AP Final Northampton Saints v Saracens

First topic message reminder :

Thought I'd start a thread for the final.

I hope it'll be a close game and as a neutral attending, a lot more interesting then the HC final.

Saracens: Goode; Ashton, Bosch, Barritt, Strettle; Farrell, De Kock; Barrington, Brits, Stevens; Borthwick (capt), Botha; Brown, Burger, B. Vunipola.

Replacements: George, Gill, Johnston, Haregreaves, Wray, Wigglesworth, Hodgson, Wyles.

Northampton Saints: Foden; K. Pisi, G. Pisi, Burrell, North; Myler, Fotuali'i; Corbisiero, Haywood, Ma'afu; Manoa, Lawes; Clark, Wood (capt), Dickinson.

Replacements: Hartley, Waller, Mercey, Day, Dowson, Dickson, Wilson, Stephenson.

Heart say's Saints to get their first ever AP title and the cup to get a new name on it, head say's Saracens will do enough to get a win after the let down on Saturday.

Even flipping a coin would have been fairer on that last decision of the game.

I'm not disagreeing about a lack of consistency in the use of the TMO beshocked, but ultimately, however they got there, I think the right decisions were made int he end.  The try at the end appeared pretty clear to me from one of the camera angles, so in my opinion was the right decision. 

With regard to going to the TMO after having awarded the try, I have in the back of my mind that this has happened before, and the referee is entitled to do so.  Whislt it was farcical the way it came about, with the TMO basically pointing out to Doyle that he should review it, as Ben Kay said on commentary, the TMO powers were extended to cut out the real injustices, and the forward pass in that play was a big one, so it would have been an injustice had the try stood.  

As I say, in the end, the majority of decisions were got right, and I don't agree that it was one rule for one team and one for the other, just a case of Doyle making a pigs ear of the procedures.

Ozzy it was a controversial decision at the end of the match. By all means if you can find an angle where it looks like you can see the ball on the try line. To me it was inconclusive. I am not sure how the TMO could award it.

You say the majority of decisions - not sure missing a potential forward pass in the 2nd Saints try is that.....

It is one rule for one and none for the other - one team gets two tries disallowed, the other gets two controversial ones given. A potential 28 point swing.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

Hood83 wrote:

nathan wrote:

Hood83 wrote:JP Doyle is a woeful ref, never liked him. Good on him for having the guts to go back to chalk that try off though.

he's a good ref, normally gets the right decision and lets the game flow.

Not convinced, when I've seen him he's always made fairly obvious gaffes AND missed a lot at the breakdown. Might just have seen some off games, and obviously it's a lot of my personal interpretation.

I'm with Hood on this one.  JP has always missed fairly obvious things in my opinion when I've watched games he's reffed.

Ditto - and assumed he's seen things that haven't actually happened ...

I think the big controversy was the decision of the Doyle and the TMO to go back more than one phase for the disallowed Wray score. I thought that was specifically banned under the TMO regulations.

The difference is beshocked, you are emotionally attached, hence you see the awarded tries as controversial.  I am absolutely completely neutral in this one, and for me the only controversy was around the procedure, and not the final decisions.  All looked pretty clear cut to me, it was just that Doyle, as he always does, made a meal out of the decision making process.

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think the big controversy was the decision of the Doyle and the TMO to go back more than one phase for the disallowed Wray score. I thought that was specifically banned under the TMO regulations.

I know there was debate about this when they came in, and I don't think it was ever clarified.  We've seen previously them go back more than one phase, so I'm not sure it's that controversial.

beshocked wrote:Ozzy it was a controversial decision at the end of the match. By all means if you can find an angle where it looks like you can see the ball on the try line. To me it was inconclusive. I am not sure how the TMO could award it.

You say the majority of decisions - not sure missing a potential forward pass in the 2nd Saints try is that.....

It is one rule for one and none for the other - one team gets two tries disallowed, the other gets two controversial ones given. A potential 28 point swing.

Was it absolutely certain that Saints scored that final try. No. But it was almost certain which is good enough to award a try.

Ozzy3213 wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think the big controversy was the decision of the Doyle and the TMO to go back more than one phase for the disallowed Wray score. I thought that was specifically banned under the TMO regulations.

I know there was debate about this when they came in, and I don't think it was ever clarified.  We've seen previously them go back more than one phase, so I'm not sure it's that controversial.

Surely that is the main difference this season. They can go back to the last restart.

Personally I think the important thing is to get the decisions right which in the end they did. I would however prefer a system where the refs just make decision without reference and each team has a set number of referrals per match as in tennis and rugby.

Almost certain? By all means please do tell what footage made you come to that conclusion?

The footage showed nothing clear cut. No certainty at all hence going to the TMO for so long.

Being emotionally attached means little. If I felt the footage was conclusive I would agree with you.

To give a try you must have evidence that it has been scored - by all means share it if you have it.

The goode pass was forward but the Saints pass in the 2nd try I believe was also forward but only one try was disallowed. That is inconsistent- a wrong decision.

To be fair to beshocked I think one of his issues is that there was a potential forward pass in the build up to Saint's 2nd try that wasn't referred so there appears to be a lack of consistency.  I did also think there was some inconsistency in line-out calls near the end - Saint's clearly threw to the front and the catcher caught the ball in front of his chest without having moved his feet so it couldn't possibly have been straight but this was ignored but the next throw by Sarries was called as not straight.  There was also a clearly forward pass by Hartley quite a long way back before the final try that again if called would probably have seen a different result.

I'm neutral and thought it was a great match and mistakes do happen of course (especially when Doyle is the man in the middle) but I have some sympathy with Sarries supporters that feel they didn't get the rub of the green ...

I have sympathy for Sarries fans Heaf, it's been a tough 10 days for them, they deserved something from a season where they have played some excellent rugby.  However, the better team on the day won, as is the way of play offs, and I don't think that can be attributed to Doyle on this occasion.

I am truly overjoyed Saints have finally won the Premiership.  The match was on a razor edge the whole time and it's a credit to how good both teams are that it went to the very end of Extra Time.  Very little between them.  Sarries are a seriously good team and enjoyable to watch.  The result could easly have swung in their direction just as easily as it swiung towards Saints.  

A bit of added respect for Tom Wood going for the try at the end rather than the drop goal and give Saints the title on tie-breaker rules.  A proper win is a proper win.    

I do agree the use of the TMO needs to be clarified.  Perhaps it is simply human nautre to defer to the TMO more is a big game to triple check everything was right, though clearly, its use is inconsistent.  However, through my green, gold, and balck tinted glasses most of the calls were eventually correct.

Ozzy I agree Saints were better on the day but I can understand the frustration with the inconsistencies - we've certainly seen plenty of that ourselves this season … plus I have to admit to just not liking Doyle's reffing after we've suffered at his hands on more than one occasion   

OzzyWhat do you mean by better team?

Saints were more clinical with their chances which weren't many and seemed to get the rub of the green IMO. Does that make them better? I am not so sure.

I think the last play of the game was appropriate - Jp Doyle and the tmo having the final say with the decision going saints way.

It was saint's day. Congrats.

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/local/victory-parade-in-town-centre-to-mark-historic-win-by-northampton-saints-1-6092544

The purple dude in the beginning is not a Saints supporter, methinks???????

I'm neutral and listened to the game on radio 5. It sounded terrific. I wasn't disappointed watching the highlights on tv later. Well done to both sides.

My girlfriend bought tickets and took me up as a surprise. I have to say, it was an entertaining game as a neutral and I thoroughly enjoyed the day out. I think some of the injustice Saracens fans may be feeling might be due to the fact that they were so far ahead in the regular season, but the beauty of the play-offs is that what has come before is irrelevant and the best team on the day wins the trophy.

Having not seen it on TV, I can't really say whether the decisions were correct, but I did find the constant use of the TMO irritating, as I do when watching on TV. I thought it was a bit farcical that the referee could award the try and then change his mind. For me once a decision is made that should be it, whether the referee makes it on his own or asks for help from one of his assistants. Otherwise it may lead to teams protesting and asking the referee to use the TMO after a decision has been made, which would be a backward step for rugby.

However, congratulations to Northampton and commiserations to Saracens. A fantastic advert for rugby between the two best teams in England this season.

still happy many years in the making

Congrats Doc. Really happy for you. Really enjoyed the game. Just finished watching a recording as I was at a wedding yesterday.

Just watched it. Best final of the weekend. Great spectacle. How can anyone be against the playoffs system?

I think Doyle was appointed for the final to ensure no cards were dished out this year, he has to be the most lenient ref in the Jeff when it comes to cards.

The TMO process will always be inconsistent unless every try is referred. Doyle should have referred Saints 2nd try but he didn't see anything worth referri , hence why this will always be open to criticism. With Farrell's disallowed try my view on this was that rather than Doyle referring it after awarding the try it was Graham Hughes saying it needs to be checked. That is the role of a TMO and if he sees something he can inform the ref it needs to be reviewed. I'm pretty sure this is what happened.

To my understanding it can go back more than one phase. Regardless it was the correct decision to disallow Wrays try as Vunipola clearly obstructed.

In large the TMO process has improved the game and I can understand why Sarries could feel aggrieved, but for me the correct decisions were made. Beshocked I shall wait to see the highlights, but at the time there appeared to be one angle that showed it on the line. I'm also in favour of the benefit of the doubt going to the attacking side.

Being brutally harsh Sarries had the opportunity to win the game with Hodgsons conversation and with the late penalty in normal time at c55 metres should have been given to Bosch for a shot.

It was a fantastic game and whilst I fully understand why Sarries will feel aggrieved, they should also be very proud of a fantastic season. On the day they were just pipped, but they are still an excellent side.

On a different point I did see on another forum someone suggest that if an extra time situation should occur again, it should be the team that finished highest in the league and not the highest try scorers on the day who should have the benefit. I'd also be in favour of instead of a coin toss to decide ends and kick offs, it too should be decided by the highest finisher.

I am as most would expect happy as Larry with a Saints victory. I was at the game but in the corner, about as far from the only screen I could see as you can get, I thought Waller got over the line but from 120m away I could not get a good enough view of the screen to see if it was conclusive.

What does worry me is consistency of decision making. Last week against Toulon there was an unopposed drive from a lineout that the ref said was all right and let the drive continue, yesterday Saints did the same thing, Sarries did not oppose and Doyle pulled them up. Which decision is correct?

It depends if the ball has been held at the front or passed to the back. If passed back before the maul is formed the guys at the front are obstructing. If held at the front the guys at the back aren't.

Binding to a guy and driving them forward can be classed as flying wedge and be penalised but I think that's only done if dangerous.

Exiledinborders wrote:

beshocked wrote:Ozzy it was a controversial decision at the end of the match. By all means if you can find an angle where it looks like you can see the ball on the try line. To me it was inconclusive. I am not sure how the TMO could award it.

You say the majority of decisions - not sure missing a potential forward pass in the 2nd Saints try is that.....

It is one rule for one and none for the other - one team gets two tries disallowed, the other gets two controversial ones given. A potential 28 point swing.

Was it absolutely certain that Saints scored that final try. No. But it was almost certain which is good enough to award a try.  

No it isn't. The TMO must be certain in his decision. So if the question is "Try, yes or no?" then he must be 100% certain that there was a try to award it. Likewise if the question is "Any reason not to award the try?" the he must be 100% certain that there is a reason to not award the try.

The situation yesterday was pretty similar to the Strettle non-try situation in the 2012 6N. The TMO didn't have a conclusive angle then (although one did surface a couple of days later) and didn't give the try because the question was "Try, yes or no?".

HammerofThunor wrote:Congrats Doc. Really happy for you. Really enjoyed the game. Just finished watching a recording as I was at a wedding yesterday.

Thanks mate! Appreciate it.
It was the ultimate nail-biter.

I would just like to say that it was a good job I wore my tight shirt on Saturday, otherwise when Saints won, i'd have split my sides laughing...

Well done Saints, nice one.

HongKongCherry wrote:
It was a fantastic game and whilst I fully understand why Sarries will feel aggrieved, they should also be very proud of a fantastic season. On the day they were just pipped, but they are still an excellent side.
 

 
Define fantastic?
 
They've done a Glaws, finished miles clear and blown it in the play-offs. Reached two finals, been thrashed in one and outplayed in the other.
 
Exeter got more silverware than Saracens this year...

I thought Sarries were very good in the Primiership and Europe. Of course, they didn't with either which is the point of playing, but they got to two finals which is no small feat. No other team did better, except for Toulon. So, I think they had a very good year. Unfortunately for them they ran into a better team in Toulon and a team which was on the same level in Saints.

The season Saints lost in the Premiership semis and the Heineken Cup finals to that terrific (dratted) Leinster team I still thought Saints had a very good year. Just missed the goal.

Silverware or not Saracens were the best team in the Premiership this year. Great final, thought it was going to be close though maybe not that close!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Silverware or not Saracens were the best team in the Premiership this year. Great final, thought it was going to be close though maybe not that close!

They were the best and by a long way - which is why a failure to take anything from the season after having been so dominant domestically must only be viewed as a 'poor' season (in my opinion).

Surely they take the fact they were the best from the season? They'll be kicking themselves (or kicking Hodgson for the missed conversion) but still a great season.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Surely they take the fact they were the best from the season? They'll be kicking themselves (or kicking Hodgson for the missed conversion) but still a great season.

Well, I suppose if they take that fact and can carry it forward into next season with the added incentive not to trip up again, then they can look back on this season as a line in the sand. However, i've said it before and i'll say it again, I reckon Saracens have peaked under the present coaching staff. Maybe.

I think a lot depends on who steps into Borthwicks and Stevens shoes. I appreciate Borthwick is well respected in the game but I've never quite seen it myself. Good lineout operator but lacks a bit in all other areas for me (at the top end of the game at least a very good league man).

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot depends on who steps into Borthwicks and Stevens shoes. I appreciate Borthwick is well respected in the game but I've never quite seen it myself. Good lineout operator but lacks a bit in all other areas for me (at the top end of the game at least a very good league man).

No, i'm totally with you on Borthwick. Ran the line-out well but outside that was a solid ham and egger at best. Never really been convinced by Stevens either to be honest.

Better before his enforced break. There's still room for improvement.

Jimpy wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:
It was a fantastic game and whilst I fully understand why Sarries will feel aggrieved, they should also be very proud of a fantastic season. On the day they were just pipped, but they are still an excellent side.
 

 
Define fantastic?
 
They've done a Glaws, finished miles clear and blown it in the play-offs. Reached two finals, been thrashed in one and outplayed in the other.
 
Exeter got more silverware than Saracens this year...

You really are in antagonistic mode today aren't you?! Thrashed in one final and outplayed in another... They were certainly outplayed by Toulon, but it was far from a thrashing. The outstanding game of the tournament was Sarries v Clermont and to lose to arguably the strongest club side ever assembled is no disgrace.

They lost to Saints with the very last play of extra time, I'm not sure how that can ever be described as being outplayed.

They may not have ended up with any silverware, but the reality is that the bulk of teams won't and that doesn't mean they all failed. Sarries have dominated the league and have got to the final of the pinnacle of club rugby. Losing both finals will be a major disappointment to them, but it doesn't define their season. They should be proud of a fantastic season, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that...

HKC you have to take what Jimpy says with a hefty pinch of salt.

As for being outplayed, I don't think so. More down to Saints being more clinical and getting some key decisions going their way. E.g. the ref/tmo missing the forward pass for their 2nd try and giving them the decision right at the death (that's 14 points).

Saracens had chances to win the game but didn't take them. More possession,more territory, more opportunities etc. Saints had less opportunities but took every point on offer.

beshocked wrote:HKC you have to take what Jimpy says with a hefty pinch of salt.As for being outplayed, I don't think so. More down to Saints being more clinical and getting some key decisions going their way. E.g. the ref/tmo missing the forward pass for their 2nd try and giving them the decision right at the death (that's 14 points).

Saracens had chances to win the game but didn't take them. More possession,more territory, more opportunities etc. Saints had less opportunities but took every point on offer.

Oh the irony....

And don't forget pepper. Lots of pepper....

Jimpy   great response. Really relevant to the discussion.

Unfortunately HKC I think Wray - the man who has been putting the money into the club will view it as a failure.

Saracens should have won that game. It's tough to get so far and come up short. It's the way that Saracens loss that is hard to take - decided by the TMO. It's a cruel way to finish a game whether it goes for you or against you.

If you look at it in black and white, then it is a failure, but then again that is what 11 other sides have to say every season. The Jeff is too competitive for a team to win every year, so success must surely be measured as the season as a whole and you should rightly be proud.

I can imagine that it is hard to take getting that far and coming up short. I can only comment on getting that far and not turning up at all!   

HongKongCherry wrote:If you look at it in black and white, then it is a failure, but then again that is what 11 other sides have to say every season.  The Jeff is too competitive for a team to win every year, so success must surely be measured as the season as a whole and you should rightly be proud.

I can imagine that it is hard to take getting that far and coming up short. I can only comment on getting that far and not turning up at all!   

Not really though is it? Because only four sides can make it to the play-offs, and realistically, only half the league can have that aspiration. I would argue that if you made it to the top two and lost in a final then that is perhaps a failure (but somebody has to lose, right?). And additionally, anybody battling to make the last four and narrowly missing out might also count that as a failure. For the rest of the teams, its pretty clear cut.

beshocked wrote:Jimpy   great response. Really relevant to the discussion.

Unfortunately HKC I think Wray - the man who has been putting the money into the club will view  it as a failure.

Saracens should have won that game. It's tough to get so far and come up short. It's the way that Saracens loss that is hard to take - decided by the TMO. It's a cruel way to finish a game whether it goes for you or against you.

Its a great response... because its true.

I know you're all upset, but you'll be alright soon.

That Farrell is a bright lad isn't he? Injuring himself kicking a ball into the crowd in celebration of a try.... that wasn't.

Jimpy wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:If you look at it in black and white, then it is a failure, but then again that is what 11 other sides have to say every season.  The Jeff is too competitive for a team to win every year, so success must surely be measured as the season as a whole and you should rightly be proud.

I can imagine that it is hard to take getting that far and coming up short. I can only comment on getting that far and not turning up at all!   

Not really though is it? Because only four sides can make it to the play-offs, and realistically, only half the league can have that aspiration. I would argue that if you made it to the top two and lost in a final then that is perhaps a failure (but somebody has to lose, right?). And additionally, anybody battling to make the last four and narrowly missing out might also count that as a failure. For the rest of the teams, its pretty clear cut.

So basically what you're saying is that Tigers' season wasn't a failure because you didn't make it to the final. You should be a politician   

HongKongCherry wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:If you look at it in black and white, then it is a failure, but then again that is what 11 other sides have to say every season.  The Jeff is too competitive for a team to win every year, so success must surely be measured as the season as a whole and you should rightly be proud.

I can imagine that it is hard to take getting that far and coming up short. I can only comment on getting that far and not turning up at all!   

Not really though is it? Because only four sides can make it to the play-offs, and realistically, only half the league can have that aspiration. I would argue that if you made it to the top two and lost in a final then that is perhaps a failure (but somebody has to lose, right?). And additionally, anybody battling to make the last four and narrowly missing out might also count that as a failure. For the rest of the teams, its pretty clear cut.

So basically what you're saying is that Tigers' season wasn't a failure because you didn't make it to the final. You should be a politician   

And you should RTFQ.

...On the contrary, I would say Tigers' season was very disappointing, they could and should have reached the final at least and were poor in Europe.

We're not talking about Tigers though are we? Talking about Saracens who swept all before them and in the end, ran out of steam. Failed? Of course they have, to a point.

I'm not to sure many Saracens players would swap their season for many others in the Premiership, including Northamptons. Having said that Saints did just enough to sneak it. Kind of disappointing we didn't get to see what I assume would have been a drop goal shoot off?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not to sure many Saracens players would swap their season for many others in the Premiership, including Northamptons. Having said that Saints did just enough to sneak it. Kind of disappointing we didn't get to see what I assume would have been a drop goal shoot off?

Its a place kick shoot-off. Last time I saw one was Tigers v Cardiff Blues - Jordan Crane scored the winner, well down the order. Apparently, the rest of the team used to take the pish out of him for practicing goal kicking....

Shame, never seen one so I was hopeful! You can just imagine Corbs rumbling up to take the kick!

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not to sure many Saracens players would swap their season for many others in the Premiership, including Northamptons. Having said that Saints did just enough to sneak it. Kind of disappointing we didn't get to see what I assume would have been a drop goal shoot off?

But if the scores were level (after Saints scored a drop goal at the end) Saints would have won because they scored more tries.

That why the commentary team couldn't understand why they didn't go for a drop goal as it would have been enough.
Work out alright in the end but does make you wonder if the players realized

I can put my disappointment aside then. Just assumed the same rules would apply at the end of full time and extra time.