Interesting that TMO and Clancy thought this was just a penalty

Aha!

More archived evidence from the Irish Bollixes Gif Dossier!

Does he knock himself out in that second one?

He is and always has been a bit of a headless chicken kind of player... mad, fiery and just a tad crazy when his adrenaline is up.

Kinda like Mel Gibson in lethal weapon.

Sometimes it's beneficial to th team. Other times he needs a strait jacket

Two things stand out to me:

It clearly should be a red card. There's no way it can't be.

Props to the Ulster player for *not* going down. As simulation is creeping more and more into the game, it's refreshing to see someone not resort to it. That said, had he gone down would a card have been forthcoming? Not a good place to be, and the referees (and ARs) have to have the cojones to act on what they see.

When you see a 'headbutt' on George from Hartley was deeemed a red card offence hard not to see this as any other. That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Maybe McFadden only used medium force though

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

Yeah you're right LT.

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

Your obsession with the "English Premiership" is quaint.

Collapse2005 wrote:Your obsession with the "English Premiership" is quaint.

The English Premiership was brought up by another poster a few posts before mine.

But carry on, you're funny.

No need for the English bit as it's not it's name. Also silly to suggest that things aren't missed or we'd never have citings.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

Wasn't there a biting incident recently the officials missed after a review?

They said they couldn't be sure he was bitten despite marks. At the citing an expert was brought in who said the marks were not due to a bite so no ban.

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

In your opinion.

No 7&1/2 wrote:They said they couldn't be sure he was bitten despite marks. At the citing an expert was brought in who said the marks were not due to a bite so no ban.

Hadn't heard that, just remember seeing the clip and seemed clear from the footage

Maybe McFadden will bring one in saying it was some sort of traditional greeting he was giving Reidy

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

In your opinion.

Funny how none of your claims, are prefaced as with that

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

Wasn't there a biting incident recently the officials missed after a review?

Yes and no. 

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/2019/04/03/rfu-disciplinary-hearing-calum-green-2/

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:They said they couldn't be sure he was bitten despite marks. At the citing an expert was brought in who said the marks were not due to a bite so no ban.

Hadn't heard that, just remember seeing the clip and seemed clear from the footage

Maybe McFadden will bring one in saying it was some sort of traditional greeting he was giving Reidy

Until the full transcript is released we cannot be sure exactly what the expert said. One theory is that Webber, who had put Green in a headlock, had effectively shoved his arm against Green's teeth (with the Falcon wearing no gum shield).

Just found a clip of it, it wasn't the same incident but pretty sure it was a Sale game I'm thinking of

Maybe I just imagined it

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:That goes down in the no consistency across leagues though.

Not sure I agree. Should the Panel deem it red card worthy following the citing it instead shows up the quality of the ref.

I realise it's something we'll never know - but I just cannot see any other outcome other than a red card if this incident happens in the English Premiership.

We have had citings in the Gallagher Premiership when the Citing Officer has disagreed with the onfield officials (effectively what we have here). Sometimes the players have then been banned, sometimes exonerated. In my opinion Clancy should have sent McFadden from the field, by his own logic for 10 minutes at the very least. That he did not has bugger all to do with the league he is playing in or his nationality. It is purely down to his competence.

In your opinion.

Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

Except he didn't tell him where contact was which was Clancys issue, he knows there was contact and was clear about there but if anything he's probably confused himself

RugbyFan100 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

What else?

Collapse2005 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

What else?

That he didn't want to send off one of his colleagues
That the Irish TMO didn't want to make a big call on one of his Irish colleagues
Just like the Connacht game - when the Irish TMO didn't want to award a try that would have a detrimental effect on his Irish colleagues.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

What else?

That he didn't want to send off one of his colleagues
That the Irish TMO didn't want to make a big call on one of his Irish colleagues
Just like the Connacht game - when the Irish TMO didn't want to award a try that would have a detrimental effect on his Irish colleagues.

Why is this kind of trolling allowed to happen continually?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

tigertattie wrote:
Hardly. I've seen a ref in the Pro 14 bin someone for a "seatbelt" high tackle one week then not the next. It's nothing to do with the league, there is no mandate to give or not give cards for offences from league to league. There is just a ref's interpretation of an incident on that given day.  

The assistant referee told Clancy what he thought happened - the TMO saw the footage. A Leinster player drove his head into an Ulster player. Clancy decided to ignore the advice of his assistant ref - who was much closer, and just make up some mumbo jumbo about not seeing the point of contact. He bottled it, pure and simple.

Now we all have our own opinions on why Clancy bottled it - whether it is pure incompetence or something else.

What else?

That he didn't want to send off one of his colleagues
That the Irish TMO didn't want to make a big call on one of his Irish colleagues
Just like the Connacht game - when the Irish TMO didn't want to award a try that would have a detrimental effect on his Irish colleagues.

How is Fergus McFadden a rugby player from Kildare in Leinster a colleague of George Clancy a referee from Munster? Makes no sense.

Collapse2005 wrote:
How is Fergus McFadden a rugby player from Kildare in Leinster a colleague of George Clancy a referee from Munster? Makes no sense.

They are employed by the same organisation. They are work colleagues.

It won't be when a mod sees it. In general all refs make mistakes. The vast vast majority of times they'll make less than the players in each match. Thenonyly thing that grates for me in the inconsistency even if LT is annoyingly correct about my point above.

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:What do you find interesting about it?

Its hard to see from the TMO video if contact was made. Its Leinster v Ulster. McFadden cited.

Yeah, if you're a bat...

Yeah if you were a bat or if their heads were the size of a pixel in the above video.

With eyesight like yours, it's a good job you're not a ref. Although, as you're Irish...

If you were asked to bet your life based on the above video that contact was made to the head as opposed to the Ulster player for example drawing his head back in anticipation of a collision would you?

I accept its very likely that it was a headbutt.

Less than pointless contribution there...

Shocking refereeing. Could the lack of camera angles be down to the lack of cameras? As I said on another thread, Premier Sports/the current broadcaster is using less than 50% of the cameras the BBC was using for games held in Wales. It's a guess, but I imagine it's a similar decrease in Ireland.

That said, it's shocking refereeing - the touch judge sees it, 10 years ago would have had to make a decision, and probably would have decided red card. That said, he's the least culpable here as he's following the protocol that defers to technology and the referee (who is an absolute clown).

It's a clear red card.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No need for the English bit as it's not it's name. Also silly to suggest that things aren't missed or we'd never have citings.

It's a useful term. The Times newspaper is known as The London Times in other parts of the world although you'll never hear it in Britain. It's not its official title, but it's used to differentiate from, say, the Welsh Premiership.

Definet red but Clancy is a strange one as we all know... But of course you create a thread about this and completely ignore judgement day, you know one of the biggest days for the regions in the season. Saracens somehow didn't have two players sent off against Munster for a spear tackle but let's keep completely quite about that.

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:What do you find interesting about it?

Its hard to see from the TMO video if contact was made. Its Leinster v Ulster. McFadden cited.

Yeah, if you're a bat...

Yeah if you were a bat or if their heads were the size of a pixel in the above video.

With eyesight like yours, it's a good job you're not a ref. Although, as you're Irish...

If you were asked to bet your life based on the above video that contact was made to the head as opposed to the Ulster player for example drawing his head back in anticipation of a collision would you?

I accept its very likely that it was a headbutt.

Less than pointless contribution there...

Shocking refereeing. Could the lack of camera angles be down to the lack of cameras? As I said on another thread, Premier Sports/the current broadcaster is using less than 50% of the cameras the BBC was using for games held in Wales. It's a guess, but I imagine it's a similar decrease in Ireland.

That said, it's shocking refereeing - the touch judge sees it, 10 years ago would have had to make a decision, and probably would have decided red card. That said, he's the least culpable here as he's following the protocol that defers to technology and the referee (who is an absolute clown).

It's a clear red card.

Way to dodge the question. Do you do that when you know you are wrong?

Clown shoes Clancy.

miaow wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:No need for the English bit as it's not it's name. Also silly to suggest that things aren't missed or we'd never have citings.

It's a useful term. The Times newspaper is known as The London Times in other parts of the world although you'll never hear it in Britain. It's not its official title, but it's used to differentiate from, say, the Welsh Premiership.

And also the County Durham Ladies U13s Premiership. It's just as significant as the Welsh Premiership after all

Ah. Kind of like some people who enjoy being incorrect like to call the Open the British Open then!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. Kind of like some people who enjoy being incorrect like to call the Open the British Open then!

Its not the British open?

Its a bit pedantic to get so precious over insisting on it called the Open when a lot of countries have Open championships and therefore makes perfect sense to distinguish between them. There is a world outside Britain 7.5.

LeinsterFan4life wrote:Definet red but Clancy is a strange one as we all know... But of course you create a thread about this and completely ignore judgement day, you know one of the biggest days for the regions in the season. Saracens somehow didn't have two players sent off against Munster for a spear  tackle but let's keep completely quite about that.

It is and it isn't. Obviously in terms of attendance, spectacle etc. it's 'big'. But that's for the WRU (£££) as much as it's for the regions.

For the Dragons, maybe, as it's the only time they seem to actually turn up as a semi-coherent team.

For the others, it's key games in Europe and obviously the big matches that really decide a season. Oddly, the Blues v Ospreys game was one such fixture, but that usually isn't the case

Just because it's held in the big stadium doesn't make it a big game. If anything, it kills the derby atmosphere/intensity playing it on neutral turf, partly empty stadium full of day trippers etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. Kind of like some people who enjoy being incorrect like to call the Open the British Open then!

Oh, the irony...

It just makes sense to call them what they're called Collapse! An aside to general rubbishing of refs in all leagues anyway.

You've been warned several times miaow which somehow get me warnings as well. If you can't talk on the subject just bow out.

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

miaow wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:What do you find interesting about it?

Its hard to see from the TMO video if contact was made. Its Leinster v Ulster. McFadden cited.

Yeah, if you're a bat...

Yeah if you were a bat or if their heads were the size of a pixel in the above video.

With eyesight like yours, it's a good job you're not a ref. Although, as you're Irish...

If you were asked to bet your life based on the above video that contact was made to the head as opposed to the Ulster player for example drawing his head back in anticipation of a collision would you?

I accept its very likely that it was a headbutt.

Less than pointless contribution there...

Shocking refereeing. Could the lack of camera angles be down to the lack of cameras? As I said on another thread, Premier Sports/the current broadcaster is using less than 50% of the cameras the BBC was using for games held in Wales. It's a guess, but I imagine it's a similar decrease in Ireland.

That said, it's shocking refereeing - the touch judge sees it, 10 years ago would have had to make a decision, and probably would have decided red card. That said, he's the least culpable here as he's following the protocol that defers to technology and the referee (who is an absolute clown).

It's a clear red card.

Way to dodge the question. Do you do that when you know you are wrong?

What question? About life and death? If that's the 'question' you refer to then yes, it's pointless, I'm not answering. It's irrelevant.

Although, maybe there's scope for including this new standard as part of the next round of ELVs...

"Experimental Law Variation 4.a: 'Bet your life'. All refereeing decisions are now subject to the referee betting their life against the veracity of each decision. Refereeing performances will be scrutinised by a citing panel within 48 hours after the end of a match. Any decision that is found to be incorrect will result in the execution of the referee.

4.b: Guilty referees have the right to appeal this decision. This appeal falls under the 'use it or lose it' law that allows 5 seconds in which to submit an appeal and 60 seconds in which to conclude the appeal. Failure to convince the citing commissioner with an appeal results in immediate execution through humane methods. Sponsored by Specsavers."

Sounds like you are above it all?

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've been warned several times miaow which  somehow get me warnings as well. If you can't talk on the subject just bow out.

I helped you out by explaining why people informally call the English Premiership the English Premiership. It's a league, known as the Premiership, played in England. It's not incorrect. Just as calling The Times 'The Times of London' or 'The London Times' isn't incorrect, either. Nuance, 7.5. Do you comprehend it? It has, and will be, the English Premiership for a lot longer than it has, and will, be the Gallagher Premiership. But you know this...you're just making a petty, jingoistic point which has no relevance to the topic...

Collapse2005 wrote:Sounds like you are above it all?

You admitted you were playing devil's advocate on the first page. What's there to 'rise above'?

It's a red card, clearly. The substandard decision making that has resulted in this appears to at least be twofold, possibly three: joke of a pro referee, not enough cameras because the private broadcaster is for profit, and the power of the Irish teams (particularly Leinster) impacts referees to favour them (also known as bias).

In what way do Irish teams have more power?

Money, full crowds, money, success, tax haven money, rubbish referees are the standard, money etc etc...

But na. You know. Come on...

miaow wrote:Money, full crowds, money, success, tax haven money, rubbish referees are the standard, money etc etc...

But na. You know. Come on...

You have a keen imagination and sense of victimhood.