Clancy Survives

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011 - 9:52

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 Hood83 Sat 27 Aug 2011 - 18:47

leinsterbaby wrote:The refereeing set up in rugby is one big conspiracy to facilitate the whinging ABs to win a world cup. Paddy OBrien a kiwi was selected to be head of the IRB because he has a Irish name and it wouldn't be obvious NZ bias when he became instrumental in changing the rules of the game to swing the balance of power from the Boks to the ABs.

Let's see what are the Boks good at mused "Paddy"? Kicking and they are very physical. I know let's change the kicking laws and the breakdown rules to allow for less physicality. Let's make sure refs stamp out bullies like Bakkies.

What else can I do? I'll appoint a kiwi ref pretending to be an Aussie to the RWC and earmark him for the final, damn it let's give him an Irish name too. What that guy in xfactor called that I love, Louis Walsh, cool we'll call him Steve Walsh then.

Walsh moved to Australia last year after having been struck off as a ref for verbablly abusing Shane Horgan and arriving drunk at a referees meeting among other indiscretions including being given a three day ban at the 03 WC after an altercation with an English coach. How he was a appointed a WC ref and an Aussie is very strange indeed. Please explain Paddy?

But what if a ref makes a mistake against the ABs Paddy, like Wayne Barnes in 07? No worries I will personally ridicule all referring errors made v the ABs. The Kiwi fans can apply more pressure by Whinging all the time.

But Paddy what if Din Caater or Sir Richie gets cited or injured? No worries, if any AB gets cited just tell the citing commissioner it was an accident I'll take care of the rest. You're fooked if they get injured, I can only do so much.

And that is the four year refereeing plan for world Kiwi domination.

Brilliant. Very Happy

by TheGreyGhost Sun 28 Aug 2011 - 13:45

Interesting you say "tell the citing commissioner it was an accident".

Just what Cooper has just done for kicking "Sir Richie" in the head.

Looks like perhaps not a pro-Kiwi agenda. Just a pro-stupidity one.

I'm no fan of Paddy O'Brien. How could I be? after he appointed that pasty English halfwit to personally see to it that NZ were out of the 2007 RWC.

Take a look at the last two weeks. Local TMOs making hair brained decisions in favour of the home side.

Paddy is hands down incompetent it seems, and he needs to be got rid of.

I propose Wayne Barnes to take his place. Anything to get him off the pitch.

by tigerleghorn Sun 28 Aug 2011 - 13:53

I don't think that NZ needed that "Pasty English halfwit" to help eject them from the last World Cup. Their incompetence in failing to take the right options in the oppositions 22 was more than adequate to see them fail yet again.

Who will be responsible this time when the All Blacks will inevitably fall short yet again?

by **Pal Joey** Sun 28 Aug 2011 - 14:29

tigerleghorn wrote:I don't think that NZ needed that "Pasty English halfwit" to help eject them from the last World Cup. Their incompetence in failing to take the right options in the oppositions 22 was more than adequate to see them fail yet again.

Who will be responsible this time when the All Blacks will inevitably fall short yet again?

ABs v _____ Referee/AR1/AR2/TMO

v Tonga - Clancy/Joubert/Terheege/De Santis
v Japan - Owens/Rolland/Garces/De Santis
v France - Rolland/Clancy/Damasco/Hughes
v Canada - Poite/Walsh/Damasco/Goddard

One of the above no doubt, tigerleghorn.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 28 Aug 2011 - 18:37

TheGreyGhost wrote:he appointed that pasty English halfwit to personally see to it that NZ were out of the 2007 RWC.

Paddy is hands down incompetent

Sounds like hes quite competent, he appionted the right man for the job.....

by doctor_grey Sun 28 Aug 2011 - 18:52

By the way, how does Steve Walsh earn his way back to referee at the RWC?

He has had a number of issues including his well documented issues off the pitch. To be referee in a RWC has got to be a very high pressure situation. For his own good, he shouldn't be there, let alone some inconsistent matches he has had.

Though to be completely fair, he is not so pasty. Didn't know that was the number one criteria for judging referees. Does that apply to ex-girlfriends and mothers-in-law as well?

by TheGreyGhost Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 0:04

I guess the IRB looked at the performances of the other refs available at the moment and realised they are all flawed.

I mean, we've got Barnes who had his chance and messed up last time out - back in.

Vigilante Clancy, who clearly doesn't know the rules and yet is still going.

Need I go on?

by nottins Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 0:17

TheGreyGhost wrote:I guess the IRB looked at the performances of the other refs available at the moment and realised they are all flawed.

I mean, we've got Barnes who had his chance and messed up last time out - back in.

Vigilante Clancy, who clearly doesn't know the rules and yet is still going.

Need I go on?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 3:12

TheGreyGhost wrote:II mean, we've got Barnes who had his chance and messed up last time out - back in.

But you already said it yourself, he did the job he was specificaly employed to do...ensure the new zealands didnt win a world cup (except the one everyone forgets about / doesnt count )

by doctor_grey Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 4:58

Would Walsh be allowed to officiate an All Blacks match? Seems a conflict of interest and raises many questions.

by GunsGerms Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 11:46

Yes he would.

by tigerleghorn Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 12:59

Quote GG: "Vigilante Clancy, who clearly doesn't know the rules and yet is still going.

Need I go on?"

No, you needn't go on but I'm sure you will. Oh, small point, there are no Rules in Rugby Union only Laws.

by **Biltong** Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 13:05

The fight club also has rules.

Rule 1, You don't talk about fightclub.

Rule 2, you don't incessantly talk about Clancy.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 15:18

doctor_grey wrote:Would Walsh be allowed to officiate an All Blacks match? Seems a conflict of interest and raises many questions.

Surely the IRB couldn't allow a conflict of interest?

IF they did, you'd have an English referee appointed to determine who would face England in the semi-finals. WHo knows what could happen? He could for example ignore forward passes by one team and not penalise them at all for 60 minutes...

Or have local TMOs making bad calls against visiting teams...

by GunsGerms Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 15:25

Loose cannon Walsh in the lions tour of nz chased Shane Horgan down the touchline shouting insults at him. He has proved beyond doubt he is not a suitable linesman for NZ games. This is presumably why OBrien now considers him an Aussie.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 15:28

Shane Horgan was trying to referee the game.

He'd lost all sense of respect for the officials and was behaving in an unacceptable manner. He was brandishing imaginary yellow cards and calling for decisions to be overturned. He seemed to think that because he was part of the British lions that it made him special. It was nice to see him put back in his place.

O'Brien has nothing to do with the position of Walsh.

Walsh moved to Australia when the NZRFU withdrew his contract. He then worked very hard to prove himself at some very fundamental levels of refereeing, turned his life around and was selected by the ARU to represent Australia.

He's a very similar story to Robbie Deans or Quade Cooper for example. Or a parallel to any one of the number of non-English playing for England.

by doctor_grey Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 21:52

TheGreyGhost wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:Would Walsh be allowed to officiate an All Blacks match? Seems a conflict of interest and raises many questions.

Surely the IRB couldn't allow a conflict of interest?

IF they did, you'd have an English referee appointed to determine who would face England in the semi-finals. WHo knows what could happen? He could for example ignore forward passes by one team and not penalise them at all for 60 minutes...

Or have local TMOs making bad calls against visiting teams...

Maybe its because I just got back into a blyddi hotel room after a 6 hour surgery.
Maybe its because I grabbed a couple of beers from the mini bar.
Or maybe I am just tired, but I don't get your points here at all.
Can you please explain them in less cryptic language. Thanks.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 22:02

TheGreyGhost wrote:Shane Horgan was trying to referee the game.

Well thats better than clancy

by TheGreyGhost Mon 29 Aug 2011 - 22:03

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:Shane Horgan was trying to referee the game.

Well thats better than clancy

by nathan Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 16:15

i think a new country has just taken the nickname whiners.....

It was a forward pass so i don't see why your whinging, the right decision was made in the end.

by TheGreyGhost Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 16:49

No nathan. The wrong decision was made.

TMOs are not allowed to comment on events that take place prior to the goal line.

This is not a fickle foible of the silly old laws, but in fact a decision arrived at by the IRB after serious consideration and for lots of valid reasons.

To have TMOs or referees ignoring their jurisdiction and usurping the laws set out by the IRB is wrong.

The reasons for this include that there needs to be a cut off point before which a TMO cannot review, otherwise we might have a TMO rewatch the entire game to that point searching for infringements which is clearly not practical. And secondly it's not possible to accurately ascertain the forwardness of a pass from TV coverage due to parallax and distortion issues.

It also sets a dangerous precedent for officials to be deciding which laws they do and do not wish to abide by.

The IRB have gone to great lengths to clarify this point prior to the RWC.

Unfortunately Matt Goddard then stepped up the very next week and made a similarly catastrophic blunder.

by Rob B Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 16:54

TheGreyGhost wrote:Shane Horgan was trying to referee the game.

He'd lost all sense of respect for the officials and was behaving in an unacceptable manner. He was brandishing imaginary yellow cards and calling for decisions to be overturned. He seemed to think that because he was part of the British lions that it made him special. It was nice to see him put back in his place.

O'Brien has nothing to do with the position of Walsh.

Walsh moved to Australia when the NZRFU withdrew his contract. He then worked very hard to prove himself at some very fundamental levels of refereeing, turned his life around and was selected by the ARU to represent Australia.

He's a very similar story to Robbie Deans or Quade Cooper for example. Or a parallel to any one of the number of non-English playing for England.

Or the countless Pacific Islanders playing for the All Blacks. Open the other eye - trust me you'll see more.

by tigerleghorn Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 17:08

Quote GG: "Or a parallel to any one of the number of non-English playing for England."

You mean like Frank Bunce, Michael Jones and the Bachop brothers turning out for New Zealand AND Samoa then?

by TheGreyGhost Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 17:10

No, not really. Nothing like that at all, actually.

by jbeadlesbigrighthand Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 17:38

TheGreyGhost wrote: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.

Damn those rouge Irish. Never trust an Irishman who isn't vert.

by tigerleghorn Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 17:44

Re: Referees
by TheGreyGhost Today at 6:10 pm

No, not really. Nothing like that at all, actually.

_____________________________________________________________

And their cases would be different and presumably acceptable to you because?.........

by ruck40fun Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 18:13

GG, this is a wind-up surely? Even someone as myopic as you should see the blatant double-standards being displayed in this thread with your constant whingeing about forward passes and referees being biased.

Get over it, Australia were infinately better on the day and deserved their win, fair play to NZ for getting back into the game, but the best team won and blaming the ref for your team's failings is a bit sad, if not hugely amusing!

by tigerleghorn Tue 30 Aug 2011 - 18:51

Fess up GG!....You are a complete Merkin
!
It's all just so primitive.

by nganboy Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 2:07

tigerleghorn wrote:Re: Referees
by TheGreyGhost Today at 6:10 pm

No, not really. Nothing like that at all, actually.

_____________________________________________________________

And their cases would be different and presumably acceptable to you because?.........

Tiger

You do know that Michael Jones and Graeme Bachop (two great ABs in my opinion), both of Samoan (and other) heritage were born in New Zealand don't you?
Are you suggesting that because they are not white or Maori that they were not quite qualified to play for NZ?

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 10:33

ruck40fun wrote:GG, this is a wind-up surely? Even someone as myopic as you should see the blatant double-standards being displayed in this thread with your constant whingeing about forward passes and referees being biased.

Get over it, Australia were infinately better on the day and deserved their win, fair play to NZ for getting back into the game, but the best team won and blaming the ref for your team's failings is a bit sad, if not hugely amusing!

It's infinitely, not infinately. You should be careful with superlatives like this. I suspect you are tending toward hyperbole. A team infinitely better then the opposition would lead to a much more lopsided scoreline.

To be honest I think your suggestions border on ignorance.

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 10:46

Grey ghost there seems to me to be a correlation between the amount of excuses and with respect waffle that you post and the proximity to the start of the WC. The closer we get get to the WC the more aggravated you seem to get. Are you feeling nervous?

Losing two in a row must have you sweating a little?

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 10:49

Not at all leinster.

NZ have previously gone into world cups after completely demolishing our nearest rivals by half a century of points and not won it.

Conversely we've seen teams have absolutely shocking runs of form and then muddle through to the final.

Ultimately it's a few one of matches that count. On the day, injuries, refs, TMOs, food poisoning and any number of unusual events can influence the result.

Best just to enjoy the tournament for the celebration of rugby that it is supposed to be, and hope that the best team will win playing some exciting rugby.

Yet, knowing the best team usually doesn't win, and there is usually very little exciting rugby.

by HERSH Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 10:57

Celebration of rugby vomit

Winning is all that counts, maybe if NZ had the bottle to take a drop kick they would have won the 2007 WC, Which is why I voted for Wilko in another article yesterday instead of Carter, Carter is a yellow-bellied bottler

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:08

HERSH wrote:Celebration of rugby

Winning is all that counts, maybe if NZ had the bottle to take a drop kick they would have won the 2007 WC, Which is why I voted for Wilko in another article yesterday instead of Carter, Carter is a yellow-bellied bottler

Carter was off the field injured in 07 Hersh, makes it somewhat hard to kick a droppie (and from memory NZ was ahead when he got injured). Now if you were to say Luke McAllister was a bottler I'd agree with you.

And as far as I know DC doesn't use fake tan, so yellowbellied is a bit inaccurate too Wink

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:09

TheGreyGhost wrote:Not at all leinster.

NZ have previously gone into world cups after completely demolishing our nearest rivals by half a century of points and not won it.

Conversely we've seen teams have absolutely shocking runs of form and then muddle through to the final.

Ultimately it's a few one of matches that count. On the day, injuries, refs, TMOs, food poisoning and any number of unusual events can influence the result.

Best just to enjoy the tournament for the celebration of rugby that it is supposed to be, and hope that the best team will win playing some exciting rugby.

Yet, knowing the best team usually doesn't win, and there is usually very little exciting rugby.

I can never understand why some people often Kiwis get so obsessed with the idea of "exciting rugby". International rugby is always exciting. However, because it is the biggest tournament in rugby and has a knockout format winning teams often play the percentages and that can sometimes mean less creativity. That's the nature of the beast and the same for most finals in most sports.

Which would you prefer Kiwis beat everyone in style but lose the final by a drop goal or Kiwis to scrape through to the final playing ugly and win by a drop goal. I reckon you would be more excited to see NZ take the prize.

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:11

Why are those your only two options?

NZ to win the final by 40 points, taking out twenty-odd years of frustration on the poor overwhelmed opposition, whilst running in the most insane try's ever witnessed.

That's my first pick.

by HERSH Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:12

You're right I take it all back.

I remember now I was rolling around on the floor due to laughing too much as the game drew to it conclusion.

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:20

TheGreyGhost wrote:Why are those your only two options?

NZ to win the final by 40 points, taking out twenty-odd years of frustration on the poor overwhelmed opposition, whilst running in the most insane try's ever witnessed.

That's my first pick.

The problem is that's what NZs plan A always seems to be but tends to fail every time. In 07' there was no plan B. Would you prefer to not just win ugly?

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:22

As already mentioned. 2007 NZ were restricted by losing both first five's to injury. This left the cupboard a bit bare on game plan options. In fact they took the right one, by keeping it close and grinding down France in the forwards. If Barnes had awarded any one of the 26 penalties that he missed, then NZ would have won that game comfortably. I'm not sure that flinging it around in the backs was really going to lead to much success since Barnes was content to allow France to be well offside, score from blatantly forward passes and generally achieve turn over ball by any method they chose, be it legal or illegal.

What I'm saying is that my first hope is for a world cup devoid of dire refereeing debacles and a rampant injury toll where all game plans can prosper.

The top two sides in the world at the moment have exciting backs and love to counter-attack. It would be a shame if the tournament was reduced to yet another dire 10 man slug fest interrupted only by place kicking. I'm not sure why you seem to wish that it is to be honest.

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:24

You haven't answered my question

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:25

I have. I've said I prefer to win pretty.

As I've said I'm not sure why you want the contest to be won by the most negative and cynical side at the contest.

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:34

TheGreyGhost wrote:I have. I've said I prefer to win pretty.

As I've said I'm not sure why you want the contest to be won by the most negative and cynical side at the contest.

That wasn't my question though. Also I never specified what type of team I want to win I said it doesn't bother me I will enjoy it either way. It's the RWC, it doesn't get much better than that.

If Ireland had any chance of winning which I accept they don't it wouldn't bother me how they won provided there was no cheating involved.

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:36

Well you can aspire for mere victories. But I prefer to see victories from positive attacking play, and not from being negative and cynical and hoping the referee awards enough favourable kickable penalties amongst the quagmire.

by GunsGerms Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 11:43

TheGreyGhost wrote:Well you can aspire for mere victories. But I prefer to see victories from positive attacking play, and not from being negative and cynical and hoping the referee awards enough favourable kickable penalties amongst the quagmire.

It is possible to score all your points from drop goals without being negative or cynical and win. What's wrong with that? As long as you win.

by damngoodOvalball Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 16:59

TheGreyGhost wrote:
What I'm saying is that my first hope is for a world cup devoid of dire refereeing debacles

despite the fact that this would mean NZ losing their advantage at the breakdown, relegating McCaw to an on field spectator? Really?
Come on GG, there are flights of fantasy, and then theres plain old BS. You are wallowing in the latter with that comment.

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 17:26

On what evidence do you base that claim?

by damngoodOvalball Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 17:49

get one of your richie dvds out, stick it in the dvd player and press play

by TheGreyGhost Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 18:00

There are Richie DVDs? You've seen them? Man you are obsessed!

by damngoodOvalball Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 18:53

and this quote from from an unamed former member of the AB backroom staff "Richie cheats at the breakdown. Everybody knows that" he went on to say "I was sacked for threatening to expose our crack team of adidas poaches writing huge cheques to islanders in the pacific region to come and play for us" adding "the NZRU offered me a compromise role in our Prepared Excuses Team" but they are becoming so fanciful and frankly pathetic that I rejected the offer". Mr BLANK emphasised that he still wanted the ABs to finally win a "proper world cup" but that he was concerned about the "mental fragility which has historically plagued our wonderful pacific collective".
He summarised by saying "despite whats happened, I am a true kiwi unlike the majority of our squad. I dont much like Quade Cooper"

by tigerleghorn Thu 1 Sep 2011 - 19:07

damngoodovalball thats priceless!!

You will now incur the wrath of GG who has probably just blown his top.

He must be the only poster on here capable of wearing his clothes out from the inside!!

by Sponsored content

A referee should...