European Champions Cup 2017/18: Pool 3

[munstermuffin]

Must say Lancaster has done nothing only succeed since leaving England as has Farrell. Was the whole RWC more the players than coaches?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Must say Lancaster has done nothing only succeed since leaving England as has Farrell. Was the whole RWC more the players than coaches?

how many comps have they won?.........

 

[Groundhog]

how many comps have they won?.........

Oh haven't you heard? The 'Champions elect' have been pulling these bad boys in for years

 

[munstermuffin]

how many comps have they won?.........

If you ask Alpha they'v won everything TWICE last season and already once this year

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

If you ask Alpha they'v won everything TWICE last season and already once this year

Wait a minute... You dug that hole, you mentioned Farrell too, you've lost the shield of using things I've said to save face. I'd like the jury to disregard this, and groundhog's, comments and continue as I enjoy that virtually guaranteed quarter final!

 

[Groundhog]

Wait a minute... You dug that hole, you mentioned Farrell too, you've lost the shield of using things I've said to save face. I'd like the jury to disregard this, and groundhog's, comments and continue as I enjoy that virtually guaranteed quarter final!

I would like to make a motion to strike. I would then like to complete this motion and actually strike you, you millennial snowflake.

 

[Cruz_del_Sur]

Kearney smashed Exeter's second to last man and Cronin smashed Nowell. Both Exeter players were covered by Leinster players, so no penalty try.

Read the rules. Cronin was 1v1 and he "smashed" him by committing a penalty. No Leinster player other than Cronin could have stopped the exeter player from scoring.

 

[Hound]

Question was yes or no after Toner went down over the line with no one underneath him. Any reason would have made more sense. TMO said he was happy with try but Poite said of grounding wasn't there he wasn't giving it.
Did think he got the McGarth non try right though.

When Poite got there he saw it was held up. He went to the TMO because he wanted to check there wasn't a grounding he didn't see. That's why he posed the question that way, and he said it at the time.

Thought both were the right decision, assuming Poite's angle saw the held up that he claimed.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

When Poite got there he saw it was held up. He went to the TMO because he wanted to check there wasn't a grounding he didn't see. That's why he posed the question that way, and he said it at the time.

Thought both were the right decision, assuming Poite's angle saw the held up that he claimed.

Getting a call "right" due to being in a terrible position in game time doesn't really sit right with me. It would be a fair presumption to make from the replays that Toner grounded the ball, if Poite didn't get there late he could have asked the right question.

McGrath's was as much a try as Daly's v Oz too, he really could have called that either way. Don't think Leinster would have brought the bp home regardless of either decision so it's for Poite's superiors to analyse and criticise him.

 

[Hound]

He also had his own presumption from his own angle, which incidentally wasn't bad. He just wanted to make sure a different angle didn't have a grounding which contradicted what he saw. Which was the right thing to do as a precaution.

 

[big ginger 8]

Sexton was absolutely in touch. Pity as it would have been a class try.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Sexton was absolutely in touch. Pity as it would have been a class try.

Unless my dodgy stream / TV combo was really letting me down or the broadcaster you were watching on had different footage to BT Sport, I don't see how you or anyone else can be so confident either way. From what I saw, his foot was certainly over the line, but I couldn't say for sure that it touched the ground. David Flatman said pretty much the same at half time. On this basis, I would have given the try based on the benefit of the doubt.

 

[RedruthRFC]

Read the rules. Cronin was 1v1 and he "smashed" him by committing a penalty. No Leinster player other than Cronin could have stopped the exeter player from scoring.

This is the way I saw it. The laws say that a penalty try should be awarded "If a player would probably have scored a try but for foul play by an opponent". I can't see any way that the next defender (Cian Healy I think) would have stopped the try and can't see that the referee / TMO could have thought otherwise. On that basis, I can't see any rationale for not awarding a penalty try. Either they must have thought that Healy was jet propelled and Nowell is a very poor finisher or have fundamentally misunderstood the laws and ruled that Cronin could have stopped it if he didn't commit a yellow card offense. If the latter is the case (not that it should matter as the fact is that the act of foul play had been committed so what could have happened is irrelevant), I would question the rationale - why would Cronin have gone so high if he was able to make a legal tackle? Surely he was concerned about getting beaten if he went lower.

It's amazing how many people don't understand the law regarding penalty tries. I've lost count of the number of times I've heard people appealing for a penalty try on the basis that multiple red zone penalties with no regard for whether a try would probably have been scored but for the incidents of foul play or an appreciation that yellow cards exist to legislate for such repeat infringements.

 

[big ginger 8]

Unless my dodgy stream / TV combo was really letting me down or the broadcaster you were watching on had different footage to BT Sport, I don't see how you or anyone else can be so confident either way. From what I saw, his foot was certainly over the line, but I couldn't say for sure that it touched the ground. David Flatman said pretty much the same at half time. On this basis, I would have given the try based on the benefit of the doubt.

The angle facing towards the goal post we were attacking appeared to me to clearly show Sexton's right foot touching the line just before he passed it. Always possible I'm wrong but as they were wearing similar colour boots I was watching the socks to tell who's foot was who's.


Does the fact that Cronin was in a position to make a legal tackle anyway make any difference under the law?

 

[Which Tyler]

@RedruthRFC you missed a bit.
When considering if a try would probably have been scored, the offending player is taken out of the equation, not just the offending act.

@big ginger 8 I've not seen the match; but assuming Cronin is the offending player, then anything legal he could have done is irrelevant, as it's looked at as if he's classes to exist.

 

[RedruthRFC]

The angle facing towards the goal post we were attacking appeared to me to clearly show Sexton's right foot touching the line just before he passed it. Always possible I'm wrong but as they were wearing similar colour boots I was watching the socks to tell who's foot was who's.

I'd be interested to see the angle you're talking about if you or anyone else can be bothered to find an online version. As I say, it might well be the small cheap TV I was watching on and what BT Sport chose to show me that led me to my conclusion. I did feel vindicated by Flatman saying the same thing in not so many worlds at half time, but to be fair, I don't suppose he had the best technology available to him at the time either.

Does the fact that Cronin was in a position to make a legal tackle anyway make any difference under the law?

That's the point I was trying to make - it shouldn't. I only mentioned the fact that he could have made a legal tackle in an attempt to understand the thought process that led to the decision. The way I see it, there are two possible reasons not to have awarded a PT - either Poite thought that Healy would have probably made to covering tackle or he doesn't understand this section of the laws. If the former, it represents bad judgement to me, if the latter, what hope does the game have of referees making decisions based on interpreting what's going on in front of them in real time when a decorated referee can't get a matter of fact correct.

 

[RedruthRFC]

@RedruthRFC you missed a bit.
When considering if a try would probably have been scored, the offending player is taken out of the equation, not just the offending act.

I would have thought that is implied by the bit I quoted. I was quoting 9.A.1. I'm not sure where the bit you mention could be found, it's not there.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

He also had his own presumption from his own angle, which incidentally wasn't bad. He just wanted to make sure a different angle didn't have a grounding which contradicted what he saw. Which was the right thing to do as a precaution.

His own angle was very bad, he was running around players to get in position when Toner was grounding the ball and was in a worse position than the inconclusive camera shot, he got to where he should have been about a second too late.



Just past the 1min mark, haven't found the angle BG8 is talking about anywhere.

 

[big ginger 8]

His own angle was very bad, he was running around players to get in position when Toner was grounding the ball and was in a worse position than the inconclusive camera shot, he got to where he should have been about a second too late.



Just past the 1min mark, haven't found the angle BG8 is talking about anywhere.

Yeah I had a look on a few of the highlights and couldn't find it, given some of them only show one replay this doesn't make me doubt its existence!

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Yeah I had a look on a few of the highlights and couldn't find it, given some of them only show one replay this doesn't make me doubt its existence!

You're talking out your arse matey boy! Trust me, I have bags of experience!