Dudley Phillips

First topic message reminder :

Dudley Phillips is employed by the IRFU as a "Participation Rugby Operations Officer". He used to be part of the Leinster Branch Rugby Referees: http://www.arlb.ie/?tag=dudley-philips

This weekend he is refereeing....... Leinster.

Now, I remember being told explicitly by Sin e that this kind of thing couldn't happen.

Dudley has never refereed Leinster before.

Munchkin wrote:
He was adjusting to make the reach, and then reached for the line immediately. He couldn't have reached any sooner. I didn't take note of the time, but couldn't have been more than a couple of seconds. How the player moves his body matters not a jot. You would be inventing laws to suit your argument if you claim it does. According to the Law of the game, the try was perfectly fine.

Probably a Twitter invaded by your lot from Gwlad.

Oh dear.

Fair enough. We'll notch this up as another thing we can't agree on.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
He was adjusting to make the reach, and then reached for the line immediately. He couldn't have reached any sooner. I didn't take note of the time, but couldn't have been more than a couple of seconds. How the player moves his body matters not a jot. You would be inventing laws to suit your argument if you claim it does. According to the Law of the game, the try was perfectly fine.

Probably a Twitter invaded by your lot from Gwlad.

Oh dear.

Fair enough. We'll notch this up as another thing we can't agree on.

If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

You don't accpet that in most instances players keep hold of the ball initially until they can place the ball without fear of it getting knocked by challenges etc?

marty2086 wrote:
Saying something is immediate then refusing to give your definition, now you are being pedantic on an oft use term because its not in the laws?

How about not releasing a player and preventing them from placing the ball fast enough to meet your secret definition of immediate? How about that one?

Immediate is immediate, not secondary.

There's no red zone in the laws - is that what you're saying? Well.

You might think that the tackler is at fault - your call. To me, Ruddock's is a clear double movement.

But, like above, we won't agree.

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

You don't accpet that in most instances players keep hold of the ball initially until they can place the ball without fear of it getting knocked by challenges etc?

That's a different question from the one above.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Saying something is immediate then refusing to give your definition, now you are being pedantic on an oft use term because its not in the laws?

How about not releasing a player and preventing them from placing the ball fast enough to meet your secret definition of immediate? How about that one?

Immediate is immediate, not secondary.

There's no red zone in the laws - is that what you're saying? Well.

You might think that the tackler is at fault - your call. To me, Ruddock's is a clear double movement.

But, like above, we won't agree.

You're still caught up in this 'double movement' myth.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

It's more a fact than an allegation, unless you really don't have the skills required to understand the plain English of the Law.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

You don't accpet that in most instances players keep hold of the ball initially until they can place the ball without fear of it getting knocked by challenges etc?

That's a different question from the one above.

You seem to be ducking and diving on this. So you feel most tackled players release immediately (I'm assuming you think this is as soon as physically possible?)?

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

It's more a fact than an allegation, unless you really don't have the skills required to understand the plain English of the Law.

No, it's a clear allegation that I'm being dishonest. You've called me a liar. That's an allegation.

Good work.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

You don't accpet that in most instances players keep hold of the ball initially until they can place the ball without fear of it getting knocked by challenges etc?

That's a different question from the one above.

You seem to be ducking and diving on this. So you feel most tackled players release immediately (I'm assuming you think this is as soon as physically possible?)?

No, mate. They all hold on to it forever, with no care for the laws of the game.

FFS.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

It's more a fact than an allegation, unless you really don't have the skills required to understand the plain English of the Law.

No, it's a clear allegation that I'm being dishonest. You've called me a liar. That's an allegation.

Good work.

Suppose it depends on perspective. From my own perspective I would say it's a fact.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, would you accept that 90% if not more of the ball placements in a match don't seem to fit in with your idea of immediately?

Nope.

You don't accpet that in most instances players keep hold of the ball initially until they can place the ball without fear of it getting knocked by challenges etc?

That's a different question from the one above.

You seem to be ducking and diving on this. So you feel most tackled players release immediately (I'm assuming you think this is as soon as physically possible?)?

No, mate. They all hold on to it forever, with no care for the laws of the game.

FFS.

Fair enough, thanks and no need to swear.Be more clear and it'll help to avoid people asking for clarity. So in this case the rugby world sees immediate slightly differently to yourself.

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

It's more a fact than an allegation, unless you really don't have the skills required to understand the plain English of the Law.

No, it's a clear allegation that I'm being dishonest. You've called me a liar. That's an allegation.

Good work.

Suppose it depends on perspective. From my own perspective I would say it's a fact.

I guess that's some progress from your last post, at least. Small mercies and all that.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
If you had an ounce of honesty you would admit that the try was perfectly legal. You so badly want it not to be legal.

Interesting allegation. In keeping with your normal comprehension ability, but there we go.

How's this one going for you, Notch?

It's more a fact than an allegation, unless you really don't have the skills required to understand the plain English of the Law.

No, it's a clear allegation that I'm being dishonest. You've called me a liar. That's an allegation.

Good work.

Suppose it depends on perspective. From my own perspective I would say it's a fact.

I guess that's some progress from your last post, at least. Small mercies and all that.

A progress, but only in your own understanding. You know you are wrong about the try, but there's no point going around in circles.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Saying something is immediate then refusing to give your definition, now you are being pedantic on an oft use term because its not in the laws?

How about not releasing a player and preventing them from placing the ball fast enough to meet your secret definition of immediate? How about that one?

Immediate is immediate, not secondary.

There's no red zone in the laws - is that what you're saying? Well.

You might think that the tackler is at fault - your call. To me, Ruddock's is a clear double movement.

But, like above, we won't agree.

So after 0.1secs? 0.2?0.5 secs? At what point does it stop being immediate? Its not definitive that's what you fail to grasp as per usual, its an interpretive phrase.

You think it should be one swift movement, player gets stopped, player places ball

The game isn't played like that Ruddock got to ground and placed the ball, as quick as he could but had players on top of him including the tackler who didn't release and actually tried to prevent him placing the ball and never once released him. You refuse to acknowledge that, that's your own bias coming out

Is Phill's side Scarlets Cardiff?

Well, whichever side it is, whichever side he's passionate about as his own  - I wonder how many times he's witnessed them scoring a try like the one in question say in the last five years?

Does Phill remember?  Can he offer us a number for the number of times it might have happened?  Did he make an issue of it?  Did he count them?  Did he publish threads condemning those moments?  Did he question why refs didn't go to TMO to confirm a non-try?  Did he time the movements with his stop-watch after repeated views?

marty2086 wrote:

So after 0.1secs? 0.2?0.5 secs? At what point does it stop being immediate? Its not definitive that's what you fail to grasp as per usual, its an interpretive phrase.

You think it should be one swift movement, player gets stopped, player places ball

The game isn't played like that Ruddock got to ground and placed the ball, as quick as he could but had players on top of him including the tackler who didn't release and actually tried to prevent him placing the ball and never once released him. You refuse to acknowledge that, that's your own bias coming out

I see the fact that writing 'immediate cannot be secondary' hasn't registered with the subjective use of the phrase. Fair enough.

Having looked again at the video of the incident, I can't be sure that Anscombe's hands aren't trapped on Ruddock by the supporting players whose momentum pushes Ruddock's arm over the line.

Which, of course, is why the incident should have at least gone to the TMO.

Still, it is good to see that I'm being accused of dishonest and bias in thinking that it wasn't a try, but good old Leinster Referee Society member, proud man of Dublin and IRFU employee Dudley Phillips couldn't have been dishonest or bias.

Ah, such hypocrisy.

SecretFly wrote:Is Phill's side Scarlets?

Well, whichever side it is, whichever side he's passionate about as his own  - I wonder how many times he's witnessed them scoring a try like the one in question say in the last five years?

Does Phill remember?  Can he offer us a number for the number of times it might have happened?  Did he make an issue of it?  Did he count them?  Did he publish threads condemning those moments?  Did he question why refs didn't go to TMO to confirm a non-try?  Did he time the movements with his stop-watch after repeated views?

Scarlets??? Phil will explode if you accuse him of such a thing! He's a Cardiff man.

Oops sorry.... Cardiff.....

I'll replace..... don't want anyone exploding on 606.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So after 0.1secs? 0.2?0.5 secs? At what point does it stop being immediate? Its not definitive that's what you fail to grasp as per usual, its an interpretive phrase.

You think it should be one swift movement, player gets stopped, player places ball

The game isn't played like that Ruddock got to ground and placed the ball, as quick as he could but had players on top of him including the tackler who didn't release and actually tried to prevent him placing the ball and never once released him. You refuse to acknowledge that, that's your own bias coming out

I see the fact that writing 'immediate cannot be secondary' hasn't registered with the subjective use of the phrase. Fair enough.

Having looked again at the video of the incident, I can't be sure that Anscombe's hands aren't trapped on Ruddock by the supporting players whose momentum pushes Ruddock's arm over the line.

Which, of course, is why the incident should have at least gone to the TMO.

Still, it is good to see that I'm being accused of dishonest and bias in thinking that it wasn't a try, but good old Leinster Referee Society member, proud man of Dublin and IRFU employee Dudley Phillips couldn't have been dishonest or bias.

Ah, such hypocrisy.

You're inventing a law.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

So after 0.1secs? 0.2?0.5 secs? At what point does it stop being immediate? Its not definitive that's what you fail to grasp as per usual, its an interpretive phrase.

You think it should be one swift movement, player gets stopped, player places ball

The game isn't played like that Ruddock got to ground and placed the ball, as quick as he could but had players on top of him including the tackler who didn't release and actually tried to prevent him placing the ball and never once released him. You refuse to acknowledge that, that's your own bias coming out

I see the fact that writing 'immediate cannot be secondary' hasn't registered with the subjective use of the phrase. Fair enough.

Having looked again at the video of the incident, I can't be sure that Anscombe's hands aren't trapped on Ruddock by the supporting players whose momentum pushes Ruddock's arm over the line.

Which, of course, is why the incident should have at least gone to the TMO.

Still, it is good to see that I'm being accused of dishonest and bias in thinking that it wasn't a try, but good old Leinster Referee Society member, proud man of Dublin and IRFU employee Dudley Phillips couldn't have been dishonest or bias.

Ah, such hypocrisy.

Considering the whole law is based around a secondary movement it seems that has yet to register with you

Considering you ignored obstruction for Anscombes try and are harping on still about a legitimate try while ignoring foul play by a Cardiff player your bias is clear

PhilBB wrote:It is good to see that I'm being accused of dishonest and bias in thinking that it wasn't a try, but good old Leinster Referee Society member, proud man of Dublin and IRFU employee Dudley Phillips couldn't have been dishonest or bias.

The adjective is 'biased'.

SecretFly wrote:Oops sorry.... Cardiff.....

I'll replace..... don't want anyone exploding on 606.

Sure, it would be a bit of entertainment

marty2086 wrote:
Considering the whole law is based around a secondary movement it seems that has yet to register with you

Considering you ignored obstruction for Anscombes try and are harping on still about a legitimate try while ignoring foul play by a Cardiff player your bias is clear

If you recognise the law is based around a secondary movement, your words, you'll note that Ruddock's movement was secondary. Thanks. We got there in the end.

I didn't ignore obstruction for Anscombe's try. I laughed at your suggestion of it. It's such a ridiculous claim.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
Considering the whole law is based around a secondary movement it seems that has yet to register with you

Considering you ignored obstruction for Anscombes try and are harping on still about a legitimate try while ignoring foul play by a Cardiff player your bias is clear

If you recognise the law is based around a secondary movement, your words, you'll note that Ruddock's movement was secondary. Thanks. We got there in the end.

I didn't ignore obstruction for Anscombe's try. I laughed at your suggestion of it. It's such a ridiculous claim.

Its meant to be secondary, if it was primary he would be in reverse

Again your bias showing, hardly ridiculous when a large prop steps in front of a player to stop a tackle

But you are perfect, everyone else is wrong, bias and stupid

Here's another wrong, bias and stupid person

https://cardiffbluesblog.com/2016/10/05/analysis-was-the-refereeing-that-bad/

The adjective is 'biased'.

https://vine.co/v/56MzBPLOiKL

Here's a wrong decision Philips made.

What's funny is the linked article, although only highlighting wrong decisions against Cardiff, comes to the same conclusion most had before the game.
He's not a very good ref
He's not biased
The issue is hard to rectify with the lack of Scottish and Italian refs.
We need more good refs.

So glad to see we all agree

PhilBB wrote:Here's another wrong, bias and stupid person

https://cardiffbluesblog.com/2016/10/05/analysis-was-the-refereeing-that-bad/

Indeed, another one who can't get his facts straight.

asoreleftshoulder wrote:https://vine.co/v/56MzBPLOiKL

Here's a wrong decision Philips made.

Big Nicks not learned his lesson

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Here's another wrong, bias and stupid person

https://cardiffbluesblog.com/2016/10/05/analysis-was-the-refereeing-that-bad/

Indeed, another one who can't get his facts straight.

Another?

Phils been AWOL all day, now we know why!

marty2086 wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Here's another wrong, bias and stupid person

https://cardiffbluesblog.com/2016/10/05/analysis-was-the-refereeing-that-bad/

Indeed, another one who can't get his facts straight.

Another?

Phils been AWOL all day, now we know why!

Inventing the world according to Phil? Could well be

Think Phil is older than Cardiff Dan though. He's probably about 80.

PhilBB wrote:Here's another wrong, bias and stupid person

https://cardiffbluesblog.com/2016/10/05/analysis-was-the-refereeing-that-bad/

"What I would shy away from is suggesting that Phillips was purposely biased towards Leinster. It has since come out that he is a Dublin born official who is in fact head of the Leinster branch of referees."

Yep, he's wrong in fact and biased towards his team. Don't know if he's stupid.

Anyway, enough about last week. That's old news now. I'm getting bored with Dubs Phillips.

Can anyone provide me with a list of Biased Refs for next weekend's games? I want to be prepared with my notebook in advance.

Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.


.... only in the world according to Phil....

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in  keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

Yeah, you don't do context ....

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in  keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

Yeah, you don't do context ....

Hmmmm. Oh well, if that's the best you've got then I should lower my sights.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in  keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

Or maybe some just don't have a sense of humour?

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in  keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

Yeah, you don't do context ....

Hmmmm. Oh well, if that's the best you've got then I should lower my sights.

Do you understand plain English?

"Think Phil is older than Cardiff Dan though. He's probably about 80."

PhilBB wrote:Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

Well Saracens paid under the counter. I'd trust they learned it from Toulon?

You are such a fan-boy Phill. All your favourite things are squeaky clean, with the big posters on your wall an' all - and all the things you detest are ramshackle, corrupt and evil.

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

PhilBB wrote:Sorry, Chaps, that's written by https://twitter.com/Pearcey149 not me.

Looks like you're both wrong again. Well, well.

Both wrong? It's you that is wrong ....

Oh, and well done on recognising the authority of a 20 year old sports journalist wannabe who happens to be a Cardiff fan posting on a Cardiff rugby supporters site.

How am I wrong? You both hinted that I had written that. Of course, neither of you were man enough to make the bold accusation, but that's in  keeping.

I made no comment on Dan's authority. I just posted a link to his blog. You really should work on those communication and comprehension skills you lack. Oh, and man up to your accusation reference Toulon paying under the counter. That's another jibe you've bottled.

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

Man up, Munchyn!

SecretFly wrote:Man up, Munchyn!

I don't know ... maybe my link wasn't manly enough

Munchkin wrote:

I provided the link for you, you ejit.

Missed that. In which thread?

carpet baboon wrote:Such a fan of private investment is phill yet has spent years crying the WRU won't give them money

No 'give', as you know. Pay. Not give.

But you knew that already.