Clancy Survives

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 9:52 am

First topic message reminder :

Outrageous news this morning as rouge Irish referee George "Vigilante" Clancy has escaped with a mere warning after blatantly overstepping his jurisdiction and conspiring with an unknown local man to rub out a valid All Black try in Port Elizabeth on Saturday.

After first suggesting that Clancy would be dealt with appropriately "It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet." and confirming that the try should have stood, that Clancy was incorrect and that the local South African school teacher had led Clancy astray, toothless IRB chief referee O'Brien again displayed his inept handling of refereeing failure when he did nothing other than offer that "referees will be reminded of the protocol".

In a chilling reminder of O'Brien's failure to tackle the indept performance of English whistler Wayne Barnes in the 2007 RWC, Paddy remarked "the gaffe would not have any World Cup consequences, and didn't affect the outcome of the game".

Israel Dagg has suggested that the pass was not forward anyway, and that the incident which saw the local South African man (drafted in under questionable circumstances at the 11th hour apparently in contingency for such an opportunity) was really a moot point given the legality of the pass in the first place.

Graham Henry, as amiable and level headed as ever pointed out that if the pass was not forward then the try should have been awarded regardless of the efforts of the pair to conspire to find a reason to rule out the try.

It's clear that the sooner that POB is replaced with Steve Walsh, the better.

by PenfroPete Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:04 pm

Referee here (although not one who ever has to worry about TMO’s ).

Mr Clancy acheived the correct adjudiction but by the wrong means. I posted a link to the IRB LAWS earlier. Here it is again http://www.irblaws.com/EN/laws/2/6/54/before-the-match/match-officials/referee-consulting-with-others/#clause_54

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS

(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.

(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.

The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.

The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.

The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.

(c) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.

(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

What Mr Clancy did was not within the LAWS of the game and this has been pointed out to him

To be fair to Grey Ghost he has never argued that South Africa should not / would not have won the game. His point is that the officials stepped outside of the LAWS of the game , they stepped over the line. The counter point should be that the line is drawn in the wrong place and it should be re-drawn However, where do you draw it ?

by eirebilly Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:08 pm

I cant believe this is still going on. Yes there was a mistake, even though it achieved the correct decision it was still a mistake. The TMO should not have dropped Clancy in it like that but Clancy should have been stronger.

The words being used by GG to describe the two offenders is downright poor and the fact that he wants Clancy dropped and banned is pathetic really.

by eirebilly Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:11 pm

This is getting pathetic now.

by Trevor Brennan Rugby Tour Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:11 pm

Right decision has been made. Couldn't care about the process. Surely people want to see the right call. The whole thing needs a rework.

This is a lot better than us giving out that TMO didn't spot it. Ref had guts - fair play to him.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:20 pm

On this occasion a seemingly just solution was arrived at via the wrong means.

But when you justify the wrong means, you open a can of worms.

If we allow referees to behave in this way, the next time they apply "common sense" you get a situation where Wayne Barnes doesn't penalise France for 60 minutes and ignores a giant forward pass.

Referees simply must be accountable. If they're not going to be dropped from the RWC when they do something as obvious and deliberately wrong as Clancy did, then we're headed down a bad track, on a two person jigger.

by Trevor Brennan Rugby Tour Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:22 pm

Grey - we don't have enought top flight refs to drop one every time they fluff up. There are far worse things happening in every game. I say chillax and hope the flawed system gets fixed instead of trying to hide behind it.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:24 pm

Man, are you guys getting the wrong end of the stick.

I want the referees to apply the laws as they are, and any debate about changing them to go through the proper channels. I'm not hiding behind anything.

We won't have ANY top flight refs if we let them all ignore the laws with impunity.

by Trevor Brennan Rugby Tour Mon 22 Aug 2011, 5:28 pm

You seem to think though that this is a deliberate ploy or intentional cheating. To me its still a grey area.

Take this:

"If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted."

What does that even mean. Ref had to make a decision in goal and a try being scored. TMO saw there was forward pass and took that advice.

Its all a load of nonsense. Lets have it black and white - what can and can't be done.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 9:46 pm

good Morning folks
I have just read all the above,the laws/rules of the game are fine,but what seems to occur is that when the Laws/rules dont conveniently suit someones arguement ,they criticise the rules out of frustration.

In this incident TMO acted outside his authority,the referee then acted on that flawed finding,and treated it as fact.This does then question the reliability of the referee and an unreliable referee is not acceptable to me as an appropriate referee to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 9:53 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: good Morning folks
I have just read all the above,the laws/rules of the game are fine,but what seems to occur is that when the Laws/rules dont conveniently suit someones arguement ,they criticise the rules out of frustration.

In this incident TMO acted outside his authority,the referee then acted on that flawed finding,and treated it as fact.This does then question the reliability of the referee and an unreliable referee is not acceptable to me as an appropriate referee to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

When the referees actions don't suit the ABs he should be reprimanded to summarise. The TMO told the ref about the forward pass. If you are going to whinge about anyone whinge about him. If you are the ref and you're told by an official it was an illegitimate try you act on it. Case closed.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:01 pm

I'm not saying that at all
A referee at International level who doesn't have an accurate knowledge and understanding of the rules is unreliable,and as such is unacceptable to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:04 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: I'm not saying that at all
A referee at International level who doesn't have an accurate knowledge and understanding of the rules is unreliable,and as such is unacceptable to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

by Draigoch Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:10 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:

The TMO told the ref about the forward pass. If you are going to whinge about anyone whinge about him. If you are the ref and you're told by an official it was an illegitimate try you act on it. Case closed.

Not really. The TMO offered more information, the ref accepted it. Neither should have done that, and both should be reprimanded. We expect players to stay within the laws, surely we should expect the same of the officals?

They had laws, they didn't follow them.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:17 pm

Having re-watched the match tonight, I have new information on this event.

We've all been missing the point actually.

The real issue in this sequence of events is that the South African tackler, (whoever no. 21 is - sorry I'm not sure) never releases Israel Dagg.

Now the rule is that the tackler must roll away, allowing the tackled player to play the ball.

In this case, Dagg could easily have handed the ball to Cowan, but he couldn't because No. 21 is hanging on to him illegally on the ground whilst trying to pull the ball free.

Now if he doesn't do that, it's a sure try.

The correct decision, which the local TMO fails to point out (in his haste to point out the very flat, or possibly forward pass) is that it should have been a penalty try with no. 21 getting a yellow, if not red card for the professional foul.

Before attempting to get the ball, no 21 would have to had released, and then got to his feet. He didn't do this, which is clearly a professional foul to kill the ball and stop a certain try. Certain yellow card, and 7 points to the ABs. Now 10 minutes a man down and the score 15-12 would have led to a very different finale to this game.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:26 pm

Draigoch wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:

The TMO told the ref about the forward pass. If you are going to whinge about anyone whinge about him. If you are the ref and you're told by an official it was an illegitimate try you act on it. Case closed.

Not really. The TMO offered more information, the ref accepted it. Neither should have done that, and both should be reprimanded. We expect players to stay within the laws, surely we should expect the same of the officals?

They had laws, they didn't follow them.

Reprimanded? It's pretty clear that AB fans lack integrity if this is a problem. Anyone with any sense of honesty would accept that they didn't deserve a try as it was not legitimate and move on. It does not seem to be ingrained in AB psyche to list integrity a particularly high priority which is why I enjoy it when they lose.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:30 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Having re-watched the match tonight, I have new information on this event.

We've all been missing the point actually.

The real issue in this sequence of events is that the South African tackler, (whoever no. 21 is - sorry I'm not sure) never releases Israel Dagg.

Now the rule is that the tackler must roll away, allowing the tackled player to play the ball.

In this case, Dagg could easily have handed the ball to Cowan, but he couldn't because No. 21 is hanging on to him illegally on the ground whilst trying to pull the ball free.

Now if he doesn't do that, it's a sure try.

The correct decision, which the local TMO fails to point out (in his haste to point out the very flat, or possibly forward pass) is that it should have been a penalty try with no. 21 getting a yellow, if not red card for the professional foul.

Before attempting to get the ball, no 21 would have to had released, and then got to his feet. He didn't do this, which is clearly a professional foul to kill the ball and stop a certain try. Certain yellow card, and 7 points to the ABs. Now 10 minutes a man down and the score 15-12 would have led to a very different finale to this game.

If thats the case the correct decision would have been a penalty and potentially a yellow. Mils Muliania did something similar in the first test v SA but he got away with it. The ref should have been sanctioned.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:32 pm

How did Dagg manage to pass the ball forward of the SA 21 was trying to pull the ball free ?

Still the real result is SA 18 5 NZ. Thats what the record books say and always will thumbsup

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:33 pm

It's all irrelevant now, because the game is over and South Africa were well worth their win. But I wouldn't mind one of the refs commenting on the point as a matter of interpretation.

21 for SA makes the tackle, then lies on top of Dagg pulling at his arms and reaching for the ball, this is what makes the ball flick out slightly forward. If he'd rolled away as he should have then the pop pass to Cowan would've been simple.

I would've thought he wasn't allowed to do that. I think if Cowan had been more patient he would have joined the tackle as a ruck and recycled - all down to lack of patience from the ABs - but at the same time if the tackler is offending and the TMO is mentioning things he shouldn't, it wouldn't have been a bad shout.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:38 pm

Leinster
I'm not sure if you are thinking of the same incident involving Muliana as I am, but in that incident the TMO did not promote himself to referee and make a ruling..

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:39 pm

When has a ref ever commented on anything in rugby? I'm still waiting for Kaplan's apology for his six nations horror show. It ain't gonna happen. Get over it.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:45 pm

I'm still waiting for Kaplan to apologise for playing 27 minutes of extra time in 2002 (or whichever year it was) so that Australia could win the Bledisloe cup by 1 point.

This was the match that he followed up with the give-away comment "I could've played another 3 or 4 minutes if he'd missed the kick, I thought NZ were time wasting"

Hmmm....I thought...surely you should have played the 3 or 4 minutes then and given NZ a chance to score again.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:50 pm

When steve Walsh was first appointed to International status, and lived in Auckland he often would make himself to the media to give his opinion on matters pertaing to referees actions, by doing this he was confident that his level of knowledge/understanding of the rules and game would withstand public scrutiny, such transparency is an indication of a high quality referee..

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:50 pm

Actually I'm not sure why Clancy went to the TMO in the first place. The grounding was obviously fine.

I suspect he was fishing for information on the pass anyway - which is even worse.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:54 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: When steve Walsh was first appointed to International status, and lived in Auckland he often would make himself to the media to give his opinion on matters pertaing to referees actions, by doing this he was confident that his level of knowledge/understanding of the rules and game would withstand public scrutiny, such transparency is an indication of a high quality referee..

Remind us again why he is now on the ARU panel.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:56 pm

Casper
Too true, how could he have thought there was something wrong with the grounding?

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:57 pm

The English drove him to drink over the 16 man debacle? Whistle

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:58 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Casper
Too true, how could he have thought there was something wrong with the grounding?

Exactly, it was clear cut. Clancy clearly didn't have a clue.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 10:58 pm

Leinster
Because he now lives on the Gold Coast,Queensland, Australia.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:00 pm

Yawn. Just reading about SBW fasting for Ramadan. No wonder the guy didn't attack the line once on Saturday, he was clearly blood-sugar low and about to pass out.

I'm beginning to believe he needs to miss out on the RWC.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:07 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Leinster
Because he now lives on the Gold Coast,Queensland, Australia.

Why did he move to Queensland ?

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:10 pm

When the World Cup comes ramadan will be over, and he can go back to eating proper timely meals.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:12 pm

Nottins
He moved to Australia after he split up with Melanie Robinson,Maybe she kicked him out of the country.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:18 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Nottins
He moved to Australia after he split up with Melanie Robinson,Maybe she kicked him out of the country.

Did he not move because he was no longer employed by NZRU ? Did he not receive a ban for verbally abusing a Lions player in 2005 ?

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:19 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:It's all irrelevant now, because the game is over and South Africa were well worth their win. But I wouldn't mind one of the refs commenting on the point as a matter of interpretation.

21 for SA makes the tackle, then lies on top of Dagg pulling at his arms and reaching for the ball, this is what makes the ball flick out slightly forward. If he'd rolled away as he should have then the pop pass to Cowan would've been simple.

I would've thought he wasn't allowed to do that. I think if Cowan had been more patient he would have joined the tackle as a ruck and recycled - all down to lack of patience from the ABs - but at the same time if the tackler is offending and the TMO is mentioning things he shouldn't, it wouldn't have been a bad shout.

Greyghost, sorry ate but now you are clutching at straws. Dagg was tackled went to ground bounced twice with the tackler then released the ball forward, at no time whatsoever was the tackler "lying" on top of Dagg.

Utter nonsense.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:21 pm

Q.1
A.not that I know of.
Q.2
If i remember rightly he either took time out himself or was stood down.

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:23 pm

Biltong
Did you see anything that would have bought the grounding into question?

by Hound_of_Harrow Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:25 pm

"Before attempting to get the ball, no 21 would have to had released, and then got to his feet. He didn't do this, which is clearly a professional foul to kill the ball and stop a certain try."

Swap no 21 for "McCaw" in many of NZ's games and I think you're onto something.

thumbsup

by aucklandlaurie Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:27 pm

Doggie
Good point Richie McCaw would have a far better knowledge of the rules of rugby than George Clancy.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:28 pm

aucklandlaurie wrote: Q.1
A.not that I know of.
Q.2
If i remember rightly he either took time out himself or was stood down.

Steve Walsh was sacked by the NZRU for repeated infringments. I'm really surprised that you didn't know about it.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:28 pm

There was no time to release the ball carrier, he was three meters from the try line, if he was released he would have crawled over, in anyway the tackler and ball carrier was still in motion (due to momentum) when the ball was released.

To say he should have released the ball carrier is utter nonsense.

Geez, this one I can't believe.

Aucklandlaurie the only thing i can summise is that Clancy was to far from the goal line to see.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:29 pm

biltongbek wrote:Greyghost, sorry ate but now you are clutching at straws. Dagg was tackled went to ground bounced twice with the tackler then released the ball forward, at no time whatsoever was the tackler "lying" on top of Dagg.

Utter nonsense.

The correct saying is, "Nonsense. Utter nonsense" Smile

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:31 pm

Thanks nottins, there are some choice words I would have preferred to use.

by nottins Mon 22 Aug 2011, 11:42 pm

biltongbek wrote:Thanks nottins, there are some choice words I would have preferred to use.

I can imagine.

by Draigoch Tue 23 Aug 2011, 12:13 am

This isn't about the All Blacks at all...

leinsterbaby wrote:
Anyone with any sense of honesty would accept that they didn't deserve a try as it was not legitimate and move on.

That's not the point! The refs broke the laws in order to rule the try out. I find this quite worrying really. They should stick to the laws, whatever they are. 'Common sense' is something so subjective that it has to be a ridiculous notion at this level of professional sport.

by nottins Tue 23 Aug 2011, 12:16 am

Draigoch wrote:

That's not the point! The refs broke the laws in order to rule the try out. I find this quite worrying really. They should stick to the laws, whatever they are. 'Common sense' is something so subjective that it has to be a ridiculous notion at this level of professional sport.

Did the refs break the law when the try by Cueto was disallowed in the 2007 RWC Final ?

What's the "common sense" applied to the "advantage" following a penalty or free kick offence ?

by TheGreyGhost Tue 23 Aug 2011, 1:17 am

biltongbek wrote:There was no time to release the ball carrier, he was three meters from the try line, if he was released he would have crawled over, in anyway the tackler and ball carrier was still in motion (due to momentum) when the ball was released.

To say he should have released the ball carrier is utter nonsense.

Geez, this one I can't believe.

Aucklandlaurie the only thing i can summise is that Clancy was to far from the goal line to see.

He wouldn't have been allowed to crawl over the line - he was already tackled. There was an english try ruled out for exactly that reason in the 6N. The tackle was complete, Dagg was on the ground and wrapped up by no. 21 - clearly you agree or he couldn't have been preventing him "crawling over the line". The tackler is obliged to release - which he never did as you point out.

For this reason it should have been a penalty try and a yellow card.

In any way - the grounding was clearly not in question. Why Clancy thought fit to even summon the TMO I have no idea. I guess he had it in mind to question the pass. Perhaps Clancy just really didn't know either of the laws. Stunning - this man definitely deserves to be stood down for the RWC.

by GunsGerms Tue 23 Aug 2011, 7:59 am

Draigoch wrote:This isn't about the All Blacks at all...

leinsterbaby wrote:
Anyone with any sense of honesty would accept that they didn't deserve a try as it was not legitimate and move on.

That's not the point! The refs broke the laws in order to rule the try out. I find this quite worrying really. They should stick to the laws, whatever they are. 'Common sense' is something so subjective that it has to be a ridiculous notion at this level of professional sport.

It is the point. Awarding tries willy nilly despite being told it's not a try by an official is more worrying precedent to set. If common sense is beyond you in this case then I suggest they should change the rules of the game to satisfy the pedants.

by eirebilly Tue 23 Aug 2011, 8:42 am

aucklandlaurie wrote: good Morning folks
I have just read all the above,the laws/rules of the game are fine,but what seems to occur is that when the Laws/rules dont conveniently suit someones arguement ,they criticise the rules out of frustration.

In this incident TMO acted outside his authority,the referee then acted on that flawed finding,and treated it as fact.This does then question the reliability of the referee and an unreliable referee is not acceptable to me as an appropriate referee to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

Only over the All Blacks? I read some biased things but this takes the cake.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Tue 23 Aug 2011, 9:08 am

Wouldnt we need a 5th odfficial to review the video form another angle so to make sure the 4th official hasnt missed anything?
Or may be we can just rely on the crowd to shout forward pass every time there is one.

by nganboy Tue 23 Aug 2011, 9:30 am

eirebilly wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote: good Morning folks
I have just read all the above,the laws/rules of the game are fine,but what seems to occur is that when the Laws/rules dont conveniently suit someones arguement ,they criticise the rules out of frustration.

In this incident TMO acted outside his authority,the referee then acted on that flawed finding,and treated it as fact.This does then question the reliability of the referee and an unreliable referee is not acceptable to me as an appropriate referee to adjudicate over the All Blacks...

Only over the All Blacks? I read some biased things but this takes the cake.

I think the point is that some people are happy enough to have a referee that will willingly disregard the laws if he doesn't consider it appropriate for some reason

by Sponsored content

A referee should...