Tigers v Irish

[chopper15]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you......Barnes should not go back to being a pundit although he should certainly give up commentating! Several of the controversies that I read on these forum and hear in the pub are caused by pundits and commentators voicing their opinions as fact. I didn't realise until I joined this site just how limited the knowledge of the laws of ex-internationals and professional commentators was. I was watching some NFL coverage and they had the ex-commisioner of referees in the studio to give an opinion. Perhaps if RU started doing that we would rid ourselves of some of this controversy by educating both professional and the public.

Would he be prepared to criticise a fellow ref in public if justified?:hap:

 

[chopper15]

Just realised, Simon, you stated no try. For obstruction?

 

[SimonSmith]

You are all passing judgement on the initial ping-pong passage of play strengthened by your intense dislike of SB, who incidentally is a very good commentator particularly on the subtleties and technicalities of play, and your understandable support of the referees' decision.

Do **** off.
"Our understandable support..." is a ridiculous statement to make. The members of this forum who are open minded - and I'm excluding you from that group - routinely disagree with and debate the referees. This isn't a cabal where we all parrot the same line, despite your close minded opinions to the contrary.

Why, what's that? Peter Allan being taken to task in a different thread. And that? over there? It's the referee in the Munster game being taken to task.

Stop assuming we're close minded automatons and actually read what gets posted here. You might learn something you offensive buffoon.

 

[Donal1988]

Agree with Simon. As far as I see it we spend a fair bit of time bitching about our fellow referees. And didn't Paddy O'Brien take Stuart Dickinson to the cleaners after a game last year. It isn't a union where we automatically stick up for referees.

 

[chopper15]

Reference SimonS comment: Stop assuming . . . . .You might learn something you offensive buffoon.

You're just angry, Simon, which can prompt such statements of foolish abuse.

Giving 'understandable support' to other refs is nothing to be ashamed of. We outsiders wouldn't expect anything less from you.:hap:

 

[OB..]

Just realised, Simon, you stated no try. For obstruction?

What he actually posted

No - try.

Please check the punctuation. I certainly read that as disagreeing with your view and asserting that it was a try.

 

[SimonSmith]

Reference SimonS comment: Stop assuming . . . . .You might learn something you offensive buffoon.

You're just angry, Simon, which can prompt such statements of foolish abuse.

don't confuse anger with loss of control. I knew exactly what I was writing. The abuse was not foolish, but entirely earned and appropriate.

Giving 'understandable support' to other refs is nothing to be ashamed of. We outsiders wouldn't expect anything less from you.:hap:

i don't give "understandable support" to anyone. I offer opinions. if I agree with a referee, at any level - great. If not, then we differ, at any level.
If you haven't grasped that simple fact, and that we actually think and have independent opinions, then you're wasting your time here.

Let me make a considered statement, and a perfectly rational one: You could be the single person I ever place on "ignore" - or drive me away from the site. So when I say you are a pernicious blight, and behave like an utter ****, I think I'm on safe ground.

 

[OB..]

Giving 'understandable support' to other refs is nothing to be ashamed of. We outsiders wouldn't expect anything less from you.:hap:

What you imply by "understandable support" is the attitude "my country (= referee) right or wrong". Personally I spend my Saturdays trying to use constructive criticism to help referees improve. Do please stop trying to second guess people's motives and just look at the arguments.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you......Barnes should not go back to being a pundit although he should certainly give up commentating! Several of the controversies that I read on these forum and hear in the pub are caused by pundits and commentators voicing their opinions as fact. I didn't realise until I joined this site just how limited the knowledge of the laws of ex-internationals and professional commentators was. I was watching some NFL coverage and they had the ex-commisioner of referees in the studio to give an opinion. Perhaps if RU started doing that we would rid ourselves of some of this controversy by educating both professional and the public.

Not only that, but the NFL commentators know the Rules of their game inside out, and so they can speak from a position of actually knowing what they are talking about!

 

[Ian_Cook]

Just realised, Simon, you stated no try. For obstruction?

No he didn't. He said "No - try" as in

"No" - answering your question "Did he prevent the immediate opponent from stopping the grounding? "

therefore "Try"

 

[Mike Selig]

Would he be prepared to criticise a fellow ref in public if justified?:hap:

Yes. The french sport newspaper "l'Equipe" has a "referees view" for high profile rugby and soccer matches. They both have no issues with admitting it when the referee gets it wrong. Neither do we (see numerous other threads). It's just that when the ref gets it right, we also admit it and point it out. Most commentators see no reason to do this.

In this instance despite being a LI fan (my grandad was chairman back in the 80s) the refs got it right. No knock-on (ball never went forward) on original reach. No obstruction as no one impeded. Try. Haven't listened to it with commentators, given other comments may choose not to.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

I have only watched the first 20 mins or so of this game and Barnes kept insisting that Pearson would have had a LI player in the bin "last season" but this year was operating differently and issuing fewer YCs for repeated offending - also suggesed DP's RWC progress was affected by this approach

Where does he get this stuff from?

As mentioned previously people listen to this tripe as if it's fact.

I got used to him being "off air" during the world cup - I think I'd forgotten what nonsense he comes out with.:wow:

Personnally I did think DP could have gone for a YC earlier than he actually did (he did LI #10 for taking a player without the ball) as there were a number of HMF offsides from the LI backs etc in the so called "red zone".

He irritates the life out of me, him!

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Watched some more of this game.

Another pearl from the Bath Barrel. Scott Hamilton gives away a PK for holding on. Hamilton to avoid losing ball adaopts a foetal position around the ball.

Barnes says "we used to call that bridging before the ELVs" :wtf:

Who's we? Him and Miles Harrison? What a stupid man he is.

I occasionally record GP games but I don't think I'll bother - listening to him spoils it for me. The trouble is I am listening to him with my "ref lugs" switched on and it is this that spoils it - I wish I could just watch and let it go in one ear and out the other (as it deserves to).

I don't know if it can all be laid at his door but it's no wonder so many rugby watchers haven't a clue if they take a steer from SB.