rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
Sorry Capt and CI you miss the point of my criticism of Murphy it is not that he is just a bad ref he is predictable ref
Most players like playing with a predictable ref - it means they know where they stand with him. The worse refs are the ones where you haven't any idea if or when he's gonna penalise you, so you almost become afraid to try anything for fear of being penalised.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
I knew when Ulster scored their second try the next penalty would be against Ulster to afford leinster the opportunity to score
Again, paranoid nonsense. If the next penalty was to be against Ulster, it would be because Ulster committed an offence that could be penalised. Ulster's fault, not Murphy bias.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
He penalised Ulster for failing to release the ball in a situation that leinster were never going to win a turnover ....
Just because Leinster might not have been in a position to win a turnover, does not mean that Ulster can hold on to the ball on the ground. If we commit a penalty offence, we should expect a penalty decision. Was the reason Leinster were never gonna effect the turnover because Ulster were holding on and generally otherwise slowing it down?
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
... and could equally well have been penalised for failing to roll away after the tackle and thus impeding the Ulster players from giving support when the ball was released.
That argument could be made at just about every breakdown. The ref has to decide which if any of these occurs; tackler releases ball carrier once his knee touches the floor; ball carrier releases the ball as soon as he is tackled (touches the floor), but is permitted time to to place the ball; and tackler makes an effort to roll away after tackle is complete, although generally only if he is blocking the ball from being played. Ref has to decide which, if any offence occured first. Sometimes you get them, sometimes you don't. In your case, I would suggest that in general you are looking at the tackle area through Ulser rose-tinted specs. Something, I confess, we all do to a greater or lesser extent at different times.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
AT the next line out -maul two leinster players break from the maul and continue to be bound as they run at the Ulster player to impede the cover defence pure blocking straight and simple ( not penalised ) --leinster were taking players out/blocking would be defenders all night with immunity.
That incident has been discussed at greater length already and our positions are already on record.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
The second try was set up with a call for offside against Treadwell who had started his run from well behind the hind foot when Henshaw first handled the ball . Treadwell spotted he was no scrum half -- with a weak slow pass which would have meant Treadwell tackling before the ball was received and Treadwell actually stuttered his run because of the slow pass . but the major defect with this call was Treadwell Murphy saw it the eyes he had in the back of his head.
Not sure exactly which is the problem you are highlighting here - 1, 2 or 3 of 3?
I don't recall the Tredwell offside bit as you describe it, so will not comment. I do vaguely recall him being offside once when he looked to have been onside, but had been offside initially but never actually got himself back onside, such was the way the play evolved.
If a weak slow pass, results in someone being tackled before the ball is received, it is still the responsibility of the tackler not to make contact until the ball has been received. It is not an excuse for a tackler to say he tackled early because the pass was late.
Your main complaint appears to be that the referee saw the offence out of the eyes in the back of his head - or more commonly known as his assistant referee(s). That's what they're there for, so if he uses them, it shouldn't come as any great surprise.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
The fact that Murphy had made the call against leinster for crossing in the line made the call against Ulster for the same offence in the same place predictable
Some would call it consistent rather than predictable - see my first point. I note your gripe is that fact that he made the call, not that Ulster didn't commit the offence.
rumncoke wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2024 1:38 am
He basically like many refs in an attempt to be fair makes dubious calls because he is actually looking for the offence before it happens and convinces himself it has happen
So you admit he is like many refs? I would suggest that "dubious calls" are made when they are not in agreement with the observer (the fans), because the referee genuinely believes he has made the right decision. He does not go through a game thinking, "what must I do to attempt to be fair?" (your words). I would further suggest that all referees at different times will be looking for an offence before it happens, simply because they know that a particular team is likely to commit it. That may be because they have done it several times in the game already, or because a team captain (during) or team coach (before) a game has highlighted soemthing of concern to the officials. It does not mean the ref will give the penalty just becaus ethey afe alert to it, but because it has actually happened.
I suggest one such thing which happened in Ulster's favour was that Munster complained after their match with Leinster last week about Cian Healy turning in illegally at scrum times. I heard it suggested that Ulster had ensured Frank was aware of that before hand, with the result (and you could see it very clearly on TV), that Ulster got the penalty the very first time Healy tried this, and it prevented him from doing it through the match.
You have to make up your mind, Rumn - youre insinuations that you knew what Murphy was gonna do at different times implies bias, but you later accuse him of being like other refs. So unless you're accusing all refs of bias, you need to decide which it actually is.
We have seen a lot of Frank in recent weeks both as referee and as assistant referee - judging by results in this matches (and other matches in recent years), I don't see a lot to fear when he's named to officiate our matches. Of course he could have a bad game - anyone can - but that's a different kettle of fish to saying the man's biased.
Plus he is assessed by at least one referee assessor, and as many as 3 or 4, for his handling of every game, and any errors will be pointed out to him . . . unless, of course all the assessors are biased too.
Finally, the match was played in Dublin. As fans, we do our utmost to get in the ear of the officials to try to milk penalties that either might have been missed, or even where no offence has occurred. I know I yell for some perceived offences when I know in my heart of hearts, nothing happened. I don't expect the ref to give me/us the decision, but I suppose I'm hoping that the next 50:50 will go in our favour. It's called home advantage for a reason, so we shouldn't be surprised that we didn't get everything the way we would have hoped even though it was at
OurDS. It was still full of Mexicans doing their best to get in the ears of the officials, just like we do.