Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: Totally agree Toby. And to folks here who say "play the ref", when Keith Earls was clothes-lined by the Saint's player, Poite refused to give a penalty even though that also was a YC offense. His rationale? He had already blown his whistle for a knock-on. Well now this clown is telling the players that foul play is acceptable after play has been stopped. Quite aside from having a personality that is in no way conducive to being a rugby referee, he is completely incompetent. and Poite was 100% correct in what he did and how he handled that incident. You are bringing this to a new level Nuke. Just for clarification, am I right to take it that you believe Poite's handling of the high tackle on Warwick was correct?

he was 100% correct in law as far as I am concerned. You go with the first offence and speak to the the player about the high tackle. That's exactly what he did

Dribblywhistle wrote: Can you read the rules above please, the position of the ball is material- it has to be on the ground, what rubbish are you talking about a ball on a players chest? It shouldn't have been called a ruck. Obviously if a ruck is called there is no hands allowed but it shouldn't have been a ruck. I will try and make this simple for you, if a player is on the ground with the ball the position of the ball DOES NOT MATTER as it is deemed to be on the ground even if it is on top of another player for example (ie has not been placed neatly on the ground prior to the formation of a ruck. You keep insisting that this scenario should not be called a ruck (which it is) but you fail to actually explain then what you think it is? At least you now seem to agree that players cant handle a ball in the ruck, even those players on their feet. And lastly Rugby has laws, soccer and GAA have rules.

If the ref says it is a ruck, then it is a ruck.

Dribblywhistle wrote: And lastly Rugby has laws, soccer and GAA have rules.

No, soccer has Laws too. See http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/lawsofthegame.html

In defense of POC, Poite did call ruck that was quite clear on TV. However he was a few metres from play on the other side from POC if I remember correctly. The crowd were quite involved at that time so the noise level was high.

Perhaps POC did not hear the call and seeing the position of the ball did not believe it to be a ruck so went for it like he should do. To me if it was or was not a ruck is not the issue it was called but it was too similar to the first half offence in terms of perceived importance by the ref so the punishment should have been the same. In my view you have to question is he competent and also impartial.

nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: Totally agree Toby. And to folks here who say "play the ref", when Keith Earls was clothes-lined by the Saint's player, Poite refused to give a penalty even though that also was a YC offense. His rationale? He had already blown his whistle for a knock-on. Well now this clown is telling the players that foul play is acceptable after play has been stopped. Quite aside from having a personality that is in no way conducive to being a rugby referee, he is completely incompetent. and Poite was 100% correct in what he did and how he handled that incident. You are bringing this to a new level Nuke. Just for clarification, am I right to take it that you believe Poite's handling of the high tackle on Warwick was correct? he was 100% correct in law as far as I am concerned. You go with the first offence and speak to the the player about the high tackle. That's exactly what he did

So speaking to a player is all the "Law" calls for if the second offense is foul play?

Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: Totally agree Toby. And to folks here who say "play the ref", when Keith Earls was clothes-lined by the Saint's player, Poite refused to give a penalty even though that also was a YC offense. His rationale? He had already blown his whistle for a knock-on. Well now this clown is telling the players that foul play is acceptable after play has been stopped. Quite aside from having a personality that is in no way conducive to being a rugby referee, he is completely incompetent. and Poite was 100% correct in what he did and how he handled that incident. You are bringing this to a new level Nuke. Just for clarification, am I right to take it that you believe Poite's handling of the high tackle on Warwick was correct? he was 100% correct in law as far as I am concerned. You go with the first offence and speak to the the player about the high tackle. That's exactly what he did So speaking to a player is all the "Law" calls for if the second offense is foul play?

that's at the referee's discretion. If it was a punch or a kick then he would look to take further action but for a high tackle then there is no need

nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: Totally agree Toby. And to folks here who say "play the ref", when Keith Earls was clothes-lined by the Saint's player, Poite refused to give a penalty even though that also was a YC offense. His rationale? He had already blown his whistle for a knock-on. Well now this clown is telling the players that foul play is acceptable after play has been stopped. Quite aside from having a personality that is in no way conducive to being a rugby referee, he is completely incompetent. and Poite was 100% correct in what he did and how he handled that incident. You are bringing this to a new level Nuke. Just for clarification, am I right to take it that you believe Poite's handling of the high tackle on Warwick was correct? he was 100% correct in law as far as I am concerned. You go with the first offence and speak to the the player about the high tackle. That's exactly what he did So speaking to a player is all the "Law" calls for if the second offense is foul play? that's at the referee's discretion. If it was a punch or a kick then he would look to take further action but for a high tackle then there is no need

With all due respects Nuke, I have seen players receiving a YC for high tackles that were pretty harmless in comparison. You're correct when you say it's up to Poite's discretion.........We'll leave it at that and move on to greener pastures.

Let's hope we're all singing Barne's praises on a new thread next week

Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: nuke wrote: Speycaster wrote: Totally agree Toby. And to folks here who say "play the ref", when Keith Earls was clothes-lined by the Saint's player, Poite refused to give a penalty even though that also was a YC offense. His rationale? He had already blown his whistle for a knock-on. Well now this clown is telling the players that foul play is acceptable after play has been stopped. Quite aside from having a personality that is in no way conducive to being a rugby referee, he is completely incompetent. and Poite was 100% correct in what he did and how he handled that incident. You are bringing this to a new level Nuke. Just for clarification, am I right to take it that you believe Poite's handling of the high tackle on Warwick was correct? he was 100% correct in law as far as I am concerned. You go with the first offence and speak to the the player about the high tackle. That's exactly what he did So speaking to a player is all the "Law" calls for if the second offense is foul play? that's at the referee's discretion. If it was a punch or a kick then he would look to take further action but for a high tackle then there is no need With all due respects Nuke, I have seen players receiving a YC for high tackles that were pretty harmless in comparison. You're correct when you say it's up to Poite's discretion.........We'll leave it at that and move on to greener pastures. Let's hope we're all singing Barne's praises on a new thread next week

I'd agree with you if there wasn't a previous infringement. Hopefully Mr. Barne's will do well and we won't be having the same chats about him

Mr. Poite is certainly not the best referee in the world but I think the Irish media have blown this thing with O'Connell out of all proportion. He has strenghts such confidence, consistency and an ability to detach from the settings he is in. He also has weaknesses such as language problems (the no talking to referee masks this somewhat) and a failure to spot some marginal but illegal incidents. He seems to think when in doubt play on. However I dont mind him. Certainly didnt lose sleep about his treatment of O'Connell against Northampton. Referee Dave McHugh sibinned England and Leicester captain Martin Johnson 4 times in 5 games during his career. Some referees wont be spoken to like that by players captain or otherwise.

I will also guarantee there will be fans on every forum giving out about Wayne Barnes if we lose. I think what you see is what you get with him. The things he is particularly strict on are ball carriers team sealing off and getting the tackler rolling away. In numerous over the last while on occasions such as Munster v Clermont, Munster v Ospreys, Munster v Montauban, Ireland v Wales I have noticed that. It is very textbook and a his big weakness is that the split second it takes when things dont right can cost him. This will come with time. In the past his strict approach to the breakdown has worked against Munster and Ireland who used pick and drive so much. His style also lends itself to teams who favour the blitz style defence. We know that much heading into it and I have no doubt that Ireland and France have enough cop on to figure out a referee's traits. Lets try not blame a referee before a ball is kicked.