Tigers vs Racing

[Roly]

Ah good, then we can all agree. Tigers are pants - bottom of their European Group, and nearly bottom of their domestic league because of poor refereeing decisions, especially on Sunday where the referee was demonstrably Anglophobic.

Good. God. It'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic.

[Roly]

I guess Nigel had his anti-english head on? How on earth he saw it right to ping BOC I am still bewildered

Nigel Owens is not anti-English, he's by far and away, and without a shadow of a doubt, one of the best referees in the world.

He is however, human and therefore, fallible.

First bit - you are kidding aren't you?

No I'm not.

You have heard of libel haven't you?

[TomWeston]

Nigel Owens is not anti-English, he's by far and away, and without a shadow of a doubt, one of the best referees in the world.

He is however, human and therefore, fallible.

First bit - you are kidding aren't you?

No I'm not.

You have heard of libel haven't you?

A barrack room lawyer’s experience clearly doesn’t encompass the law on libel.

[G.K]

Nigel Owens is not anti-English, he's by far and away, and without a shadow of a doubt, one of the best referees in the world.

He is however, human and therefore, fallible.

First bit - you are kidding aren't you?

No I'm not.

You have heard of libel haven't you?

No I'm not sure that I have - was he a French referee?

[Roly]

First bit - you are kidding aren't you?

No I'm not.

You have heard of libel haven't you?

No I'm not sure that I have - was he a French referee?

Perhaps the system should be fairer to Tigers - perhaps there should be a pool of officials that are picked by the fans, that way, we could all be sure the team wouldn't end up with someone they, in their bigoted minds, isn't going to be detrimental to the result?

[BFG]

No I'm not.

You have heard of libel haven't you?

No I'm not sure that I have - was he a French referee?

Perhaps the system should be fairer to Tigers - perhaps there should be a pool of officials that are picked by the fans, that way, we could all be sure the team wouldn't end up with someone they, in their bigoted minds, isn't going to be detrimental to the result?

I don't think there is anything bigoted about questioning the difference between George North being taken out in the air by Thompstone and May being taken out by a Racing player!
It's a genuine debate and well worthy of questioning!
Owens explained that May jumped into the Racing player and he couldn't get out of the way, well that's pretty much what happened with North and Thompstone!
There is no clarity, they make it up as they go!
Personally I think Owens decision was good, the game should be played on the ground in my opinion, but opinion should count for nothing, it's the laws that matter!
Absolutely nothing bigoted about that!

[Roly]

No I'm not sure that I have - was he a French referee?

Perhaps the system should be fairer to Tigers - perhaps there should be a pool of officials that are picked by the fans, that way, we could all be sure the team wouldn't end up with someone they, in their bigoted minds, isn't going to be detrimental to the result?

I don't think there is anything bigoted about questioning the difference between George North being taken out in the air by Thompstone and May being taken out by a Racing player!
It's a genuine debate and well worthy of questioning!
Owens explained that May jumped into the Racing player and he couldn't get out of the way, well that's pretty much what happened with North and Thompstone!
There is no clarity, they make it up as they go!
Personally I think Owens decision was good, the game should be played on the ground in my opinion, but opinion should count for nothing, it's the laws that matter!
Absolutely nothing bigoted about that!

You've missed the object (point) of my post (which wasn't directed at you in the first place), but don't worry, my hopes weren't high (generally).

[BFG]

Perhaps the system should be fairer to Tigers - perhaps there should be a pool of officials that are picked by the fans, that way, we could all be sure the team wouldn't end up with someone they, in their bigoted minds, isn't going to be detrimental to the result?

I don't think there is anything bigoted about questioning the difference between George North being taken out in the air by Thompstone and May being taken out by a Racing player!
It's a genuine debate and well worthy of questioning!
Owens explained that May jumped into the Racing player and he couldn't get out of the way, well that's pretty much what happened with North and Thompstone!
There is no clarity, they make it up as they go!
Personally I think Owens decision was good, the game should be played on the ground in my opinion, but opinion should count for nothing, it's the laws that matter!
Absolutely nothing bigoted about that!

You've missed the object (point) of my post (which wasn't directed at you in the first place), but don't worry, my hopes weren't high (generally).

I may have missed your object point, it's your point in it's original context so however you choose it.
You are missing the bigger picture in my opinion, and that is that the referee used personal opinion on decision making in this match that was different to another referee's personal opinion in another match, this are the foundations of the debate, not bigoted views!
This is a rugby related forum and topic, it's common sense!

[Roly]

I don't think there is anything bigoted about questioning the difference between George North being taken out in the air by Thompstone and May being taken out by a Racing player!
It's a genuine debate and well worthy of questioning!
Owens explained that May jumped into the Racing player and he couldn't get out of the way, well that's pretty much what happened with North and Thompstone!
There is no clarity, they make it up as they go!
Personally I think Owens decision was good, the game should be played on the ground in my opinion, but opinion should count for nothing, it's the laws that matter!
Absolutely nothing bigoted about that!

You've missed the object (point) of my post (which wasn't directed at you in the first place), but don't worry, my hopes weren't high (generally).

This is a rugby related forum and topic, it's common sense!

You'd think that wouldn't you? However, if the debate related to redefining irony, then you might have a point.

The original posit was that Owens 'makes things up as he goes along' - which is such obvious tripe that I nearly ignored it. But, having chosen not to, I pointed out that he doesn't make things up as he goes along, he's simply one of the best referees in the world (globally acknowledged) but that he is human and makes mistakes.

Show me a referee that doesn't (so I suppose you and I can agree on something) although you chose to spin it in the context of the match's outcome being dependant upon it. Further, someone else chose to imply that Owens influenced the outcome of the game because he is anti-English. Somebody else chose to attempt a watering down statement to the effect that he's not so much anti-English as anti-Tigers. Both utterly laughable (and yes, potentially libellous) comments in their own right.

The constant moaning on here that it must be that the referees are 'costing Tigers' , especially when the implication is that it happens because at least one of them is anti-English, amounts to bigotry. It ignores the fact that if Tigers were playing well enough, the referee would not be part of the equation - I merely chose to exploit the bigoted views by suggesting that perhaps their holders would only be happy if Tigers fans got to pick who they refereed them on a weekly basis.

Perhaps we could do it with a phone in vote? Perhaps a choice of three referees could be put into a big gift-wrapped box in the centre of the pitch and then, with sparklers blazing, be released in front of the Crumbie stand where the occupants could chose their match referee by virtue of a clapometer?

Hopefully, you finally 'get it'.

[jgriffin]

Refs do differ markedly BUT Owens, Barnes and to my mind, Dickson, stand out above the rest. Dickson is probably the harshest on side entry and fiddling on the ground, Barnes for me has become excellent, Owens is excellent but occasionally lets things 'flow' a bit too much IMO; all three use their TJs well. While Owens decision on May (seen on TV) seemed to me to be reasonable, the decision over North was cock-eyed - but then I might be biased because it happened in front of me in real time!
I certainly don't think Owens is biased towards any side - I would have a different opinion 5 or 6 years ago.
One of the issues in Euro Comps is that in the Pro14 in particular the reffing is a little 'laissez-faire' and always has been similar to SH reffing. Several players have pointed out that there are differences, especially around the breakdown, and also they tend not to give 'fair contest' too often.

[BFG]

You've missed the object (point) of my post (which wasn't directed at you in the first place), but don't worry, my hopes weren't high (generally).

This is a rugby related forum and topic, it's common sense!

You'd think that wouldn't you? However, if the debate related to redefining irony, then you might have a point.

The original posit was that Owens 'makes things up as he goes along' - which is such obvious tripe that I nearly ignored it. But, having chosen not to, I pointed out that he doesn't make things up as he goes along, he's simply one of the best referees in the world (globally acknowledged) but that he is human and makes mistakes.

Show me a referee that doesn't (so I suppose you and I can agree on something) although you chose to spin it in the context of the match's outcome being dependant upon it. Further, someone else chose to imply that Owens influenced the outcome of the game because he is anti-English. Somebody else chose to attempt a watering down statement to the effect that he's not so much anti-English as anti-Tigers. Both utterly laughable (and yes, potentially libellous) comments in their own right.

The constant moaning on here that it must be that the referees are 'costing Tigers' , especially when the implication is that it happens because at least one of them is anti-English, amounts to bigotry. It ignores the fact that if Tigers were playing well enough, the referee would not be part of the equation - I merely chose to exploit the bigoted views by suggesting that perhaps their holders would only be happy if Tigers fans got to pick who they refereed them on a weekly basis.

Perhaps we could do it with a phone in vote? Perhaps a choice of three referees could be put into a big gift-wrapped box in the centre of the pitch and then, with sparklers blazing, be released in front of the Crumbie stand where the occupants could chose their match referee by virtue of a clapometer?

Hopefully, you finally 'get it'.

You haven't informed me of anything that I wasn't already aware of, but the fact remains that referee's apply differing personal interpretations of the laws and until they all apply the same then people have every right to question why they might differ!
It could be equally as bigoted to deny that right!

[Roly]

This is a rugby related forum and topic, it's common sense!

You'd think that wouldn't you? However, if the debate related to redefining irony, then you might have a point.

The original posit was that Owens 'makes things up as he goes along' - which is such obvious tripe that I nearly ignored it. But, having chosen not to, I pointed out that he doesn't make things up as he goes along, he's simply one of the best referees in the world (globally acknowledged) but that he is human and makes mistakes.

Show me a referee that doesn't (so I suppose you and I can agree on something) although you chose to spin it in the context of the match's outcome being dependant upon it. Further, someone else chose to imply that Owens influenced the outcome of the game because he is anti-English. Somebody else chose to attempt a watering down statement to the effect that he's not so much anti-English as anti-Tigers. Both utterly laughable (and yes, potentially libellous) comments in their own right.

The constant moaning on here that it must be that the referees are 'costing Tigers' , especially when the implication is that it happens because at least one of them is anti-English, amounts to bigotry. It ignores the fact that if Tigers were playing well enough, the referee would not be part of the equation - I merely chose to exploit the bigoted views by suggesting that perhaps their holders would only be happy if Tigers fans got to pick who they refereed them on a weekly basis.

Perhaps we could do it with a phone in vote? Perhaps a choice of three referees could be put into a big gift-wrapped box in the centre of the pitch and then, with sparklers blazing, be released in front of the Crumbie stand where the occupants could chose their match referee by virtue of a clapometer?

Hopefully, you finally 'get it'.

the fact remains that referee's apply differing personal interpretations of the laws and until they all apply the same then people have every right to question why they might differ!

That wasn't my point, and well you know it.

Still, now I've got you well and truly on the hook, would you like to share your personal opinion of Owen's anti-English/Tigers beliefs?

[BFG]

You'd think that wouldn't you? However, if the debate related to redefining irony, then you might have a point.

The original posit was that Owens 'makes things up as he goes along' - which is such obvious tripe that I nearly ignored it. But, having chosen not to, I pointed out that he doesn't make things up as he goes along, he's simply one of the best referees in the world (globally acknowledged) but that he is human and makes mistakes.

Show me a referee that doesn't (so I suppose you and I can agree on something) although you chose to spin it in the context of the match's outcome being dependant upon it. Further, someone else chose to imply that Owens influenced the outcome of the game because he is anti-English. Somebody else chose to attempt a watering down statement to the effect that he's not so much anti-English as anti-Tigers. Both utterly laughable (and yes, potentially libellous) comments in their own right.

The constant moaning on here that it must be that the referees are 'costing Tigers' , especially when the implication is that it happens because at least one of them is anti-English, amounts to bigotry. It ignores the fact that if Tigers were playing well enough, the referee would not be part of the equation - I merely chose to exploit the bigoted views by suggesting that perhaps their holders would only be happy if Tigers fans got to pick who they refereed them on a weekly basis.

Perhaps we could do it with a phone in vote? Perhaps a choice of three referees could be put into a big gift-wrapped box in the centre of the pitch and then, with sparklers blazing, be released in front of the Crumbie stand where the occupants could chose their match referee by virtue of a clapometer?

Hopefully, you finally 'get it'.

the fact remains that referee's apply differing personal interpretations of the laws and until they all apply the same then people have every right to question why they might differ!

That wasn't my point, and well you know it.

Still, now I've got you well and truly on the hook, would you like to share your personal opinion of Owen's anti-English/Tigers beliefs?

No thanks.

[Roly]

the fact remains that referee's apply differing personal interpretations of the laws and until they all apply the same then people have every right to question why they might differ!

That wasn't my point, and well you know it.

Still, now I've got you well and truly on the hook, would you like to share your personal opinion of Owen's anti-English/Tigers beliefs?

No thanks.

But....but..... you seemed only to keen to contribute to what you thought was 'my point' yesterday.... how disappointing.

[Robespierre]

Never mind, Roly. You must be used to disappointment!