Champions Cup final thread

trevezel

consistency depends on the rules edicted by the Board…the more a rule is strict, the less the doubt exists

gneel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191548#Comment_122191548

Even Lebel doesn't like the look of it 😂

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122192642#Comment_122192642

If he didn't knock it forward, then it doesn't matter how deliberately he knocked it, it's not even a scrum never mind a card. And it's not clear and obvious that it went forward.

And the secondary argument that it was deliberately knocked into touch is just nonsense IMO

gneel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191850#Comment_122191850

Oh well if the TNT commentator says it wasn't a knock-on, well that's the case closed…. A lot of the other arguments are moot if it is a knock-on. But in fairness, it wasn't clear and obvious so that's the best argument against it being a knock-on. It's frustrating as it's nanometres away from being a professional foul. I think the intention was that, to kill the play, but obviously I'm biased. I disagree that it was definitely an attempt to control the ball.

Baird landing on the French side is marginal at best. As you said yourself, he's over the ball carriers torso, that's not lying on the wrong side. There's also an argument for DuPont trying to be cute and push it into him. I don't think that one is as obvious as you are making it out.

The rest are fine. Willis one in particular is robbery.

The Baille one you mentioned before isn't clear cut either. Ref seems to think he's not supporting his body weight and we cant see it from the camera angle.

roverjoyce

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122191565#Comment_122191565

That was a red for Doris, leading with his head

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193095#Comment_122193095

I think, a player can't slap a ball straight into touch or over the deadball line, it's irrelevant whether he knocks it forward, sideways or backwards.

In saying that, I think the ref got it right but they're fine margins

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193147#Comment_122193147

It doesn't need to be 'definitely an attempt to control the ball', it's only a deliberate knock on, if it went forward and it was not called as a knock-on by the touch judge or referee, and the footage is not clear and obvious

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193382#Comment_122193382

It only counts as a deliberate slap into touch if if is clear that is what he intended to do. Loose balls bounce into touch all the time. It's a bit of a stretch to say the referee was wrong to not give a yellow card for that

Even if the ref gave it as a penalty, Byrne would have kicked it over the line for a maul lineout anyway, which was exactly what they got from that play so the only difference would be if it was called as a deliberate cynical act to knock the ball into touch, and that would have been a very controversial call, certainly not clear and obvious

hold my beer

Ball must have defied the laws of physics to not go off his hand forward. Ridiculous. Anyway, that's enough for me. Cmon Leinster.

nerd69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193439#Comment_122193439

A player running backward hits a ball with a hand going backwards and its not going forward defys the laws of physics?

theVersatile

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122192065#Comment_122192065

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193147#Comment_122193147

I'm afraid you're the one changing the goalposts, LP.

I'm not getting into Roumat/Lowe because it's been discussed at length. If you have an issue, its with the way the laws are interpreted. Obviously Lowe has not deliberately slapped at the ball to knock it on, but that's not how deliberate knock ons are ref'd. Simple as that. Furthermore, 9/10 referees are not going to call that clearly and obviously forward. If you want to channel your rage at somebody, channel it at Sheahan - he actually could've stayed infield and scored instead of blindly chucking the ball back inside and hoping for the best.

Here is my original post re: Doris on Ntamack.

McCarthy's try is unlikely to stand regardless due to Doris clearing Ntamack about five metres beyond the ruck - and preventing him from diving on the spilled ball.

Please point out the section where I say that Doris' clear-out was late - that was something you manufactured. As for "Ntamack wasn't going to be in a position to play that ball regardless", that's clearly false - see below. He is directly over the ball and will 98% surely regather it if Doris doesn't take him for a walk illegally.

As for Sheahan's turnover, Baird is still preventing Dupont from placing the ball back - which is my entire point. I never said the clear-out was impeded, but the presentation of the ball is. To quote what I said: "Baird does not roll away and prevents the ball carrier from presenting the ball". I never once said Baird wasn't the tackler. Maybe my use of the word "flop" gave you the impression that I meant he dove off his feet after the fact, in which case we're just having a translation issue. And yes, you can see where Sheahan's hands (and therefore the ball) is - it's directly under Baird's body, because Dupont hasn't been able to present the ball due to Baird being ontop of him/the ball.

The picture of Willis - you can literally see Willis' white boot well behind VDF so I don't know where you're going with "he's leaning on VDF". Here are the stills from 12:40, 12:41, 12:42, and 12:43. This is a weird hill to die on.

My point isn't that "poor Toulouse were hard done by". Far from it. That Willis hit on Doris is high - I'm not a fool. But acting like Carley rode Leinster dry when there's very clearly decisions going both ways is just "cope".

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193147#Comment_122193147

Yeah the Baille one is definitely more of a 50/50 rather than a "Toulouse should've been rewarded". Just threw it out there since it was a three point penalty, but like I said, once Carley is clearly telling him to stop, he should have the sense to leave the ball.

gneel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193399#Comment_122193399

Have a look at the wording I was quoting: "There is not an "intentional bat" by Roumat - it is definitely an attempt to control the ball".

I don't think that is definite at all. I think he is batting it to kill the ball, and he's very lucky it didn't go forward in a clear and obvious manner.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193439#Comment_122193439

You realise, the player was running towards his own line, for the ball to go forward it would actually have to go backwards

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193528#Comment_122193528

The point you're missing in the still photos is the actual real time speed on all of these incidents. That's very applicable in all four of the Roumat, Dupont/Baird, Willis and Ntamack/Doris issues.

On the Roumat incident - please don't bother with the spurious made up '9/10 referees aren't going to give that forward' stuff - as another poster mentioned, unless the ball somehow defied the laws of physics, it unquestionably goes forward off his hand. It's clear as day. He is not making a legitimate attempt to catch that ball (by the rules of how this is typically interpreted) and is clearly just batting the ball to prevent it getting beyond him; that's clearly batting the ball into touch deliberately IMO.

On the Ntamack/Doris incident, when you see it in real time and see the pace at which it occurs, you're totally missing the fact that all of Ntamack's momentum is pushing him back towards his try line too and is also a significant factor in where he ends up. He wasn't going to be in position to gather that ball and it's utterly obvious when viewed in real time. Doris' clear out on him is well timed and isn't anywhere near as egregious as you're making out. That ball wasn't knocked on by Jenkins and McCarthy's try should have stood.

Baird is lying between Sheehan and Dupont; the only thing stopping Dupont from placing the ball is the fact he can see there isn't a single Toulouse player there and he'd basically just be handing over a turnover. He's holding onto the ball for that very obvious reason. Baird is not impacting that.

Finally; in your stills of the Willis incident, arguably only in the fourth still photo is his body position legal. In the second and third stills he is very very visibly not supporting his bodyweight and should have been penalised. In the first still you can clearly see the flex in his knee as he rests it on JVDF. You brought this up as some sort of great example of Toulouse being hard done by, but it's actually a perfect illustration of how far Toulouse pushed the boundaries all day long at the ruck and Carley indulged that.

I've no interest in engaging in this further, it's not going to change anything. We're both probably guilty of seeing what we want to see in these images, but I still think there are a whole lot more moments in this game where Leinster have a right to feel significantly aggrieved or frustrated with the interpretation, or where there is a clear lack of consistency in decisions. A fairly crucial point of frustration for Leinster fans with a lot of these decisions too is that the vast majority of them received virtually zero review on the day from Carley and the TMO. You're arguing here for something for example (Doris clearing out Ntamack supposedly beyond the ruck) that is probably the third iteration of an argument being put forward now for why what looked a perfectly legal try was chalked off, but on the day, Carley didn't even look at it, and the reason given for the try not being given (a knock on by Jenkins) is patently wrong.

Akrasia

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193633#Comment_122193633

Yeah, I'd agree with that, Luck certainly plays a part in any sporting encounter. If the ball had obviously gone forward, he would probably have been given a yellow card given where they were on the pitch.

Of course, you can tie yourself up in knots playing counterfactuals all day long

Rugby is a game of inches. If Dupont's leg was a few centimetre's higher in that opening attempt at a try, then they would have been 5 points up after 2 minutes etc etc etc

At the end of the day, I thought Carley did a decent job of refereeing the game. Every game has moments that can be debated one way or another. Some say VDFs try should not have been awarded, I think it was a try, but the TMO couldn't see for 100% certain that it was grounded over the line… There were plenty of potential penalties committed by Leinster players that were let slide, just as Toulouse got away with a few.

Ultimately, Leinster came close, but were never in front at any stage over the 110 minutes of rugby played that day. There are things that could possibly have shifted the balance in their favour, if they hadn't left Ross out even when he was injured, if there was someone other than Luke McGrath on the bench who could have come on to bring fresh legs, if Leinster had taken 3 points earlier to close the gap and keep the pressure on Toulouse, if Leinster hadn't had so many handling errors, poor passes, fumbled balls, poor throws into the lineout etc…

Carley wasn't the defining man on that pitch on Saturday. He did a decent job and let the game develop for both teams. When Toulouse had opportunities to score, they either took them, or took a valiant effort from Leinster defenders to stop them. Leinster didn't take their opportunities for points, and didn't really create any attacking threat for most of that game.

theVersatile

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193688#Comment_122193688

I've no interest in engaging in this further, it's not going to change anything. We're both probably guilty of seeing what we want to see in these images.

Hard to disagree here. It's Tuesday, time to move on.

hold my beer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193636#Comment_122193636

Yes. Which it did relative to his hand.

phog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193772#Comment_122193772

I can't see that happening, sorry

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122193688#Comment_122193688

So when it comes to the decisions that negatively impacted Leinster its okay to slow them down, freeze frame them and then chastise the ref for making the wrong call but when it comes to decisions that favour Leinster people should focus on how those incidents happened in real time and its hard to the judge them so they shouldn't really be considered. There's guilty of seeing what you want and then there's complete bias.

The reality is the Willis tackle is the probably the only clear and obvious error I think the ref/TMO made. One could slow down nearly every ruck and maul in the game and point out an infringement that the ref missed.

Lost Ormond

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195189#Comment_122195189

You don't even have to slow down every tackle/ruck or mauls to see potential infringements refs haven't pulled. Refs will not and can mot pull everything. Game would be unplayable and unwatchable if they even tried do that

gneel

If this is intentional, it's absolutely genius. I think it might be.

Scrum at 35 mins. Porter is holding himself up on Aldegheri's jersey, which in turn is being held up by Mauvalla's right arm

Then Mauvalla lets go and guess what happens

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195189#Comment_122195189

No, that’s not what I’m saying. For each and every incident you basically need to see it both in the freeze frame and the real time speed to sense check it, but most especially moments like the ones I’ve highlighted.

The notion that the rest of you are all objective and neutral observers and only the Leinster fans are guilty of bias is a pretty misguided one too, especially when you look at the multitude of posts (and those who liked them) in the match thread.

gneel

Literally the very same thing happens at the next scrum after Byrne kicks it out on the full. Must have been a strategy. Carley doesn't give anything even though it's right in front of him. Although Leinster have a shove and Aldegheri's back foot slips so not a clear cut penalty against Leinster.

ulsteru20s

Porter is clearly in my opinion the best irish player and one of the best of all time. He's also very often illegal in the scrum.

nerd69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195291#Comment_122195291

I mean it works because porters dragging directly down. No pom to pop his elbow up i guess

gneel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195421#Comment_122195421

I'm trying to compliment their scrum strategy and you say the most obvious point then try make it about a munster player

nerd69

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195506#Comment_122195506

If thats how you read it i suppose

bennyl10

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195506#Comment_122195506

point is that scrum strategy could just as easily be a Toulouse penalty

gneel

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195574#Comment_122195574

The first one did win Toulouse a penalty. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough about that. Porter goes down as soon as Mauvaka releases the jersey. It's happening at every scrum. Toulouse have done their homework on Porter.

awec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122195647#Comment_122195647

I think Porter was actually pinged for pulling down on the jersey, rather than going down.