Leinster vs Connacht build up RDS Jan 1st tg4 17:00

aimee1

Stheno wrote: »

Fyp:P

Lol. And im just sarky cos bump is practising his conversions using my organs as rugby balls and i want to sleep

Stheno

aimee1 wrote: »

Lol. And im just sarky cos bump is practising his conversions using my organs as rugby balls and i want to sleep

Give him some reiki

flouncer

aimee1 wrote: »

Connacht still in rds but cant get out of their own 22

and thats funny. should i take a pop at stewie sexton or kockup kearney

aimee1

flouncer wrote: »

and thats funny. should i take a pop at stewie sexton or kockup kearney

Who?

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

aimee1 wrote: »

Who?

Rory Kockott?

flouncer

flouncer wrote: »

and thats funny. should i take a pop at stewie sexton or kockup kearney

My face just permanently inverted somewhat from the strength of cringe from this post.

flouncer

Deleted User wrote: »

My face just permanently inverted somewhat from the strength of cringe from this post.

maybe u shud read some of your own posts venjur.

wp_rathead

Coming back into this thread :

flouncer

wp_rathead wrote: »

Coming back into this thread :

your some ticket wprathead. the absolute voice of reason. i am the mental opposite :-)

sheep?

wp_rathead wrote: »

Coming back into this thread :

If you're just back, you my have missed the newly released photo of Clancy just after awarding the try:

irishgrover

molloyjh wrote: »

You see you've spent the entire post here not actually addressing what I said. I never even mentioned the try yet you reckon I think it was officiated correctly. You say Leinster primarily benefited from poor refereeing decisions and that the bigger teams get refereeing decisions as well as the home teams, but then claim you aren't wearing a tinfoil hat. You don't deal with any of the things Connnacht got away with.

The simple fact is that Connacht were still very much in the game at half time because they got away with a lot of infringing inside their own 22. Had Clancy binned Aki as he should have or White as he should have it's probable that Leinster would have gotten more on the board in that first half. If he had clamped down on Connacht players lying on the wrong side that would have given Leinster an even greater chance of more points in the first 40. And had those things happened, even an additional 3 points, the try would have been irrelevant. Connacht never looked like scoring bar that chance in the corner. A 9-0 result would have denied Connacht a LBP anyway. So the officiating was swings and roundabouts. But a material impact on the result, I don't think so.

would you calm the **** down with the tinfoil hat bull****. You and a small minority of others are reverting to personal insults and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and people with chips on their shoulders. That is just simply childish.
Do you really think that on occasion the home town team or the higher profile team don't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls?
It is perfectly legitimate to debate the validity of the Try, it was not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.....at the time I though it was questionable, as was Clancys field of vision at critical time and I still think that..
I've said it before and I'll say it again, more simply this time....Connacht were not robbed, Leinster were deserved winners, but your patronising bull**** about people who disagree with you being tinfoil hat wearers is just that, patronising bull****....

molloyjh

irishgrover wrote: »

would you calm the **** down with the tinfoil hat bull****. You and a small minority of others are reverting to personal insults and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and people with chips on their shoulders. That is just simply childish.
Do you really think that on occasion the home town team or the higher profile team don't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls?
It is perfectly legitimate to debate the validity of the Try, it was not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.....at the time I though it was questionable, as was Clancys field of vision at critical time and I still think that..
I've said it before and I'll say it again, more simply this time....Connacht were not robbed, Leinster were deserved winners, but your patronising bull**** about people who disagree with you being tinfoil hat wearers is just that, patronising bull****....

I'm calm, after all I'm not the one cursing throughout their post. I also didn't resort to personal abuse anywhere on my post. If you would like to discuss Clancys performance over the full 80 minutes rather than just 1 single decision then I've no problem with that. But if you just want to focus on the 1 decision you didn't like then I've no interest. As I pointed out I don't think the try decision mattered a damn in the grander scheme so I don't see why you're getting so worked up over it.

thomond2006

irishgrover wrote: »

would you calm the **** down with the tinfoil hat bull****. You and a small minority of others are reverting to personal insults and dismissing anyone who disagrees with you as tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists and people with chips on their shoulders. That is just simply childish.
Do you really think that on occasion the home town team or the higher profile team don't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls?
It is perfectly legitimate to debate the validity of the Try, it was not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.....at the time I though it was questionable, as was Clancys field of vision at critical time and I still think that..
I've said it before and I'll say it again, more simply this time....Connacht were not robbed, Leinster were deserved winners, but your patronising bull**** about people who disagree with you being tinfoil hat wearers is just that, patronising bull****....

Boy, that escalated quickly.

irishgrover

molloyjh wrote: »

I'm calm, after all I'm not the one cursing throughout their post. I also didn't resort to personal abuse anywhere on my post. If you would like to discuss Clancys performance over the full 80 minutes rather than just 1 single decision then I've no problem with that. But if you just want to focus on the 1 decision you didn't like then I've no interest. As I pointed out I don't think the try decision mattered a damn in the grander scheme so I don't see why you're getting so worked up over it.

I'm not getting worked up about the try, I thought and still think it was questionable.
I thought Clancys overall performance was poor. As you point out he could have easily carded Connacht in the first 15 minutes. He let McCarthy and other away with repeated infringements at the breakdown. His decision on the try was debatable, his assertion the ball was not knocked on a few minutes later very close to the Leinster line was embarrassing, but them's the breaks in any sport. I don't have a real problem with the ref, I just think he has a poor game, but not nearly as poor Connachts. As I said previously, I don't remember the ref disallowing or stopping any Connacht scores.

However what I do have a real problem with is that I resent your implication that because I and many others disagree with you we are tin foil hat wearing conspirators that are bad for the game. It's childish, patronising and kills intelligent debate....

molloyjh

irishgrover wrote: »

I'm not getting worked up about the try, I thought and still think it was questionable.
I thought Clancys overall performance was poor. As you point out he could have easily carded Connacht in the first 15 minutes. He let McCarthy and other away with repeated infringements at the breakdown. His decision on the try was debatable, his assertion the ball was not knocked on a few minutes later very close to the Leinster line was embarrassing, but them's the breaks in any sport. I don't have a real problem with the ref, I just think he has a poor game, but not nearly as poor Connachts. As I said previously, I don't remember the ref disallowing or stopping any Connacht scores.

However what I do have a real problem with is that I resent your implication that because I and many others disagree with you we are tin foil hat wearing conspirators that are bad for the game. It's childish, patronising and kills intelligent debate....

The only comment I made about tinfoil hats was in reply to yours. And it had nothing to do with the try. You said the home teams and the big teams get the decisions meaning that in this case poor little Connacht were always going to be on the back end of poor refereeing decisions. That is tin foil hat nonsense. What happens in the return fixture then? Who gets the refs advantage? Connacht as the home team or Leinster as the "big" team? And how can you not see the inferiority complex there? And how does that then apply to the 2 cards that Connacht didn't get?

Was the try questionable? Yes. Was Clancy good on the day? No. Have I admitted to both already? Yes. Have I tried to have a wider conversation with you on the topic? Yes. Have you ignored all of the points that I made while doing so? Until the above post yes. Are you sure, when you look back over the discourse, that I am actually killing intelligent debate? If you took a step back you'd actually see that I'm not.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

I'm not getting worked up about the try, I thought and still think it was questionable.

His decision on the try was debatable

On what basis? Clancy had probably the best view, better then any camera angle so that rules out TV viewers having a better view, and the vast majority of those in attendance.

He clearly saw a grounded ball, and asked the question according to what he saw and did not see.

irishgrover

irishgrover wrote: »

would you calm the **** down with the tinfoil hat bull****.

irishgrover wrote: »

Do you really think that on occasion the home town team or the higher profile team don't get the benefit of the doubt in close calls?

He he

connachta

molloyjh wrote: »

That is tin foil hat nonsense. What happens in the return fixture then? Who gets the refs advantage? Connacht as the home team or Leinster as the "big" team? And how can you not see the inferiority complex there?

Big team and home team advantages are cumulating against Connacht away, and nulifying each other in the Sportsground. Which explains teams visiting Galway don't complain on a regular basis.

Consipiracy theory accusation is just a way for fat cats to turn a blind eye to facts, pure facts. I'm not talking specifically about this Leinster game.
It's a general observation, any fans in any sports knons home+big name bias. And I'm just convinced it's worse with pro12 refereeing. You can think otherwise. My opinion. I just remind you Connacht managed to earn away greatest upsets in HCup, not in Pro12 (the only one was Munster away, and it was despite the ref "big call" as Lam says, we all know it)

connachta

connachta wrote: »

Big team and home team advantages are cumulating against Connacht away, and nulifying each other in the Sportsground. Which explains teams visiting Galway don't complain on a regular basis.

Consipiracy theory accusation is just a way for fat cats to turn a blind eye to facts, pure facts. I'm not talking specifically about this Leinster game.
It's a general observation, any fans in any sports knons home+big name bias. And I'm just convinced it's worth with pro12 refereeing. You can think otherwise. My opinion. I just remind you Connacht managed to earn away greatest upset in HCup, not in Pro12 (the only one was Munster away, and it was despite the ref "big call" as Lam says, we all know it)

typhoony

Did anyone see the clip of white's head injury, does not look good for McFadden as he dances on his head

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

Big team and home team advantages are cumulating against Connacht away, and nulifying each other in the Sportsground. Which explains teams visiting Galway don't complain on a regular basis.

Consipiracy theory accusation is just a way for fat cats to turn a blind eye to facts, pure facts. I'm not talking specifically about this Leinster game.
It's a general observation, any fans in any sports knons home+big name bias. And I'm just convinced it's worse with pro12 refereeing. You can think otherwise. My opinion. I just remind you Connacht managed to earn away greatest upset in HCup, not in Pro12 (the only one was Munster away, and it was despite the ref "big call" as Lam says, we all know it)

If you're looking for it, you'll find it.

connachta

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you're looking for it, you'll find it.

If you're not looking for it, you'll never fix it

molloyjh

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

If you're looking for it, you'll find it.

And when you're happy to ignore everything Connacht got away with that helps too.

For as long as Connacht fans (and Pat Lam) spend their time and energy focusing on external perceived issues rather than looking in-house the longer it'll be before Connacht have any real success.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Wow, 35 pages of build up, this match is going to be something special. When is it?

connachta

molloyjh wrote: »

And when you're happy to ignore everything Connacht got away with that helps too.

For as long as Connacht fans (and Pat Lam) spend their time and energy focusing on external perceived issues rather than looking in-house the longer it'll be before Connacht have any real success.

Yeah of course, the pro12 refereeing is questionnable, no no, shut you mouth, that's what was told to Lam. What if the same omerta has continued in boxing for exemple?

That's just the same unbearable theory saying "your firm is closed because of a decision taken abroad, but that's your own fault if you're fired"

wp_rathead

typhoony wrote: »

Did anyone see the clip of white's head injury, does not look good for McFadden as he dances on his head

https://twitter.com/tomsauce2000/status/683409371368390657

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

If you're not looking for it, you'll never fix it

So you think whinging about it on an internet bulletin board is going to fix this perceived problem?

Refs make mistakes, we all know this. We also know that generally the mistakes balance out. You've whined continuously about the try JVdF scored and yet after a great many explanations and discussion you've accepted that maybe it was a try after all (based on the body language of one of your players).

So you might have been mistaken about that. There's some doubt there yes?

But still the ref was out to get you.

Seriously.

connachta

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

So you think whinging about it on an internet bulletin board is going to fix this perceived problem?

Refs make mistakes, we all know this. We also know that generally the mistakes balance out. You've whined continuously about the try JVdF scored and yet after a great many explanations and discussion you've accepted that maybe it was a try after all (based on the body language of one of your players).

So you might have been mistaken about that. There's some doubt there yes?

But still the ref was out to get you.

Seriously.

Did you ever read the part I said it wasn't about that game especially? I wished you had. You would have understood I was claiming it's fair and good for rugby to have a full freedom of speech about refereeing. I was answering to those saying "you musn't look at it, Connacht will become better ignoring the multiple "incidents" they're facing over the years in pro12 (far less in Europe, weirdly). Blind-eye strategy is bul***** IMO, and I express this opinion.
Clancy having seen the ball or not is still really uncertain but is not the issue of the last talks. Neither is Leinster' performance bootlicking. And for those doubting about my calmness, I've nothing against "magic blues", I like them (except Nacewa and a small minority of self-sufficient fans, as we all tend to be of course).

Clegg

Freedom of speech about refereeing.

Jesus wept

Bridge93

Am I the only one who can't make sense of loads of posts on the thread? I long for the days of proper sentences and grammar

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

Did you ever read the part I said it wasn't about that game especially? I wished you had. You would have understood I was claiming it's fair and good for rugby to have a full freedom of speech about refereeing. I was answering to those saying "you musn't look at it, Connacht will become better ignoring the multiple "incidents" they face." Blind-eye strategy is bul***** IMO, and I express this opinion.
Clancy having seen the ball or not is not the issue of the last talks. Neither is Leinster' performance bootlicking.

You're the one accumulating the injustices. I've just pointed out one instance where you admitted the possibility that you were wrong. How many posters here have challenged you on other grievances you've had with other decisions?

Experience has taught me that when it's a choice between conspiracy or cock-up, it's almost always a cock-up but the vast majority always want to believe in the conspiracy.

connachta

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

You're the one accumulating the injustices. I've just pointed out one instance where you admitted the possibility that you were wrong. How many posters here have challenged you on other grievances you've had with other decisions?

Experience has taught me that when it's a choice between conspiracy or cock-up, it's almost always a cock-up but the vast majority always want to believe in the conspiracy.

No conspiracy. Cumulating influences on the pro 12 referees : the home town AND Connacht always considered as the small club (except against Zebre maybe).
They challenged me about the complaints. If they're justified or even "in debate", no censorship.
That's my point, I think it's ok on this topic for now .

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

No conspiracy. Cumulating influences on the pro 12 referees : the home town AND Connacht always considered as the small club (except against Zebre maybe).
They challenged me about the complaints. If they're justified or even "in debate", no censorship.
That's my point, I think it's ok on this topic for now .

Ah here! Don't go hiding behind the 'no censorship' yellow flag. You're either big enough to stand behind your own arguments or they weren't very strong to start with.

It's still a conspiracy if you're attributing it to anything other than an honest mistake. You speak as though the ref has a little checklist he goes through each time before he blows the whistle:

Was that a knock on? check
Was it a 'big team' that knocked it on?: Run subroutine to define 'big team'. check
Is this a home game for the 'big team'?: check
Am I in Connacht?: check
Ignore the knock on.

irishgrover

molloyjh wrote: »

The only comment I made about tinfoil hats was in reply to yours. And it had nothing to do with the try. You said the home teams and the big teams get the decisions meaning that in this case poor little Connacht were always going to be on the back end of poor refereeing decisions. That is tin foil hat nonsense. What happens in the return fixture then? Who gets the refs advantage? Connacht as the home team or Leinster as the "big" team? And how can you not see the inferiority complex there? And how does that then apply to the 2 cards that Connacht didn't get?

Was the try questionable? Yes. Was Clancy good on the day? No. Have I admitted to both already? Yes. Have I tried to have a wider conversation with you on the topic? Yes. Have you ignored all of the points that I made while doing so? Until the above post yes. Are you sure, when you look back over the discourse, that I am actually killing intelligent debate? If you took a step back you'd actually see that I'm not.

Dear JH,
I'm not sure if your misinterpretation of my position is through design, ignorance or miscommunication. In order to clarify I'll stick to binary, clear communications. I'll reiterate my points, and you can do with them as you will, because at this point we are not debating or discussing, just wasting each others time....

The Game: Leinster were clearly the better team and deserved to win

The Ref: Had a poor game, however I do not believe that it had a direct impact on the result.

The Try: I disagree with the view, held by some Leinster fans that it was clearly and without doubt a try. I disagree for multiple reasons

• a.) I do not believe that he had clear line of sign to the real or attempted grounding of the ball either immediately before or after the grounding.
• b.) I believe that his falling during the period of play would have had an impact on his ability to focus on the subject matter and therefore a potential impact on the accuracy of his decision making
• c.) I suspect that if a try or no try question had been asked the response from the TMO would have been much less certain.

Home Town / Big Team Advantage on 50/50 calls I'm genuinely suprised that you or anyone else have a problem with this. Of course it can happen. It can happen when the Italians are in the sportsground (or anywhere really) and it can happen when Connacht are in Thomond or RDS or wherever. To think otherwise is really, IMHO, a bit naive. Does this mean that there is a great conspiracy going on among officials? does it ****! Of course not.

tin foil hat nonsense To accuse someone of "Tin Foil Hat nonsense" is to imply that that they advocate conspiracy theories and may be subject to episodes of paranoid schizophrenia. Maybe you were not fully implying that, maybe you were just hinting at it heavily in order to undermine my position and bolster yours. Either way, in my opinion it's not accurate, lazy and uninformed and really only impresses and appeals to "haha" type juveniles....

poor little Connacht your reference to poor little Connacht reflects much more on you and you attitude then it does on Connacht fans. You won't find a chip on my shoulder or a victim mentality because none exists. Connacht have made huge improvements over the last 5+ years, especially the last 3 years. In my mind they have, "pound for pound" performed wonderfully in recent years and provided me with an exceptional return on my investment of a season ticket and the cost of a few trips to the UK and France.

**** & **** & other bad words Boards uses a filtering system in order to protect more sensitive subscribers. Some people use profanities on occasion. I am one of them, I believe that it adds a certain clarity and context to discussion when used appropriately. However as mentioned boards.ie does provide filters for you and/or other users who may be offended.

Enjoy what is left of Christmas, have a wonderful new year, and best of luck to Leinster and all the Irish provinces for 2016

CatFromHue

connachta wrote: »

Yeah of course, the pro12 refereeing is questionnable, no no, shut you mouth, that's what was told to Lam. What if the same omerta has continued in boxing for exemple?

That's just the same unbearable theory saying "your firm is closed because of a decision taken abroad, but that's your own fault if you're fired"

Lam has been giving out about refs for ages now and most of the time he's wrong too.

Two examples off the top of my head are

Break in play as player down injured ref goes to get a drink and talks to Cronin about hooking. Connacht player comes up to the same ref in the middle of the game and is told to go away. Lam then starts whinging that his players aren't allowed talk to the ref though the Leinster guys are, this is after the ref told Heaslip the same thing but actually warned him with a penalty if he goes up to talk to him during play again.

Connacht have a driving maul with backs coming flying in on the Leinster line. Lam starts whinging that Leinster brought it down but the ref favoured the big team. This ignores that the maul wasn't very controlled, was moving too fast, and had backs piling into it which combined brought it down.

The only time he was right was against Hodges in Cardiff, pretty much most if not all the other times he's wrong. That's why he was told to shut up, plus the stuff he said about the ref that day was crazy stuff.

connachta

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Was that a knock on? check
Was it a 'big team' that knocked it on?: Run subroutine to define 'big team'. check
Is this a home game for the 'big team'?: check
Am I in Connacht?: check
Ignore the knock on.

Cardiff, 82th minute last season was EXACTLY this. Often less consciousness than this I dare hope, but I admit it's a funny summary:pac:

connachta

irishgrover wrote: »

Home Town / Big Team Advantage on 50/50 calls I'm genuinely suprised that you or anyone else have a problem with this. Of course it can happen. It can happen when the Italians are in the sportsground (or anywhere really) and it can happen when Connacht are in Thomond or RDS or wherever. To this otherwise is really, IMHO, a bit naive. Does this mean that there is a great conspiracy going on among officials? does it ****! Of course not.


poor little Connacht your reference to poor little Connacht reflects much more on you and you attitude then it does on Connacht fans. You won't find a chip on my shoulder or a victim mentality because non exists. Connacht have made huge improvements over the last 5+ years, especially the last 3 years. In my mind they have, "pound for pound" performed wonderfully in recent years and provided me with an exceptional return on my investment of a season ticket and the cost of a few trips to the UK and France.



Enjoy what is left of Christmas, have a wonderful new year, and best of luck to Leinster and all the Irish provinces for 2016

thanks a million:)

CMOTDibbler

wp_rathead wrote: »

https://twitter.com/tomsauce2000/status/683409371368390657

Yep, he's got himself a citing for it.

Silly stuff from McFadden, deserves a ban for it. I hate guys kicking at players heads/faces, Ian McKinley lost the sight of one eye through an accidental shoeing.

CMOTDibbler

connachta wrote: »

Cardiff, 82th minute last season was EXACTLY this. Often less consciousness than this I dare hope, but I admit it's a funny summary:pac:

I'm afraid I didn't see that game, so I'll suspend judgment until I see the incident.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yep, he's got himself a citing for it.

Silly stuff from McFadden, deserves a ban for it. I hate guys kicking at players heads/faces, Ian McKinley lost the sight of one eye through an accidental shoeing.

If you can't see clearly where your feet are in a pile of bodies you shouldn't be kicking. If you can see them you shouldn't be "accidentally" kicking someone in the head. Simple.

CMOTDibbler

irishgrover wrote: »

The Try: I disagree with the view, held by some Leinster fans that it was clearly and without doubt a try. I disagree for multiple reasons

• a.) I do not believe that he had clear line of sign to the real or attempted grounding of the ball either immediately before or after the grounding.
• b.) I believe that his falling during the period of play would have had an impact on his ability to focus on the subject matter and therefore a potential impact on the accuracy of his decision making
• c.) I suspect that if a try or no try question had been asked the response from the TMO would have been much less certain.

a) Based on what exactly? He was in a far better position than the camera and still photos on the inpho and sportsfile sites show his eyes firmly fixed on the action just after slipping.
b) See above. You were the one I believe, who tried to characterise Clancy's reaction as embarrassment earlier on this thread. At no time did he look or sound anything other than composed. The very first question he asked the TMO was whether he could hear him. Not the words of a flustered or embarrassed man.
c) "Try or no try" and "Any reason..." are separate questions used in different situations. This has been explained many times on this thread, yet you continue to ignore those explanations. Clancy knows (as does any ref) which one is appropriate. You're insistence that he asked "Try or no try" is based on the fact that you didn't see the ball grounded from the only TV angle that the ball was visible in. You completely disavow any possibility that Clancy saw it grounded (he clearly told the TMO that he didn't see the ball all the way through the act of being grounded).

The bottom line is that Clancy clearly believed that he saw the ball on the ground with Van der Flier's hand on it. That's why he asked the question he asked. He even clarified this by saying he didn't see it all the way to the ground. That's what he wanted the TMO to check. To make sure that the act of grounding did not include some infringement that would prevent the try being awarded.

Looking at it another way. If he hsaw the ball on the ground with VdFs hand on it and asked "Try yes or no" and the TV pictures didn't show what he'd seen, the try couldn't be awarded and that would have been a travesty.

connachta

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

If you can't see clearly where your feet are in a pile of bodies you shouldn't be kicking. If you can see them you shouldn't be "accidentally" kicking someone in the head. Simple.

Deserved the yellow that Leinster fans asked for:D

connachta

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I'm afraid I didn't see that game, so I'll suspend judgment until I see the incident.

I just can't find you the link, I'll be tempted to see this extra-time again, with 2 k.o unseen, yellow card from nowhere and others silly stuffs falling like rain. Still a too much of trauma, really.

It was either anti-Connacht ref or dire incompetence, in both case it's a very serious issue and was very costly in Connacht season.

irishgrover

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

a) Based on what exactly? He was in a far better position than the camera and still photos on the inpho and sportsfile sites show his eyes firmly fixed on the action just after slipping.
b) See above. You were the one I believe, who tried to characterise Clancy's reaction as embarrassment earlier on this thread. At no time did he look or sound anything other than composed. The very first question he asked the TMO was whether he could hear him. Not the words of a flustered or embarrassed man.
c) "Try or no try" and "Any reason..." are separate questions used in different situations. This has been explained many times on this thread, yet you continue to ignore those explanations. Clancy knows (as does any ref) which one is appropriate. You're insistence that he asked "Try or no try" is based on the fact that you didn't see the ball grounded from the only TV angle that the ball was visible in. You completely disavow any possibility that Clancy saw it grounded (he clearly told the TMO that he didn't see the ball all the way through the act of being grounded).

The bottom line is that Clancy clearly believed that he saw the ball on the ground with Van der Flier's hand on it. That's why he asked the question he asked. He even clarified this by saying he didn't see it all the way to the ground. That's what he wanted the TMO to check. To make sure that the act of grounding did not include some infringement that would prevent the try being awarded.

Looking at it another way. If he hsaw the ball on the ground with VdFs hand on it and asked "Try yes or no" and the TV pictures didn't show what he'd seen, the try couldn't be awarded and that would have been a travesty.

Q A: Based on what exactly?
Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.
To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding

Q B: Embarrassment?
Yes, I put that forward as a hypothesis. However as with Question A, it should be quite clear and unambiguous that this was was is commonly referred to as an opinion (and a very throwaway one at that). I was obviously not stating it as a fact that Clancy was embarrassed, as I am very clearly not Clancy, and therefore am not privy to what was going on in his head.
I'm really beginning to struggle with peoples inability to differentiate between a fact and an opinion....

Q C: Try or No try: See answer to Question A which leads to my opinion on Q C

The bottom line bit.....and looking at it another way bit........ If that is what happened then I totally agree with you..

CatFromHue

The only people who know if the ball was grounded are a few of the players and the ref.

It may well not have been grounded but the ref had the best view of it so I'm happy to take his call on the try.

aimee1

irishgrover wrote: »

Q A: Based on what exactly?
Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.

To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding

http://www.sportsjoe.ie/rugby/watch-connacht-fans-will-be-livid-over-this-leinster-try-decision/57405

I think Rodney AhYou saw the ball being grounded. He was in a similarly close position to it as clancy was.

How difficult is it to understand that the ref asked the question because he saw a grounded ball and was not checking for a try being scored, but to see if there was any other play which would give him reason to not award it.

CMOTDibbler

irishgrover wrote: »

Based on my interpretation of the information that is presented to me I have formed an opinion. Specifically from the video footage and photographs that I have viewed I have come to the conclusion that it would have been very difficult for the ref to have an unobstructed view before and during the grounding. Coupled with the fact that he lost his balance I believe that his view may have been obstructed.

You left out the critical part of it being grounded. As in on the ground, held by the scoring player. Grounded. His view may have been obstructed, so he just made it up?

irishgrover wrote: »

To reiterate, yet again, it may well have been a try, my position is that it is not nearly as clear cut as some would make it out to be.
In case you still do not understand I do not know conclusively if it was or was not a try or what Clancy did or did not see. I can conclusively state that I did not personally ground, hold up or have an unobstructed 1st hand view of the grounding

No-one other than Clancy and the players involved will have that kind of certainty. We can't look for that here given the limited information we have. What we do know is that Clancy believed the ball was grounded but didn't know if it was lost forward in the act of grounding. That's what we know from the question he asked. Everything else is speculation. Although the body language of some of the Connacht players does seem to indicate they thought a try was scored.

irishgrover wrote: »

Q B: Embarrassment?
Yes, I put that forward as a hypothesis. However as with Question A, it should be quite clear and unambiguous that this was was is commonly referred to as an opinion (and a very throwaway one at that). I was obviously not stating it as a fact that Clancy was embarrassed, as I am very clearly not Clancy, and therefore am not privy to what was going on in his head.
I'm really beginning to struggle with peoples inability to differentiate between a fact and an opinion....

Everything you've said here is opinion. I think I can tell the difference...

connachta

CatFromHue wrote: »

The only people who know if the ball was grounded are a few of the players and the ref.

Not sure about the ref. Tend to agree for players like AhYou making a desperate roll-eye.

But why Lam would have said it was a big call, then?
Either because Muldoon confirmed he was holding the ball, and AhYou eyes was just refecting tiredness.
Or either, even if it's a possible try, he considered the question asked was the "big call" per se, and rightly want to mainting a bit of pressure on the refereeing standard, compared to what happened in the past

aimee1

connachta wrote: »

Not sure about the ref. Tend to agree for players like AhYou making a desperate roll-eye.

But why Lam would have said it was a big call, then?
Either because Muldoon confirmed he was holding the ball, and AhYou eyes was just refecting tiredness.
Or either, even if it's a possible try, he considered the question asked was the "big call" per se, and rightly want to mainting a bit of pressure on the refereeing standard, compared to what happened in the past

so AhYou just stopped playing out of tiredness with leinster camped on the connacht line?

CatFromHue

I said it before but Lam regularly calls out ref decisions after games and nearly all the time he's wrong.

Him saying it wasn't a try doesn't mean it wasn't a try.