Phil Clarke : Thu Mar 16, 2017 10:36 pm  

Does anybody else, or is it just me, think that this season Phil Clarke is now talking a lot of sense in his analysis of games. Now that his stupid margin metre is long gone, and Stevo, I think he comes across really well and knowledgable. I'm liking when he questions some ref decisions, especially to Stuart Cummings.

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:12 am  

roger daly wrote:

Does anybody else, or is it just me, think that this season Phil Clarke is now talking a lot of sense in his analysis of games. Now that his stupid margin metre is long gone, and Stevo, I think he comes across really well and knowledgable. I'm liking when he questions some ref decisions, especially to Stuart Cummings.

No. I hate all of the commentary team and pundits equally.
Once you watch a few nrl games and listen to the quality of their commentary, there's no going back.

[Bulliac]

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 9:45 am  

roger daly wrote:

Does anybody else, or is it just me, think that this season Phil Clarke is now talking a lot of sense in his analysis of games. Now that his stupid margin metre is long gone, and Stevo, I think he comes across really well and knowledgable. I'm liking when he questions some ref decisions, especially to Stuart Cummings.

Agree, yes.

I think Clarke has always been one of the more thoughtful members of the team, to be fair - though I totally disagreed with his earlier thoughts on tries and how you, "shouldn't disallow a 'tremendous try' because he might have been a touch off-side or the pass may have been slightly forward". If he keeps away from that sort of claptrap (and the daft graphics) then he is fine and way better than Stevo. Though I'd agree I set the bar a bit low for the last bit.

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 10:35 am  

Bulliac wrote:

... though I totally disagreed with his earlier thoughts on tries and how you, "shouldn't disallow a 'tremendous try' because he might have been a touch off-side or the pass may have been slightly forward"...

Really? I disagree. If you analysed half the tries in the game, you'd find possible nit-picks, where a player "might have been" marginally offside or a pass "might have been" "slightly" forward.

Well if they might, they also might not. Without a doubt, for example, SOME players are offside at most plays, but probably 95% of marginal, or "might have been" offsides are simply not given, nor would you want them to be.

Take for example goal line defence. I defy you to provide video or photographic evidence of any UK or Aus game where genuinely all 13 players were behind the line at the moment the ball was played. You'll struggle. How many penalties do you see, though - and how many would you WANT to see?

I think Clarke's point is fair. If a ref sees a flowing passing movement that ends in a great try, but suspects one (say) slipped pass to a man running through a gap "might" have been marginally forward, is the game generally well served by wiping off the brilliant try that everyone just cheered? It isn't. It just pissses everybody (bar one set of fans) off. I'd prefer it greatly if that try was only chalked off if the ref saw a forward pass, thought, "Yes, that WAS forward for mine", and blew. If it "might have been" slightly forward then it also might not, and it is mean, petty and very frustrtating to see a fine try chalked off for what must have been a very marginal call.

One recent example was a disallowed Ethan try in the corner of the main stand/Coral stand, for an alleged "forward pass". It didn't look forward to anyone in the ground, and I don't know who called it but I think ref as he blew instantly. No need for it. It was a great try all day long, and if it was technically a few centimetres forward, so what, he'll never know for sure, but it made zero difference to the play. In the other code, never in a million years would they ever disallow a try for a marginal "might have been" forward pass and that's just how it should be.

[Bullseye]

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:19 am  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

In the other code, never in a million years would they ever disallow a try for a marginal "might have been" forward pass and that's just how it should be.

Quinnell to Edwards - Barbarians vs All Blacks 1973 a case in point.

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:40 am  

According to the Wakefield board Clarke allegedly suggested last night that they sell their Superleague licence to Toronto. Allegedly saying that you can't have superleague played at a championship ground (TBH the Tetley's stadium is a great ground and miles better than that tip they currently play in).

Obviously that's gone down well.

[Bullseye]

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:57 pm  

Maccbull_BigBullyBooaza wrote:

Obviously that's gone down well.

Certainly has. The pitchfork and flaming torch mob are out again - they love it.

[Bulliac]

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 1:49 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

Really? I disagree. If y.

No-one mentioned 50 - 50s. They have always existed, and they always will when the laws are based on a human interpretation of what happened. Clarke was talking BLATANT forward passes and offsides, not debatable ones.

In answer to the bit about defenders on the line, personally I'd like to see them pinged every time they are caught. It's a fallacy to think this means the game will be forever littered with penalties by the way, it doesn't. Players are professionals. They commit offences like offside, chiefly because they are tired, and in the full and pretty certain knowledge that they'll get away with it 99 times out of 100. Ping them regularly, every time they do it and you'll pretty quickly get fewer instances of offside and no more penalties than we have now. If it doesn't pay it will stop, or at least, not be the norm.

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:38 pm  

Bullseye wrote:

Certainly has. The pitchfork and flaming torch mob are out again - they love it.

They haven't blamed us yet which is pretty amazing

Re: Phil Clarke : Fri Mar 17, 2017 6:39 pm  

Bulliac wrote:

No-one mentioned 50 - 50s. They have always existed, and they always will when the laws are based on a human interpretation of what happened. Clarke was talking BLATANT forward passes and offsides, not debatable ones.

Really? Well if that's true why did you say "because he might have been a touch off-side or the pass may have been slightly forward", which is what I replied to!

Bulliac wrote:

In answer to the bit about defenders on the line, personally I'd like to see them pinged every time they are caught.

I prefer the current interpretation which is that if they are entering into the spirit of things and making an effort to be back, as opposed to taking the pis.s, the officials treat it as part of the game. In any case they tried it some years back, nobody liked it, and it was quietly binned off.