Champions Cup final thread

What are you on about, it was clearly lost forward in a rip.

That's about the only talking point that worthy of discussion, to me the ref didn't know what to do so he did nothing.

I think, he's claiming (incorrectly) that as it was a rip, touching a Leinster player after the rip & going forward should be ignored.

Or, is it he can't see the ball touching the ball carrier after the rip.

Toulouse and dupont were good and well worth their win on saturday, but they wont like the video review of the many mistakes they made that ultimately kept leinster in the game. Their two disallowed tries would normally have been expected to be scored.

But look, at least it made the game exciting for us neutrals until the last 10 mins.

Watched the highlights on ATH and it reaffirmed to me that Carley had a good game. All the important calls on both sides of the ball were 100% correct .

Playing area looked very small. Was pitch narrower than it should have been , definitely shorter at 95m. Didn’t suit Toulouse gameplan

When three of the complaints against a ref are "He didn't give that turnover quick enough", "He didn't award my try quick enough", and "He didn't give that red card quick enough", it's hard not to think that people are clutching at straws.

Roumat and Lowe are two completely separate incidents. One is a alleged bat into touch (backwards), the other is a deliberate knock on. We all know what the interpretations are with deliberate knock ons - when its one handed and there's not a reasonable chance of regathering the ball, then its a penalty. If there's an overlap and a potential line-break is prevented, its a yellow card. This is not new, and this is exactly what happened with Lowe. This is not how a slap into touch is refereed - the law is not interpreted in the same way. As @awec has repeatedly pointed out, the question is whether Roumat has deliberately slapped the ball into touch. This is clearly not the case - he has stuck a hand out, the ball has gone backwards, and Roumat failed to regather the ball. As a result, it went into touch. You can argue all you want how the events are similar, but they are two different laws which have two different interpretations around them. If you're arguing, your issue is with the interpretation/application of the law, not with Carley who made the correct decision in both cases. If you're arguing they should be treated the same and the law should be changed, then fair enough, but saying Carley was wrong to treat them differently is simply incorrect.

As pointed out by @aloooof, 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. I'm not going to get into whether Jenkins touched the ball and knocked it on after the initial rip since its so marginal.

As pointed out elsewhere, for Lowe's try, McCarthy dummying a pick-and-go is a free kick offence (not a penalty). Law 15.16(g): "A player cannot take any action to make opponents believe that the ruck has ended when it has not". There is also zero guarantee that Lowe would've scored anyways since all of the inside drifting cover defence (i.e. Ntamack and Costes) stop playing once they hear the whistle. Some people also had issues with the tackle on Jenkins for some reason? Nothing wrong with it, arms up clearly attempting to wrap.

Ironically some people had issue with Carley taking so long to give VDF's try. In reality, Carley is the reason its rewarded. The TMO doesn't have evidence of the ball on the ground AND over the line - and its Carley's insistence that the ball was always over the line which actually results in the try actually being given at all despite there being no clear angle of the ball on the ground and over the line. That usually cannot be inferred (often the TMO will say in such situations that there's no evidence to overturn the on-field decision, as the ball could've been grounded short and therefore its not a clear and obvious try).

Someone also had the retort of "Well, did Toulouse have anything they could feel aggrieved about"? Well, before Byrne's 3 pointer at half time, it comes from a penalty on halfway for a jackal turnover where Baird does not roll away and prevents the ball carrier from presenting the ball. Baird flops like a dead whale over the ruck and Sheahan is rewarded for the turnover. (40:15). I also do not see much wrong with Baille's turnover at (17:25) before Byrne's first three pointer, although Carley is very clear with his call and Baille should leave it once he's been informed. Willis also has a stonewall turnover not given before VDF's try - he's on the ball for three full seconds (ET 12:40 1st half). I haven't done a full re-watch but that's 13 points that came from decisions going Leinster's way. Any suggestion that Carley rode Leinster or was biased in any fashion is ludicrous. I'm far from his biggest fan as a referee, but he wasn't the issue for Leinster.

WTF is Roumat doing… it's a penalty

No it isn't - this has been explained repeatedly. The TNT commentator (if you're watching the game on Rugby24) literally calls it as it is in real time. There is not an "intentional bat" by Roumat - it is definitely an attempt to control the ball - and it is most definitely not "clear and obvious" gone forward from the angles we are shown. Even if there is an extended TMO check, that's not getting given as a knock on.

Claiming Carley is the reason VDF try is award is rich

When you can show me an angle which clearly and obviously shows the ball both on the ground and over the line in the same frame, I will concede this to you. Otherwise, I stand by it (see also Awec above)

Baird lands on the Leinster side

That's a nope from me, Chief. (Note for others, you're looking at the guy Sheehan is directly over - not Jenkins who is to be fair well out of the way and rolls after this too). He's directly over the ball carrier's torso.

Look at Doris' hit on Ntamack

I never said it was late. Even when a clearout is perfectly legally timed, you can't take someone out four or five metres beyond the point of contact. This is basic.

How good of you to watch the game in detail again

I literally didn't, as I highlighted above. I simply looked at the incidents which you have spent the last three pages complaining about. I don't know what the craic is with your Munster rant, but I think it's showing your true colours a little bit.

Willis is one of the tacklers, absolutely never has a clear release.

Since, I love being a pedant - Willis is a tackle assist; not a tackler. And I think you'll struggle to find a clearer release than that screenshotted below. I do appreciate your description about how Willis is clearly on the ball and not past the ball on the grass as you see with some jackals.

This is an outstanding post that clearly shows, with evidence, that none of those incidents were as LP so vociferous described

my lasting impression is that it was a good if not great final , exciting to watch due to the closeness of the score.

Congratulations to Toulouse and commiserations to leinster .

I will leave it there as this thread is turning into a ref bashing/munster bashing circle jerk for some posters.

There's a certain irony that the most toxic posters, who've done more to drive people away from this forum than anybody, are now patting themselves on the back for their outstanding comments and objectivity.

I've been following this thread and I don't remember reading much, if anything, about Munster.

Its not about the mistakes, it's about consistency. If you see a thing one way then you have to see it the same way for all those events. Chopping and changing your mind on similar plays is going to upset most people.

When Lowe knocked it down I felt he was unlucky but that it had to be a yellow card because that's the rules of the game.

If anything Roumat's attempt was more intentional and when I seen it and the replays I was certain it had to be a yellow.

I was sad when Nigel Owens retired, he was an outstanding referee.