URI:
   DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
  HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 121979--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: raedarius
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:01 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Marsile link ---
       >
       >
       >
       > No conspiracy being implied. The buck stops with the 4th
       official but were they pressured by home team officials to get
       Herbst on as Lynagh came off?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       You are very silly.
       #Post#: 121980--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: Which Tyler
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:14 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Marsile link ---
       >
       >
       >
       > No conspiracy being implied. The buck stops with the 4th
       official but were they pressured by home team officials to get
       Herbst on as Lynagh came off?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       says "no conspiracy implied".
       Immediately implies a conspiracy.
       And to answer your question at the end: "No"
       Happy now? Or do you still think there should be a fine for
       Quins, for... allowing a player to listen to the official?
       #Post#: 121981--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: RodneyRegis
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:30 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: AdrianB link ---
       >
       >
  HTML https://www.premiershiprugby.com/content/pgmot-statement-harlequins-v-bath
       >
       > The RFU Professional Game Match Officials Team (PGMOT)
       acknowledge and apologise for an error during the Gallagher
       Premiership match between Harlequins v Bath where a yellow card
       sanction resulted in Irné Herbst returning to the pitch
       approximately three minutes too soon.
       >
       > We would like to apologise to both teams for this mistake. As
       is the usual process the PGMOT will review all games to ensure
       continued improvement and learnings.
       >
       > The result of the match remains final.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       I'm willing to forgive them on this one occasion.
       #Post#: 121982--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: MaidstoneQuin
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:33 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       I’m wading in on the sin bin business.
       Buck stops with the officials, nothing to do with Quins. Even IF
       they were pressured for Irne to get back on (well maybe they
       need more resilience then) but no player enters the field
       without being allowed and “signed off” so to speak by the
       officials. Whether it be a sub, blood reversal or what ever.
       We would be livid if the shoe was on the other foot and then
       Irne scored a winning try handing us the game in those 3
       minutes, but let’s face it Irne being on the field was probably
       more beneficial for Bath considering he is a penalty magnet
       #Post#: 121984--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: RodneyRegis
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:40 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Which Tyler link ---
       >
       > Isn't that... exactly how the team of officials is supposed to
       work?
       >
       > Ref didn't have a grounding, his assistant, did, so the
       on-field call is try; TMO can't tell, so it stays with the
       onfield decision.
       >
       > What's the problem? (other than a try being scored against
       Quins)
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       Possibly that's how it's supposed to work. But it's not exactly
       something you see often is it. The ref called it held up. He
       didn't say 'anyone got a grounding?'
       Sure, the touch judge might suggest he has a look, but I've
       never seen him overrule and change the question. The onfield
       decision was always likely to stand, given the speed at which it
       all happened and the mechanics involved.
       I am happy to suggest that the touch judge didn't have a
       grounding, at all, as the slow mo camera didn't pick it up.
       #Post#: 121985--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: Which Tyler
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:51 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
       >
       > Possibly that's how it's supposed to work. But it's not
       exactly something you see often is it. The ref called it held
       up. He didn't say 'anyone got a grounding?'
       --- End Quote ---
       Erm... yes - every week.
       --- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
       > Sure, the touch judge might suggest he has a look, but I've
       never seen him overrule and change the question. The onfield
       decision was always likely to stand, given the speed at which it
       all happened and the mechanics involved.
       --- End Quote ---
       I don't recall the AR over-ruling the ref. My memory is that the
       ref asked his assistant, and received an answer.
       --- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
       > I am happy to suggest that the touch judge didn't have a
       grounding, at all, as the slow mo camera didn't pick it up.
       --- End Quote ---
       None of the cameras had the same angle as the AR. Different
       angles show different things.
       TBH, your clarification sounds even more like "a try was scored
       against Quins and I don't like it" than the original post did.
       #Post#: 121986--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: Marsile
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:53 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Which Tyler link ---
       >
       > says "no conspiracy implied".
       > Immediately implies a conspiracy.
       >
       > And to answer your question at the end: "No"
       > Happy now? Or do you still think there should be a fine for
       Quins, for... allowing a player to listen to the official?
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The scenario I described was not a conspiracy. What I described
       was cheating. You clearly don't understand what conspiracy
       means.
       However, sweeping any cheating by Quins under the carpet and
       blaming it on an error by the official instead would be a
       conspiracy.
       #Post#: 121987--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: Marsile
       Date: March 31, 2024, 7:58 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
       >
       > Possibly that's how it's supposed to work. But it's not
       exactly something you see often is it. The ref called it held
       up. He didn't say 'anyone got a grounding?'
       >
       > Sure, the touch judge might suggest he has a look, but I've
       never seen him overrule and change the question. The onfield
       decision was always likely to stand, given the speed at which it
       all happened and the mechanics involved.
       >
       > I am happy to suggest that the touch judge didn't have a
       grounding, at all, as the slow mo camera didn't pick it up.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       The Lynagh try came directly from an offside penalty against
       Bath that was in fact a Harlequins knock-on.
       #Post#: 121989--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: RodneyRegis
       Date: March 31, 2024, 8:13 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Which Tyler link ---
       >
       > Erm... yes - every week.I don't recall the AR over-ruling the
       ref. My memory is that the ref asked his assistant, and received
       an answer.None of the cameras had the same angle as the AR.
       Different angles show different things.
       >
       >
       > TBH, your clarification sounds even more like "a try was
       scored against Quins and I don't like it" than the original post
       did.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       OK mate. I mean it's pretty clear from my posting that isn't
       what I'm saying, but you go for it.
       'every week'...
       By the way, the live camera angle was exactly behind the touch
       judge. For some reason they didn't use that one for the replays.
       Makes you think.
       Oh and your recollection is completely wrong.
       But apart from that, thanks for your rather weird forensic
       analysis of my post.
       #Post#: 121990--------------------------------------------------
       Re: TEAM v Bath Saturday 30th March.....#COYQ
   DIR By: RodneyRegis
       Date: March 31, 2024, 8:17 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Marsile link ---
       >
       >
       > The Lynagh try came directly from an offside penalty against
       Bath that was in fact a Harlequins knock-on.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       So what?
       *****************************************************
       Page 14 of 17
   DIR Previous Page
   DIR Next Page