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 Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:05 pm

LDCPete wrote:Just a word of caution with the old moderators hat on folks. No problems with debating the ins and outs of referees performances and also questioning why decisions are made, but can we stop short of out and out calling any individuals 'a cheat' please as we could be getting into libellous territory. Ta very much.

Cheat

by Great White Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:06 pm

Are you kidding? How can the AB lose and the referee not have been cheating? Its a given surely Yahoo

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:07 pm

PSW, it would work in the same way the line assistant refs do it. They call stuff that they see, as they see it. Its' up to the ref to determine if they're right.

If they are consistently wrong, the IRB review their performance and do nothing, claiming that "it didn't affect the outcome of the game" irrespective of whether it did or not.

LDCPete, does this mean all the posts on 606v2 calling Richie McCaw a cheat will be pulled? and result in the poster getting a 24 hour ban?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:10 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:PSW, it would work in the same way the line assistant refs do it. They call stuff that they see, as they see it. Its' up to the ref to determine if they're right.

If they are consistently wrong, the IRB review their performance and do nothing, claiming that "it didn't affect the outcome of the game" irrespective of whether it did or not.

LDCPete, does this mean all the posts on 606v2 calling Richie McCaw a cheat will be pulled? and result in the poster getting a 24 hour ban?

Do they get the Brian Moore commentary to help them? Could they point out the ref that the England fullback is an idiot?

Or could they just hook up to some guy in the pub watching it on Sky, since they usually are in a far better position to make game calls than any onfield official. Youre avergae England fan would probably be far less biassed against New Zealand than say Wayne Barnes.

by Great White Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:11 pm

This is comedy gold.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:16 pm

Direct link from the commentary team could be dangerous, whenever JD was commentating, the referee would spend most of the game counting the players on the field in the mistaken belief that one team had too many NUMBERS.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:21 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
leinsterbaby wrote:
aucklandlaurie wrote:Leisterboy
Its because Paddy keeps giving us Irish referees..

Good. Someone needs to make sure NZ aren't allowed score off forward passes. No Irish ref NZ v Aus and Conrad Smith scores off a knock on, opposition robbed. Time to level the playing field.

Oh we wanted to score a try from a forward pass and the ref wouldn't let us. Boo hoo.

Leintser your emissing the point deliberatly. Its bnot an argument aboiut whether or not the pass was forward but about who and when is allowed to make that decision.
If the IRB were happy with what happened then they wouldnt have repleased a statement that they wewrent happy with it. Im not convvinced there is a need to burn clancy at the stake or hound him out the game like the Indian cricket team would but teh rules do need to be adhered to and it needs to be clear that TMOs are not in a position or allowed to give information to a ref beyond their remit.

Aside form anything else TV pictures are a poor tool to use for judging forward passes.

Justice was done. What's the problem. The other alternative was allowing a try which was not a try which is a much more worrying precedent to set. Clancy should be commended for his gutsy call.

I reckon he should be given all NZ games at the WC.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:24 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Direct link from the commentary team could be dangerous, whenever JD was commentating, the referee would spend most of the game counting the players on the field in the mistaken belief that one team had too many NUMBERS.

As a Tigers fan I favour this for all Ospreys games

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:26 pm

Leinsterbaby, without being unkind, I fail to see why you don't understand the simple point that the referee and TMO have acted in a way which is outside the laws of the game.

Let's have a cricket comparison here, something you Irish will be familiar with, having beaten #1 ranked England regularly.

This would be like the umpire calling for snicko-meter or hawk-eye to determine an LBW decision when both captains had agreed that the review system wasn't available.

Both of these technologies are flawed as is relying on a TMO to judge on a forward pass - hence they are regularly not available.

In rugby the TMO is *never* allowed to comment on such things.

However in this case they have over stepped the mark and essentially acted outside the law of the game.

The IRB have already confirmed that I am correct and that Vigilante Clancy and this local friend from south africa who was drafted in at the last minute in suspicious circumstances were utterly wrong and the try should have stood.

Not sure how you are having problems grasping this. Maybe go away, have a little sit down with a cool drink and draw yourself a diagram, and come back when you realise that the IRB, and I am right, and you are wrong.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:29 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Leinsterbaby, without being unkind, I fail to see why you don't understand the simple point that the referee and TMO have acted in a way which is outside the laws of the game.

Let's have a cricket comparison here, something you Irish will be familiar with, having beaten #1 ranked England regularly.

So youre saying that Englnad are ranked 1 in rugby in your opinion? Thats very kind of you GG.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:32 pm

Test match cricket, I'm referring to. That's why I said "let's take the example of cricket..."

You must remember - for example you can have a batsman legitimately run out, as confirmed by the video replay, but England can still get in a stink about how unfair it is and then convince the opposition to re-call your batsman.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:35 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Test match cricket, I'm referring to. That's why I said "let's take the example of cricket..."

You must remember - for example you can have a batsman legitimately run out, as confirmed by the video replay, but England can still get in a stink about how unfair it is and then convince the opposition to re-call your batsman.

Well I assumed because you said "like" you menat like, not unlike. My bad.

I wont be a pedant and point out that Ireland have never played test cricket.

Englad set the precedent recently when Collingwood resinded his appeal for an injured player. it happens. Youve been asking everyone to rethink the last 3 world cups, if teh rules allowe dit Im sure we'd give them to you

by JmD Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:36 pm

Clancy made the correct decision. Anyone who disagrees is being extremely pedantic over the laws of the game. Had a try been awarded it would have been the wrong decision.

My question is why didn't the touch judge get involved? He was both in line with the pass and no more than 5 yards away when the ball was grounded, there shouldn't have been a need to consult the TMO in the first place.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:38 pm

I didn't say "like" anywhere in that sentence PSW. Well, I was indulging in hyperbole to suggest England were #1 in all forms of cricket of course. Which is clearly not true, since they keep choking the cricket world cup, whilst NZ who don't even take cricket seriously keep getting to the finals.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:39 pm

JmD wrote:Clancy made the correct decision. Anyone who disagrees is being extremely pedantic over the laws of the game.

Yeah - Like the IRB. Those pedants. Insisting that referees use the actual rules of the game, and don't make them up as they go along.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:41 pm

JmD wrote:Clancy made the correct decision. Anyone who disagrees is being extremely pedantic over the laws of the game. Had a try been awarded it would have been the wrong decision.

My question is why didn't the touch judge get involved? He was both in line with the pass and no more than 5 yards away when the ball was grounded, there shouldn't have been a need to consult the TMO in the first place.

Because it wasnt a clear forward pass.....

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:42 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:
JmD wrote:Clancy made the correct decision. Anyone who disagrees is being extremely pedantic over the laws of the game.

Yeah - Like the IRB. Those pedants. Insisting that referees use the actual rules of the game, and don't make them up as they go along.

The sort of pedants that insist on pointing out they are laws not rules .....I hate them.

by Great White Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:44 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:indulging in hyperbole to suggest NZ were #1 in all forms of rugby of course. Which is clearly not true, since they keep choking the rugby world cup, whilst England who GG doesn't even take seriously keep getting to the finals.

See what I did there?

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:46 pm

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

TheGreyGhost wrote:Leinsterbaby, without being unkind, I fail to see why you don't understand the simple point that the referee and TMO have acted in a way which is outside the laws of the game.

What Clancy did was the lesser of two evils. He should be commended for it. Allowing a try that blatantly is not a try is much more important than applying the rules exactly by the rule book in this case. It's a no brainer really.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:47 pm

Please note GW that in my new role as a moderator, I'll be taking a dim view of posters making inaccurate quotations in my name in the manner which you have done. Please refrain in the future, although this time I'll let it go.

by **Ozzy3213** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 2:59 pm

Guys

Altering each others words within the quote boxes is often highly amusing, but lets make sure it doesn't cross over into the offensive. This is the second red penning on this thread, which is a shame as this debate has been going on a number of threads since yesterday and hadn't spilled over into people taking offence until the last hour.

Banter, by all means. personal insults and we will have to start taking action which is not what we want to do.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm

I'm taking GW entirely with the light hearted sense of humour that I presume he intends. If anyone has taken offence at anything I've said or done in the last hour then accept my apologies.

by Thomond Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:01 pm

Did GreyGhost get the moderator badge and put it above his username so people would think he is a mod? Seriously,GG, nobody believes you.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:02 pm

Not even for a small part of a second?

by Thomond Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:03 pm

Nobody bought it. Kudos on the creativity though.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:04 pm

[quote="leinsterbaby"]

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:Leinsterbaby, without being unkind, I fail to see why you don't understand the simple point that the referee and TMO have acted in a way which is outside the laws of the game.

What Clancy did was the lesser of two evils. He should be commended for it. Allowing a try that blatantly is not a try is much more important than applying the rules exactly by the rule book in this case. It's a no brainer really.

It was only blatnalty not a try because the ref chose to ignore the laws on what a try is. A missed forward pass ( if tehre was one) is not a cause to disallow a try. We or a ref cant make up our own laws as to waht does and doesnt constitute a try.
Its really not that hard to understand. Had he awarded it it would blatabtly have been a try, he would have whictlesd and the points would have been on the board. You may have been upset taht he missed a forward pass, but it woudl still make it a try. And one correctly awarded, whereas it was a no try incorrectly not awarded.

Take your case up with the IRB, they will tell you youre wrong. He shoudlnt have overuled himself after the case. Referees are allowed to make mistakes (if he made one), what they arent allowed to do is try and make up for them afte r the fact by going outside the laws of the game and compounding it with another mistake.
The ameture hour TMO didnt help, but he could have just said " I didnt see it and I cant take your advice on that" and corretcly awarded a try.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:10 pm

Whilst thinking "Bejaysus I have to head down to NZ for a month in a few weeks. Now would be the wrong time to get on the wrong side of the Kiwis. Just look at what they did to Wayne Barnes."

by Great White Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:12 pm

Why are you going for a full month?

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:12 pm

Look this is my site, and if you keep contradicting me, I'll biff you out.

Tumbleweed

No?

by Great White Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:14 pm

I know, its so you can watch SA play England in the final isn't it? That reminds me, is Wayne refereeing?

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:15 pm

[quote="Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler"]

leinsterbaby wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:Leinsterbaby, without being unkind, I fail to see why you don't understand the simple point that the referee and TMO have acted in a way which is outside the laws of the game.

What Clancy did was the lesser of two evils. He should be commended for it. Allowing a try that blatantly is not a try is much more important than applying the rules exactly by the rule book in this case. It's a no brainer really.

It was only blatnalty not a try because the ref chose to ignore the laws on what a try is. A missed forward pass ( if tehre was one) is not a cause to disallow a try. We or a ref cant make up our own laws as to waht does and doesnt constitute a try.
Its really not that hard to understand. Had he awarded it it would blatabtly have been a try, he would have whictlesd and the points would have been on the board. You may have been upset taht he missed a forward pass, but it woudl still make it a try. And one correctly awarded, whereas it was a no try incorrectly not awarded.

Take your case up with the IRB, they will tell you youre wrong. He shoudlnt have overuled himself after the case. Referees are allowed to make mistakes (if he made one), what they arent allowed to do is try and make up for them afte r the fact by going outside the laws of the game and compounding it with another mistake.
The ameture hour TMO didnt help, but he could have just said " I didnt see it and I cant take your advice on that" and corretcly awarded a try.

Ask the IRB if a forward pass should be allowed. I think you will find they will say it isn't. Take your case up with them. I really don't care what the TMO did. Justice was done and they arrived at the correct decision, not sure how you or anyone else can feel aggrieved about it.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:17 pm

Because the IRB have already said that the referee was mistaken? and they've now clarified that NO REFEREE should EVER do it again?

by greybeard Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:17 pm

Spoiler:

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:18 pm

I think this debate is coming from the wrong angle. It isn't about Clancy surviving, it is about Greyghost surviving this incredible injustice.

He would rather see the try from a forward pass be given.

You can understand where he comes from though.

In 2007 France got a try from a forward pass, that neither the referee or assistant referees picked up.

Like they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:22 pm

biltongbek wrote:I think this debate is coming from the wrong angle. It isn't about Clancy surviving, it is about Greyghost surviving this incredible injustice.

He would rather see the try from a forward pass be given.

You can understand where he comes from though.

In 2007 France got a try from a forward pass, that neither the referee or assistant referees picked up.

Like they say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Not a t all, just that the referees should adjudicate in a professional manner and according tho the laws and guidleines they have.

He didnt think it was a forward pass and should be judged by the IRB on that. That he then decided to ignore the laws a second time doenst make him a better ref, it makes him a worse one.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:30 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Because the IRB have already said that the referee was mistaken? and they've now clarified that NO REFEREE should EVER do it again?

Paddy OBrien, A kiwi critisising a ref after NZ wrongly feel aggrieved. What a shock. It's not the first time this has happened. Recall Italy v NZ a few years ago Paddy also criticised the ref only to do a u turn later on.

In most legal systems often laws are quite general to allow for a judge to make a ruling based on common sense or relevant precedents. Whether this logic applies to rugby or not I really don't care the right decision was made and I hope this sets a precedent for refs to be given a bit of leeway to make logical decisions.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:34 pm

Unfortunately Leinsterbaby, this does not seem to have anything to do with logic.

It reminds me of our government.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:39 pm

biltongbek wrote:Unfortunately Leinsterbaby, this does not seem to have anything to do with logic.

It reminds me of our government.

Well it does , because theres a clear logic to why the laws are as they are.
Just like the very fact theres a referee on there in the first place.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 3:41 pm

It doesn't at all. To question Clancys integrity makes a mockery of the ideals that sets rugby apart from any other game. Last thing we need is the evolution of sleazy elements of professionalism ruining our sport ala football's murky present.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:03 pm

So now referees can behave with impunity and no one is allowed to question their actions????

Crikey, that brings Wayne Barnes into sharp focus.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:21 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:So now referees can behave with impunity and no one is allowed to question their actions????

Crikey, that brings Wayne Barnes into sharp focus.

Nope they should be allowed use common sense.

In the six nations Jonathan Kaplan awarded Mike Philips a try after Matthew Rhys took a quick throw in.

Kaplan and his linesman missed the following infringements:

A quick lineout cannot be taken if the same ball that was kicked to touch is not used
A quick lineout cannot be taken if the ball is touched. Ball boy handed a different ball to Rhys.
Rhys was standing infield when he took the quick pass.
Other infringements I cannot recall.

In this case both the ref and linesman missed numerous infringements and made a mockery of the sport. Despite calls from Ireland captain the TMO couldn't rule on anything other than the grounding of the ball. The try stood and Wales won by a score. Believe me if this happens to NZ in the WC to decide a match you will be much more peed off. If the linesman can advise the ref on infringements in the field of play. I see no reason why the TMO shouldn't be able to do so. Kaplan's comedy of errors that day went unpunished. What he did was infinitely worse than Clancys call because ultimately Clancy made the right call.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:24 pm

Problem is "common sense" is subjective.

Which is why they are compelled to stick to the actual rules.

by HammerofThunor Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:29 pm

leinsterbaby wrote:
TheGreyGhost wrote:So now referees can behave with impunity and no one is allowed to question their actions????

Crikey, that brings Wayne Barnes into sharp focus.

Nope they should be allowed use common sense.

In the six nations Jonathan Kaplan awarded Mike Philips a try after Matthew Rhys took a quick throw in.

Kaplan and his linesman missed the following infringements:

A quick lineout cannot be taken if the same ball that was kicked to touch is not used
A quick lineout cannot be taken if the ball is touched. Ball boy handed a different ball to Rhys.
Rhys was standing infield when he took the quick pass.
Other infringements I cannot recall.

In this case both the ref and linesman missed numerous infringements and made a mockery of the sport. Despite calls from Ireland captain the TMO couldn't rule on anything other than the grounding of the ball. The try stood and Wales won by a score. Believe me if this happens to NZ in the WC to decide a match you will be much more peed off. If the linesman can advise the ref on infringements in the field of play. I see no reason why the TMO shouldn't be able to do so. Kaplan's comedy of errors that day went unpunished. What he did was infinitely worse than Clancys call because ultimately Clancy made the right call.

Then they should change the laws.

It's the equivalent of a referee forcing uncontested scrums because he's bored of resetting it.

by GunsGerms Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:31 pm

TheGreyGhost wrote:Problem is "common sense" is subjective.

Which is why they are compelled to stick to the actual rules.

That's why referees (bar Steve Walsh) are neutral so that they can make an unbiased decision. There is nothing subjective about a forward pass. Clancy used his common sense based on information he had been given that the try was not legitimate. The outcome was correct.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:36 pm

This could be the start of a new Clancy novel, don't you think.

A little suspense, some controversial issues, a conspiracy theory thrown in for good measure...................... Wonder how we are going to write the sexy chick into this...................ah, the cheerleader.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:36 pm

In light of the latest refereeing debacle afflicting the All Blacks (the ones from New Zealand) a poll is in order to come to some site consensus on the roll of the referee.

by TheGreyGhost Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:38 pm

At this point I think we can find consensus that South Africa win the world rugby cheerleading contest hands down.

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:39 pm

There is another option you could put in there, abide by the laws, but allow the referee to use common sense that will ensure the correct decision is made.

Greyghost come on sir, don't you have another topic a little more interesting than this?

by SirJohnnyEnglish Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:39 pm

Can we have this merged with the Clancy article? Getting tired now

by **Biltong** Mon 22 Aug 2011, 4:40 pm

Must be those suntanned well toned bodies of theirs. kiss

by Sponsored content

A referee should...