POC yellow card

[rocky]

Am I alone in thinking that him being carded was entirely wrong and an example of awful refereeing?
It aooeared to me that there was hardly a tackle, certainly no ruck and therefore no offside line, so he was perfectly entitled to play the ball.
Any refs out there?
Happy to be educated.

[BaggyTrousers]

Am I alone in thinking that him being carded was entirely wrong and an example of awful refereeing?
It appeared to me that there was hardly a tackle, certainly no ruck and therefore no offside line, so he was perfectly entitled to play the ball.
Any refs out there?
Happy to be educated.

You are 100% correct my friend, as was I when I confirmed as much on what passed for the match thread. It was a calumny.

[BR]

You are far from alone.

[BuckRogers]

Was a really poor decision. I commented in another thread that I thought Jackson rode Ireland more than a little.

Arguably was no bad thing against a side like Canada, made us work harder, but that sort of decision against a decent side could have more serious consequences.

[rumncoke]

A penalty was wrong never mind a card the card only compounded the mans stupidity

I have said before the game was played for years with out the benefit ???? of cards

The use of cards should be restricted to violent play and be used to ensure safety of the game not as a team punishment

If a team needs to be punished then give penalties or penalty trys.

[BaggyTrousers]

It was all going so well.

[Shan]

Am I alone in thinking that him being carded was entirely wrong and an example of awful refereeing?
It aooeared to me that there was hardly a tackle, certainly no ruck and therefore no offside line, so he was perfectly entitled to play the ball.
Any refs out there?
Happy to be educated.

There was a ruck formed and when the Canadian passed the ball back from it POC came through to try to intercept but I don't think he came from the hindmost foot so he would have been offside. So he needed to get back onside before engaging again. It is very close though and not easy to be certain.......and of course I could be reading it incorrectly.

[BaggyTrousers]

Am I alone in thinking that him being carded was entirely wrong and an example of awful refereeing?
It aooeared to me that there was hardly a tackle, certainly no ruck and therefore no offside line, so he was perfectly entitled to play the ball.
Any refs out there?
Happy to be educated.

There was a ruck formed and when the Canadian passed the ball back from it POC came through to try to intercept but I don't think he came from the hindmost foot so he would have been offside. So he needed to get back onside before engaging again. It is very close though and not easy to be certain.......and of course I could be reading it incorrectly.

I have just re-examined it Shan and as you say it is not easy to be sure whether or not he was offside at the ruck. I think he did come back sufficiently before his first play for the ball and therefore was hard done by but without another angle we'll just have to say "unproven" one way or the other.

Can't understand why Paulie didn't prevail upon Jackson to check with the TMO, after all the TMOs have hardly had a look in so far.

[Cap'n Grumpy]

Can't understand why Paulie didn't prevail upon Jackson to check with the TMO, after all the TMOs have hardly had a look in so far.

He's still planning to ask for the TMO, but thought he'd wait a day or two ...... apparently there's no time limit now.

[Rooster]

Am I alone in thinking that him being carded was entirely wrong and an example of awful refereeing?
It aooeared to me that there was hardly a tackle, certainly no ruck and therefore no offside line, so he was perfectly entitled to play the ball.
Any refs out there?
Happy to be educated.

There was a ruck formed and when the Canadian passed the ball back from it POC came through to try to intercept but I don't think he came from the hindmost foot so he would have been offside. So he needed to get back onside before engaging again. It is very close though and not easy to be certain.......and of course I could be reading it incorrectly.

I thought same as you Shan, when I saw it first my thoughts were "that was feckin stupid Paulie"

[Snipe Watson]

Paulie just saw the ball and instinctively caught it. Not much of a thought process involved I'd imagine.

[BaggyTrousers]

You guys sure you're not being wise after the fact?

I've just watched it again, I'm convinced that Paulie was legal though as we've said it's impossible to be sure from the camera angles. Having re-watched it six times, Jackson had the arm up for a penalty long before Paulie came running back. I'm convinced that he was penalising Kearney for offside and coming in at the side to kick the ball away.

In which case can you really justify carding a man who has committed no foul just because he intervenes when you've signalled a penalty. Ireland had hardly been penalised at that point so would a single offence warrant a card 15 metres out? I think not.

I submit that Jackson is & has always been an arsewipe, this simply the most recent episode. Check it out yourselves, its the 2nd minute of the second half.

[BaggyTrousers]

Ahhhhhh, no response, I assume we're all agreed then, Paulie was done.

[Shan]

Ahhhhhh, no response, I assume we're all agreed then, Paulie was done.

What. Do we have to drag the árse out of it. I said it was not clear. It is impossible to determine on any of the angles we've been provided with. Now where the feck is the TMO when ya need him.

[Neil F]

You guys sure you're not being wise after the fact?

I've just watched it again, I'm convinced that Paulie was legal though as we've said it's impossible to be sure from the camera angles. Having re-watched it six times, Jackson had the arm up for a penalty long before Paulie came running back. I'm convinced that he was penalising Kearney for offside and coming in at the side to kick the ball away.

In which case can you really justify carding a man who has committed no foul just because he intervenes when you've signalled a penalty. Ireland had hardly been penalised at that point so would a single offence warrant a card 15 metres out? I think not.

Bearing in mind my only view of this so far was from the third row behind to posts of the wrong end of the Millennium Stadium but... The first part of what you say was certainly my impression at the time. The penalty wasn't against O'Connell. Subsequently, though, O'Connell was carded for (as it seemed to me, quite cynically) preventing any potential advantage accruing to Canada. I have no idea of this is correct, of course - without the benefit of the referee's mic, I don't even know what the official reason was. In my opinion, though, preventing an advantage occurring should merit a yellow card. Seems very contrary to the spirit of the game to do so.

At the time, I wasn't at all annoyed or perplexed by the call. Although, that may also have had something to do with the fact that I had no capacity left for rage after having had to pay £4.50 for a pint of Heineken...