Tigers vs Falcons - 28th March 2021 at 15:00

[Jimmy Skitz]

he just ran into him TMO and Dickson look for reasons to take points away from us, they are NOT neutral arbitrators of the laws

To be fair to Dickson, he felt there was no elbow and that it was play on, but the TMO insisted despite the fact that there was no conclusive evidence to back the point up.

then the Ref should have said show me proof or on field decision stands, there was no clear proof of De Bruin throwing a shoulder or an elbow out yet he allowed himself to be overruled

[OakhamTiger32]

he just ran into him TMO and Dickson look for reasons to take points away from us, they are NOT neutral arbitrators of the laws

To be fair to Dickson, he felt there was no elbow and that it was play on, but the TMO insisted despite the fact that there was no conclusive evidence to back the point up.

Agreed. Strange as Dickson said he didn’t think there was anything in it yet the TMO insisted and said it’s definitely foul play and then proceeded to show Dickson lots of angels that proved nothing!

[Truefollower]

Ellis has been away with the England squad for the 6 nations, played little rugby and is now trying to reintegrate into the Tigers squad and methodology, so in my book did ok and will improve. I would much rather have him than most other teams props. I suppose Ben Youngs will get the same criticism when he next plays. Let the team gel again then start critiquing.

[mol2]

WHAT ELBOW!!!!!!!!!!

No elbow. If no elbow not a penalty. If an elbow a red card. So how can a penalty be given.

Ref and TMO not working together. “I can see the ball held up” so why ask the tmo if you are going to ignore him when the video shows a hand under the ball.

Yet listen to him when the video shows no obvious elbow?

Bizarre.

[JP14]

he just ran into him TMO and Dickson look for reasons to take points away from us, they are NOT neutral arbitrators of the laws

To be fair to Dickson, he felt there was no elbow and that it was play on, but the TMO insisted despite the fact that there was no conclusive evidence to back the point up.

then the Ref should have said show me proof or on field decision stands, there was no clear proof of De Bruin throwing a shoulder or an elbow out yet he allowed himself to be overruled

Whatever, today’s game was a clear indication that the undefined relationship between a ref and a TMO (or it is defined just needs reworking) needs desperately sorting out!

[Nofrontteeth]

One for you barrack room lawyers.
Are refs told to judge on probability, beyond all reasonable doubt, or do anything you want?

[OakhamTiger32]

To be fair to Dickson, he felt there was no elbow and that it was play on, but the TMO insisted despite the fact that there was no conclusive evidence to back the point up.

then the Ref should have said show me proof or on field decision stands, there was no clear proof of De Bruin throwing a shoulder or an elbow out yet he allowed himself to be overruled

Whatever, today’s game was a clear indication that the undefined relationship between a ref and a TMO (or it is defined just needs reworking) needs desperately sorting out!

I thought the TMO is only supposed to intervene if there’s been foul play.. not jump in, show repeated views of inconclusive evidence of foul play and then convince the ref that it is foul play.. it was strange. The Newcastle try.. if Dickson has seen the ball grounded then fair enough but when the TMO is saying it’s clearly held up it was another strange one for me.

TMO trying to convince the ref that their try was held up yet a Dickson over rules it and gives the try. Then TMO trying to convince Dickson to disallow our try and he sees nothing wrong even after viewing the replay yet he caves and goes with the TMO. Lack of consistency

[Tigers86asw]

The pundits going on about Weise clearing out Welsh is sticking in my throat as well. We have got to stop ruling rugby by whether a player gets injured. His entry point is illegal but the action is not- the only reason its spoken of is because he gets injured and that happens in rugby. He wrapped and drove him off the ball- and he was near the ball as well.

By comparison if Steward has his forehead split open the Newcastle player sees a card, likely red. Now that is something the pundits completely ignored at the end of the game. If a player gets injured there is an assumption that it must be foul play and thus the outcome determines what happens and not the action-
this is surely the wrong way around.

[westwinds31]

Agree with the Weise comments, once is forgivable, twice...hmmm ok but his clearing out technique is questionable at best, and avoidable. If it’s 10 mins or more per game I’d leave him out. Last chance saloon. Shame as when he stays on he’s destructive. Is Van Staden a similar beast ? Genge was very quiet, I thought, but clearly fired up beforehand.

Agree begrudgingly with the TMO decisions, aided by Dickson, but the “trial by ex player” is annoying....almost as annoying as the sofa brigade...people posting slo-mo of things eg: “he clearly makes contact with the head”. Doesn’t make the whole spectacle enjoyable if I’m honest.

I’m mostly worried about Big Dai...,after a Remy free season he’s on it most weekends now ! #prayforbigdai

[sk 88]

The pundits going on about Weise clearing out Welsh is sticking in my throat as well. We have got to stop ruling rugby by whether a player gets injured. His entry point is illegal but the action is not- the only reason its spoken of is because he gets injured and that happens in rugby. He wrapped and drove him off the ball- and he was near the ball as well.

By comparison if Steward has his forehead split open the Newcastle player sees a card, likely red. Now that is something the pundits completely ignored at the end of the game. If a player gets injured there is an assumption that it must be foul play and thus the outcome determines what happens and not the action-
this is surely the wrong way around.

Agree, foul play is defined in law quite extensively and in-at-the-side is not listed in it.

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/laws/l ... oul%20play

Let's be frank too, Dickson did see and didn't think it was a side entry because they happen about 25 times a game and are only given when you are full on parallel to the try line like Tom Youngs was the one time it was given.

[Goodevibrations]

I think Wigglesworth has been a very good signing for us. Vastly experienced and intelligent scrum-half and I think he's had a positive impact on JVP. I must say though that we look much more dangerous with JVP on the pitch. At what point do we give Jack more starts?

[Big Dai]

Agree with the Weise comments, once is forgivable, twice...hmmm ok but his clearing out technique is questionable at best, and avoidable. If it’s 10 mins or more per game I’d leave him out. Last chance saloon. Shame as when he stays on he’s destructive. Is Van Staden a similar beast ? Genge was very quiet, I thought, but clearly fired up beforehand.

Agree begrudgingly with the TMO decisions, aided by Dickson, but the “trial by ex player” is annoying....almost as annoying as the sofa brigade...people posting slo-mo of things eg: “he clearly makes contact with the head”. Doesn’t make the whole spectacle enjoyable if I’m honest.

I’m mostly worried about Big Dai...,after a Remy free season he’s on it most weekends now ! #prayforbigdai

Thank you Sir. Everything in moderation apart from moderation itself.

[teds]

I think Wigglesworth has been a very good signing for us. Vastly experienced and intelligent scrum-half and I think he's had a positive impact on JVP. I must say though that we look much more dangerous with JVP on the pitch. At what point do we give Jack more starts?

Welcome to the forum. Totally agree JVP should be getting more starts.

To be honest I don’t agree with you on the value Wigglesworth brings, but it would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

[Goodevibrations]

I think Wigglesworth has been a very good signing for us. Vastly experienced and intelligent scrum-half and I think he's had a positive impact on JVP. I must say though that we look much more dangerous with JVP on the pitch. At what point do we give Jack more starts?

Welcome to the forum. Totally agree JVP should be getting more starts.

To be honest I don’t agree with you on the value Wigglesworth brings, but it would be boring if we all agreed on everything.

Thank you very much! There have been games where I thought Wigglesworth's control and leadership qualities really helped us. The two games against Gloucester immediately spring to mind, he was outstanding in both. I thought he wasn't great today though, slowed us down too much.

[TigerMac3]

Slightly off topic, thought the Falcons were really poor, Hodgson threw away a couple of decent attacking platforms. One player who did stand out was young Stevenson on the wing. Hadn’t seen much of him at all, at 22 looks a prospect.