Have a word Donal!

[TheBFG]

Has you mate Mr Clancy got a thing against Matt Banahan?

1st there was that YC against that bunch of poofs from France.

and then on Sat he failed to give touch for a ball that bounced on the line "There was chalk dust!" (just realised that ref might be wasted on you - ask your mum and dad! ) But gave the LO to AUS????

What this fred is about to be honest is something that may have come up before, but why use "top refs" to run touch when they do it half a dozen times a season, ARs is a "art" in its own right so giving the job to a guy that rarely does it seems strange.

There are plenty of top ARs that do it week in week out, why don't they use them?

[Donal1988]

Saw the Matt Banahan hit alright after the Stade game. At the next meeting he was challenged on it and he said even in hindsight he was "as happy as you could be with a 50-50 call".

I didnt see the England game. Was it a decision wrong in law or was it human error failing to judge if it bounced on line or field of play.

Agree with general theme of the article.

[TheBFG]

Ball bounced on the line (MB stopped- bad mistake for an international! ) no flag initially, but then he put the flag up and gave LO to AUS (kick to touch - from open play not in 22)

Aus won LO went across field and scored in opposite corner!

[Donal1988]

Yikes thats not good. Im sure he'd agree it was a mistake. He usually invites us to raise questions about his games at our weekly meetings and has held firm on some decisions (like the O'Driscoll self pass http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzvnexjWJYg) and on other occasions like the France v Scotland game last season in the 6 Nations has admitted he got it wrong. Always says why too. Benefits us and im sure it benefits him.

On several occasions where meetings are very very slow (as they can be when you meet weekly) its handy to have Fitzy and him at the meetings to ask about their various games.

[TheBFG]

Be interested to get his take on it

Anyway as i've said, should refs be given these appointments?

[Donal1988]

Suppose they are trying to create a "team of three" environment rather than a referee and his 2 understudies.

[dave_clark]

don't they have one "proper" AR and one spare referee just in case anything untoward happens to the big cheese in the middle?

[TheBFG]

think that's the 4th Officals role?????

[Dixie]

Originally Posted by TheBFG

Ball bounced on the line (MB stopped- bad mistake for an international! ) no flag initially, but then he put the flag up and gave LO to AUS (kick to touch - from open play not in 22)

A somewhat one-eyed view, BFG, and unworthy of your normal standard of posting.

The ball was kicked over MB's head from outside the 22m. It landed either on or very close to the line. MB fielded and pointed to the line to show he felt the ball had hit the line. In fielding it, he put his own Size 13 on the line.

George decided that the initial bounce of the ball was infield (i.e. did not touch the line) and so ruled on MB's footfall. I didn't think the replay, coming as it did from a camera not on the line, was conclusive. I suspect George will again be able to say he is a comfortable as you can be with a 50:50 call.

[TheBFG]

Originally Posted by Dixie

In fielding it, he put his own Size 13 on the line.

he didn't get anywhere near the line, which was why i couldn't understand the AUS throw in to the LO?

Just checked the iPlayer coverage.............. sorry mistake on the part of Mr Clancy!

The ball appeared to land on the line (as all the commentators said - yeah i know what the ***k do they know), when MB then played it he was not on or near the line?????