to a whole lot of decisions and a whole lot refereeing that's awful for the spectacle of the game.

Who said there had to be any control in the tackle? You adding new definitions to suit your interpretation now and while he is not holding Davies body he is holding his shirt and that's deemed part of the player

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:29

MonkeyOwain12 wrote:He wasn't 'held' at all. Not at all.
Having not seen the Clancy/TMO exchange, I can't comment on what they spoke about.
The only way that I can see them coming to that decision is if they went frame by frame where it appears as though Davies could've been held.

Was that the case? If so, it lacks a load of common sense in my opinion.

Common sense is often a casualty in the application of the law. You've heard of criminals getting off on a technicality?

by MonkeyOwain12 Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:31

As soon as I pressed send I knew someone would pipe up and say that I'm changing things to suit my argument. Trust me, that's not me.

Just a choice of words, nothing more. In my view, it simply isn't a tackle, from what I've seen, Marmion doesn't even have his shirt, he merely has hands on, causes Davies to lose his balance and for the want of a better term, fell on him a bit. No way a tackle.

Again, this is my opinion, opinion's differ.
Again, I don't see this one decision as the major bearing of the game, nor the major bearing of the refereeing in the competition. That is where I have my issues.

Common Sense and Empathy of the game. Yes, both lost in law at times. Shame really.

by Blueschief Thu Mar 03 2016, 13:34

This is a problem, not just in the Pro 12, are there any Refereeing academies anywhere? If not should World Rugby set up a few? At least that way we could also get some consistency with refs all singing from the same hymn sheet. I doubt there is any truth in the allegations of bias.

by Mad for Chelsea Thu Mar 03 2016, 14:42

the law has been quoted as

A tackle occurs when the ball carrier is held by one or more opponents and is brought to ground.

15.3 Brought to the ground defined
(a)
If the ball carrier has one knee or both knees on the ground, that player has been ‘brought to ground’.

I haven't seen a super slo-mo replay of the incident in question, but it seems that Marmion was still in contact with Davies when he was brought to ground. The question then becomes whether that contact should be described as "held" or not. Clancy and the TMO felt that it should be, Jutdge that it shouldn't.

My gut feeling is that the tackle law indicating the tackled player must release once he is tackled is there to prevent a tackled player being tackled, then picking himself back up and carrying on because the tackler has had to release him. The spirit of the law is not intended to stop cases such as this one IMO, and with that in mind I think the try should have been awarded, since you can make the argument that Marmion is not holding Davies as he hits the floor (more of a push/flop). However, it's not clear-cut at all.

I also think when refs should "not held!" they're actually saying "the player was not held when he hit the floor, therefore it is not a tackle, so he has a right to continue" which is obviously too long to say in a short time Wink

so they're technically correct to shout it?

by PhilBB Thu Mar 03 2016, 15:40

If it was a tackle, which it wasn't, it would be easy to point to precedent for it.

Whilst anybody is trying to do that, please have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdZcer8x2g&feature=youtu.be&t=4080

At 68 minutes.

Clancy allowed that try in January of this year.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 15:59

PhilBB wrote:If it was a tackle, which it wasn't, it would be easy to point to precedent for it.

Whilst anybody is trying to do that, please have a look at this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrdZcer8x2g&feature=youtu.be&t=4080

At 68 minutes.

Clancy allowed that try in January of this year.

It was a tackle. He was brought to ground with the attacking player holding him.

Looked at your clip. What point are you trying to make?

by PhilBB Thu Mar 03 2016, 16:38

Munchkin wrote:

It was a tackle. He was brought to ground with the attacking player holding him.

Looked at your clip. What point are you trying to make?

It wasn't a tackle as he wasn't held. That's blindingly obvious, as is the fact that it wasn't a tackle as nobody can point to a precedent of such an event ever being considered a tackle before. To compound that, Jutge has confirmed it wasn't a tackle.

The link shows Clancy awarding a try for what he penalised Davies for doing.

Again, that's blindingly obvious. Therefore, the link shows Clancy's glaring inconsistency.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 16:46

PhilBB wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

It was a tackle. He was brought to ground with the attacking player holding him.

Looked at your clip. What point are you trying to make?

It wasn't a tackle as he wasn't held. That's blindingly obvious, as is the fact that it wasn't a tackle as nobody can point to a precedent of such an event ever being considered a tackle before. To compound that, Jutge has confirmed it wasn't a tackle.

The link shows Clancy awarding a try for what he penalised Davies for doing.

Again, that's blindingly obvious. Therefore, the link shows Clancy's glaring inconsistency.

The only thing blindingly obvious is your own bias, and misguided agenda.

Explain to me what it is, in detail, that the link shows? Thanks.

by PhilBB Thu Mar 03 2016, 16:55

Munchkin wrote:

The only thing blindingly obvious is your own bias, and misguided agenda.

Explain to me what it is, in detail, that the link shows? Thanks.

Hang on, you think that pointing out that Davies should have been awarded a try is 'bias and misguided agenda'?

If so, explain two things:

1. Why does Jutge agree with me?
2. Where's the precedent for that kind of 'tackle' ever resulting in the ball carrier being penalise?

The link shows in detail that Clancy awarded a try for something 'far worse' than he penalised Davies for.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 17:07

PhilBB wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

The only thing blindingly obvious is your own bias, and misguided agenda.

Explain to me what it is, in detail, that the link shows? Thanks.

Hang on, you think that pointing out that Davies should have been awarded a try is 'bias and misguided agenda'?

If so, explain two things:

1. Why does Jutge agree with me?
2. Where's the precedent for that kind of 'tackle' ever resulting in the ball carrier being penalise?

The link shows in detail that Clancy awarded a try for something 'far worse' than he penalised Davies for.

No, not at all. I think reasonable can conclude that Davies should have been awarded the try, including myself. My point being that because of your bias, and because of your misguided agenda, being reasonable is close to impossible with you. You only see one side of any argument.

Jutge doesn't agree with you. You agree with Jutge. There are two officials, on the day, that wouldn't agree with Jutge' take on things.

It doesn't matter what type of tackle it was. What matters is that it was a tackle. Davies should have released the ball. There's plenty of precedent for that, and I'm not about to trawl for similar examples, which I suspect are few anyway.

You still haven't given me the detail of this 'far worse'. Tell me exactly what it is that you see?

by PhilBB Thu Mar 03 2016, 17:10

Munchkin wrote:
No, not at all. I think reasonable can conclude that Davies should have been awarded the try, including myself. My point being that because of your bias, and because of your misguided agenda, being reasonable is close to impossible with you. You only see one side of any argument.

Judge doesn't agree with you. You agree with Judge. There are two officials, on the day, that wouldn't agree with Jutge' take on things.

It doesn't matter what type of tackle it was. What matters is that it was a tackle, Davies should have released the ball. There's plenty of precedent for that, and I'm not about to trawl for similar examples, which I suspect are few anyway.

You still haven't given me the detail of this 'far worse'. Tell me exactly what it is that you see?

There is only one side to this argument: that Clancy and Quinn got it horribly wrong.

The second paragraph about Jutge is hilarious, mind you. The bitterness of tone is delightful.

Davies wasn't tackled as he wasn't held. Well, according to Jutge anyway and what would he know?

As for the link, it shows a properly held player scoring a try. A try that Clancy awarded. A try where the tackle 'hold' was significantly greater than Davies received (because Davies wasn't held).

There it is for you, in Mickey Mouse speak.

by Guest Thu Mar 03 2016, 17:16

PhilBB wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
No, not at all. I think reasonable can conclude that Davies should have been awarded the try, including myself. My point being that because of your bias, and because of your misguided agenda, being reasonable is close to impossible with you. You only see one side of any argument.

Judge doesn't agree with you. You agree with Judge. There are two officials, on the day, that wouldn't agree with Jutge' take on things.

It doesn't matter what type of tackle it was. What matters is that it was a tackle, Davies should have released the ball. There's plenty of precedent for that, and I'm not about to trawl for similar examples, which I suspect are few anyway.

You still haven't given me the detail of this 'far worse'. Tell me exactly what it is that you see?

There is only one side to this argument: that Clancy and Quinn got it horribly wrong.

The second paragraph about Jutge is hilarious, mind you. The bitterness of tone is delightful.

Davies wasn't tackled as he wasn't held. Well, according to Jutge anyway and what would he know?

As for the link, it shows a properly held player scoring a try. A try that Clancy awarded. A try where the tackle 'hold' was significantly greater than Davies received (because Davies wasn't held).

There it is for you, in Mickey Mouse speak.

There's honestly no bitterness with me, Phil. I would happily sit and have a chat with you, over a cup of coffee.

As for Jutge? That would need to be supported by Rugby Union law. It isn't. That's a fact. What is also a fact is that Davies was held by the shirt, and held until after his knees touched the ground. Although I think the try should have been given (spirit of the game), I do fully agree that technically the TMO was right in that Davies should have released the ball (letter of the law).

The try in the link was technically fine. The reason being the tackled player is allowed to place the ball towards the try line, when the try line is within reach.

by exile jack Thu Mar 03 2016, 20:32

marty2086 wrote:
exile jack wrote:Just to clarify,i can understand fully the lack of disappointment from the Connacht supporters over the disallowed try given some of the decisions that have gone against them in the past,but most thought it a try.Like the happy feet incident at Twickers it's a question of interpretation.The O's didn't lose the game because of the disallowed try,but because of several other reasons that that our coaching staff acknowledge.The issue I have with Clancy is that his career is becoming dominated by controversies.Leaving aside the Yachvili incident in 2010 which cost us a Heineken Cup Final place,supporters of Ulster,Scotland(where his decisions benefitted Wales),and South Africa have all had reasons to criticise his refereeing decisions.As an elite level referee you'd hope World Rugby and the Pro 12 would be having the appropriate words behind closed doors.I suppose the question is how many controversies make a demotion? I don't suppose GC will ever self-acknowledge he made a mistake as that Bryce Lawrence did after that SA v AUS game.

As an Ulster fan I know we have been frustrated by Clancy and Lacey more than a few times and the same with Nigel Davies but there are times where hes been generous too

Those claiming the AP and Top 14 have better standards are kidding themselves, Barnes isn't the great ref, his pernickety nature wouldn't be so bad if he was right more often especially at the breakdown and scrums

Poite and Garces are the best the French have to offer and they can be shocking

Super Rugby are even worse and have some refs that make the Pro 12 look world class, Glen Jackson in the Ireland Wales game I thought was the best Id seen this season and hes had some howlers in the past

Marty,i left the game on Saturday frustrated by the O's not by GC.He's an elite level referee and those ref-cams give us a view of the challenging environment these guys operate in.I can also see the players and coaches view that they have to work out the 'styles' these referees bring to the game(s).What is troubling me is the gap between the elite referees and the rest but also the self-evident facts that the majority of touch judges and TMO's aren't elite and show no sign of getting there.Your point about refereeing elsewhere is a good one.As the O's Tandy put it the Pro12 is a product and the officials are a key part of it.

by **profitius** Fri Mar 04 2016, 01:00

Englan v Ireland last friday night. England score what seems to be a good try but was rules out by the FRENCH officials for the same reason as Clancy ruled out Ospreys' try.

https://youtu.be/f5PWWso_ou0?t=1h13m56s

by ScarletSpiderman Fri Mar 04 2016, 07:14

profitius wrote:Englan v Ireland last friday night. England score what seems to be a good try but was rules out by the FRENCH officials for the same reason as Clancy ruled out Ospreys' try.

https://youtu.be/f5PWWso_ou0?t=1h13m56s

I'd saw held the first time, but no arms tackle in the second one.

by marty2086 Fri Mar 04 2016, 10:54

exile jack wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
exile jack wrote:Just to clarify,i can understand fully the lack of disappointment from the Connacht supporters over the disallowed try given some of the decisions that have gone against them in the past,but most thought it a try.Like the happy feet incident at Twickers it's a question of interpretation.The O's didn't lose the game because of the disallowed try,but because of several other reasons that that our coaching staff acknowledge.The issue I have with Clancy is that his career is becoming dominated by controversies.Leaving aside the Yachvili incident in 2010 which cost us a Heineken Cup Final place,supporters of Ulster,Scotland(where his decisions benefitted Wales),and South Africa have all had reasons to criticise his refereeing decisions.As an elite level referee you'd hope World Rugby and the Pro 12 would be having the appropriate words behind closed doors.I suppose the question is how many controversies make a demotion? I don't suppose GC will ever self-acknowledge he made a mistake as that Bryce Lawrence did after that SA v AUS game.

As an Ulster fan I know we have been frustrated by Clancy and Lacey more than a few times and the same with Nigel Davies but there are times where hes been generous too

Those claiming the AP and Top 14 have better standards are kidding themselves, Barnes isn't the great ref, his pernickety nature wouldn't be so bad if he was right more often especially at the breakdown and scrums

Poite and Garces are the best the French have to offer and they can be shocking

Super Rugby are even worse and have some refs that make the Pro 12 look world class, Glen Jackson in the Ireland Wales game I thought was the best Id seen this season and hes had some howlers in the past

Marty,i left the game on Saturday frustrated by the O's not by GC.He's an elite level referee and those ref-cams give us a view of the challenging environment these guys operate in.I can also see the players and coaches view that they have to work out the 'styles' these referees bring to the game(s).What is troubling me is the gap between the elite referees and the rest but also the self-evident facts that the majority of touch judges and TMO's aren't elite and show no sign of getting there.Your point about refereeing elsewhere is a good one.As the O's Tandy put it the Pro12 is a product and the officials are a key part of it.

Lets not forget that the guy some posters on here laud as the best, Wayne Barnes, sent off Dylan Hartley in the AP Final because he said he called him a cheat and while I am far from a fan of Hartleys he was in position to scrum and Barnes claims it was directed at him, unless he said his name or was looking him in the eye he couldn't be sure it was directed at him its a big leap to take never mind in such a big game.

I believe Phil was asking for incidents similar to the Davies/Marmion one, wasn't Parisse penalised against England for something similar? I tried to find the video of it but had no luck finding it to back me up

by exile jack Fri Mar 04 2016, 12:30

marty2086 wrote:
exile jack wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
exile jack wrote:Just to clarify,i can understand fully the lack of disappointment from the Connacht supporters over the disallowed try given some of the decisions that have gone against them in the past,but most thought it a try.Like the happy feet incident at Twickers it's a question of interpretation.The O's didn't lose the game because of the disallowed try,but because of several other reasons that that our coaching staff acknowledge.The issue I have with Clancy is that his career is becoming dominated by controversies.Leaving aside the Yachvili incident in 2010 which cost us a Heineken Cup Final place,supporters of Ulster,Scotland(where his decisions benefitted Wales),and South Africa have all had reasons to criticise his refereeing decisions.As an elite level referee you'd hope World Rugby and the Pro 12 would be having the appropriate words behind closed doors.I suppose the question is how many controversies make a demotion? I don't suppose GC will ever self-acknowledge he made a mistake as that Bryce Lawrence did after that SA v AUS game.

As an Ulster fan I know we have been frustrated by Clancy and Lacey more than a few times and the same with Nigel Davies but there are times where hes been generous too

Those claiming the AP and Top 14 have better standards are kidding themselves, Barnes isn't the great ref, his pernickety nature wouldn't be so bad if he was right more often especially at the breakdown and scrums

Poite and Garces are the best the French have to offer and they can be shocking

Super Rugby are even worse and have some refs that make the Pro 12 look world class, Glen Jackson in the Ireland Wales game I thought was the best Id seen this season and hes had some howlers in the past

Marty,i left the game on Saturday frustrated by the O's not by GC.He's an elite level referee and those ref-cams give us a view of the challenging environment these guys operate in.I can also see the players and coaches view that they have to work out the 'styles' these referees bring to the game(s).What is troubling me is the gap between the elite referees and the rest but also the self-evident facts that the majority of touch judges and TMO's aren't elite and show no sign of getting there.Your point about refereeing elsewhere is a good one.As the O's Tandy put it the Pro12 is a product and the officials are a key part of it.

Lets not forget that the guy some posters on here laud as the best, Wayne Barnes, sent off Dylan Hartley in the AP Final because he said he called him a cheat and while I am far from a fan of Hartleys he was in position to scrum and Barnes claims it was directed at him, unless he said his name or was looking him in the eye he couldn't be sure it was directed at him its a big leap to take never mind in such a big game.

I believe Phil was asking for incidents similar to the Davies/Marmion one, wasn't Parisse penalised against England for something similar? I tried to find the video of it but had no luck finding it to back me up

Marty,good luck with that.I punched in the phrase 'rugby refereeing controversies' into Google and realised that the O's disallowed try was the metaphorical pimple on an elephant's rear end.If you haven't seen it I recommend reading the Downfall of the Referee article on the lastwordonsports.com website in Oct.2015.

by PhilBB Fri Mar 04 2016, 13:27

Munchkin wrote:

There's honestly no bitterness with me, Phil. I would happily sit and have a chat with you, over a cup of coffee.

As for Jutge? That would need to be supported by Rugby Union law. It isn't. That's a fact. What is also a fact is that Davies was held by the shirt, and held until after his knees touched the ground. Although I think the try should have been given (spirit of the game), I do fully agree that technically the TMO was right in that Davies should have released the ball (letter of the law).

The try in the link was technically fine. The reason being the tackled player is allowed to place the ball towards the try line, when the try line is within reach.

No law is applied 'to the letter of the law' in rugby. There is no definition for 'held' in the law, either.

Jutge is the guy who decides the laws of the game. That's the actual laws, not the semantic discussion over how the laws are written. He decides how they are put into practice. And practice is precedent. And there is no precedent for the Davies decision.

So that's why the try should have been awarded.

by marty2086 Fri Mar 04 2016, 13:44

PhilBB wrote:
No law is applied 'to the letter of the law' in rugby. There is no definition for 'held' in the law, either.

Jutge is the guy who decides the laws of the game. That's the actual laws, not the semantic discussion over how the laws are written. He decides how they are put into practice. And practice is precedent. And there is no precedent for the Davies decision.

So that's why the try should have been awarded.

Plenty of the laws are or have random numbers being arbitrarily added to scoreboards and I haven't noticed?

Also Jutge doesn't decide the laws of the games its done by the Executive Committee usually after consultation by different groups inside the organisation. Jutge is in charge of officials for World Rugby, doing what Ed Morrison does for the Pro 12, you think you wouldn't be so ignorant of these facts before commenting warning

Just because there isn't precedent doesn't mean it should be awarded because in that case it also shouldn't have been awarded because there isn't precedent

by Guest Fri Mar 04 2016, 13:50

PhilBB wrote:
Munchkin wrote:

There's honestly no bitterness with me, Phil. I would happily sit and have a chat with you, over a cup of coffee.

As for Jutge? That would need to be supported by Rugby Union law. It isn't. That's a fact. What is also a fact is that Davies was held by the shirt, and held until after his knees touched the ground. Although I think the try should have been given (spirit of the game), I do fully agree that technically the TMO was right in that Davies should have released the ball (letter of the law).

The try in the link was technically fine. The reason being the tackled player is allowed to place the ball towards the try line, when the try line is within reach.

No law is applied 'to the letter of the law' in rugby. There is no definition for 'held' in the law, either.

Jutge is the guy who decides the laws of the game. That's the actual laws, not the semantic discussion over how the laws are written. He decides how they are put into practice. And practice is precedent. And there is no precedent for the Davies decision.

So that's why the try should have been awarded.

"No law is applied 'to the letter of the law' in rugby"

Nonsense.....

Jutge doesn't decide the laws of the game, and certainly not in this instance, however, you are correct in that Jutge is an official who, when called upon, may decide how those laws are put into practice. Not for this game, that was the duty of the appointed officials at the game - the ref and the TMO.

This isn't a discussion on semantics. This is a discussion on actual law, and how that law was implemented. It is you, and a few others, who are arguing the semantics of the word, 'held', not those taking the the law as read. In any case, by any definition of the word 'held', Davies was held.

As for precedence. I'm pretty sure there is precedence, but not something I would trawl the net in search of, because they would be few.
It wasn't that long ago that Garces red carded the Ulster player, Payne, in a very important game, and there didn't appear to be precedence for it, however, it was generally accepted and, reluctantly, by me, that technically speaking, Garces acted within the laws of the game. He acted according to the letter of the law, if not the spirit. I still think Garces was wrong, but I can't argue that it wasn't according to the letter of the law.

Finally, if practice is precedent, then the ref and the TMO set the precedent, according to your own logic. Just as Garces, and the TMO, did in the Ulster v Sarries game....

by marty2086 Fri Mar 04 2016, 14:06

Munchkin wrote:As for precedence. I'm pretty sure there is precedence, but not something I would trawl the net in search of, because they would be few.
It wasn't that long ago that Garces red carded the Ulster player, Payne, in a very important game, and there didn't appear to be precedence for it, however, it was generally accepted and, reluctantly, by me, that technically speaking, Garces acted within the laws of the game. He acted according to the letter of the law, if not the spirit. I still think Garces was wrong, but I can't argue that it wasn't according to the letter of the law.

Finally, if practice is precedent, then the ref and the TMO set the precedent, according to your own logic.

Following that precedent and Garces was backed by World Rugby on his decision, he was faced with two similar decisions not long after and took a different course of action, so much precedent then

by Guest Fri Mar 04 2016, 14:18

marty2086 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:As for precedence. I'm pretty sure there is precedence, but not something I would trawl the net in search of, because they would be few.
It wasn't that long ago that Garces red carded the Ulster player, Payne, in a very important game, and there didn't appear to be precedence for it, however, it was generally accepted and, reluctantly, by me, that technically speaking, Garces acted within the laws of the game. He acted according to the letter of the law, if not the spirit. I still think Garces was wrong, but I can't argue that it wasn't according to the letter of the law.

Finally, if practice is precedent, then the ref and the TMO set the precedent, according to your own logic.

Following that precedent and Garces was backed by World Rugby on his decision, he was faced with two similar decisions not long after and took a different course of action, so much precedent then

Yes, and that made his ruling all the more farcical. A bit like the tough calls made in the run up to, and during, the world cup, which now seem to have relaxed now that the world cup is over.

by HammerofThunor Fri Mar 04 2016, 15:07

Unfortunately refs bottle it. They make decisions that are based on short term benefits rather than long term ones. How many times have we been told they're going to focus on the put in at scrums only for them to get bored after a few games (or minutes).

On topic, I find the idea there is any conscious bias in any pro ref towards their nation rather bemusing. More likely they'd be negative to a nation they don't like.

Where there might be legitimate issues is that the Irish teams will almost certainly have IRFU employed refs to come in to educate the players about the current interpretations of the laws, typically scrum and ruck. This means they will teach THEIR interpretations and the Irish teams will play in an manner the Irish refs find more acceptable. I know the English teams do it with the English refs. I expect the Welsh do it with the Welsh refs (pretty sure I've read about Owens going into one of the regions). Where there are differences between unions in terms of referee focus this can cause issues. Although there will be some issues when teams have different refs going in. It can also cause issues in Europe, where PRO12 refs are fine to referee teams they work with all year round. Same with the SH and internationals.

by Guest Fri Mar 04 2016, 15:13

HammerofThunor wrote:Unfortunately refs bottle it. They make decisions that are based on short term benefits rather than long term ones. How many times have we been told they're going to focus on the put in at scrums only for them to get bored after a few games (or minutes).

On topic, I find the idea there is any conscious bias in any pro ref towards their nation rather bemusing. More likely they'd be negative to a nation they don't like.

Where there might be legitimate issues is that the Irish teams will almost certainly have IRFU employed refs to come in to educate the players about the current interpretations of the laws, typically scrum and ruck. This means they will teach THEIR interpretations and the Irish teams will play in an manner the Irish refs find more acceptable. I know the English teams do it with the English refs. I expect the Welsh do it with the Welsh refs (pretty sure I've read about Owens going into one of the regions). Where there are differences between unions in terms of referee focus this can cause issues. Although there will be some issues when teams have different refs going in. It can also cause issues in Europe, where PRO12 refs are fine to referee teams they work with all year round. Same with the SH and internationals.

So the refs being employed by IRFU makes no difference.

Agree on the different interpretations though. If only World Rugby had a solution, or maybe get off their arse and actively seek one.

by **profitius** Fri Mar 04 2016, 16:05

PhilBB wrote:
No law is applied 'to the letter of the law' in rugby. There is no definition for 'held' in the law, either.

Jutge is the guy who decides the laws of the game. That's the actual laws, not the semantic discussion over how the laws are written. He decides how they are put into practice. And practice is precedent. And there is no precedent for the Davies decision.

So that's why the try should have been awarded.

So how come you're so sure the try should have stood?

by HammerofThunor Fri Mar 04 2016, 16:11

Munchkin wrote:So the refs being employed by IRFU makes no difference.

Agree on the different interpretations though. If only World Rugby had a solution, or maybe get off their arse and actively seek one.

Well, it makes a difference if a big chunk of the refs for the PRO12 go into the provinces to discuss ruck interpretations and they don't go into the Regions. Of course it makes just as much difference if a big chunk go into the regions and not the provinces. And also who's going to the Scottish teams? Really there needs to be a central PRO12 referee 'board' (or whatever) which co-ordinates the interpretation applied by the refs in it. This may well exist already, I know the discipline management was merged. I seem to remember reading something about the PRO12 head ref, etc.

You then can apply the same thing to Europe and then internationally.

by Guest Fri Mar 04 2016, 17:50

HammerofThunor wrote:
Munchkin wrote:So the refs being employed by IRFU makes no difference.

Agree on the different interpretations though. If only World Rugby had a solution, or maybe get off their arse and actively seek one.

Well, it makes a difference if a big chunk of the refs for the PRO12 go into the provinces to discuss ruck interpretations and they don't go into the Regions. Of course it makes just as much difference if a big chunk go into the regions and not the provinces. And also who's going to the Scottish teams? Really there needs to be a central PRO12 referee 'board' (or whatever) which co-ordinates the interpretation applied by the refs in it. This may well exist already, I know the discipline management was merged. I seem to remember reading something about the PRO12 head ref, etc.

You then can apply the same thing to Europe and then internationally.

Well the bit in bold was my point.

You're right, I believe, in that refs should come out of a central pot. That's something I would like to see happen, and something that has been discussed at length here, but no sign of it happening any time soon. Maybe cost prohibitive at the moment.

by marty2086 Fri Mar 04 2016, 19:48

Another example of an Irish ref favoring an Irish team, De Marchi two high tackles and no yellow for Zebre against Ulster, wait thats not right Headscratch

by neilthom7 Fri Mar 04 2016, 20:20

I do believe that the referees should be compeltely from different nations than the team playing if for no other reason than to stop claims of bias or other such things.
It is an entirely different story on how we achieve that as there aren't good enough refs in scotland and italy at the minute. I doubt Southern Hemisphere refs would fancy travelling up here every weekend to referee. French refs are very unpredictable and a lot of the time just rubish and the english premiership has never wanted to play ball with the pro 12 before so why would that change now.
Our only option left is to invest a lot of money in training officials to a high class level from Italy and Scotland and even then that would take years

by Guest Fri Mar 04 2016, 23:13

marty2086 wrote:Another example of an Irish ref favoring an Irish team, De Marchi two high tackles and no yellow for Zebre against Ulster, wait thats not right

And Williams disallowed try. Although he thought it was a try (no knock on), he went with the TMO. Sound familiar?

by Sponsored content