Good game: Sitiveni Sivivatu
Clermont booked their place in the Heineken Cup quarter-finals and must now wait to see if they get a home tie after beating Ulster 19-15 on Saturday.
The Irish side also qualify in second place after victories from Gloucester and Connacht on Friday determined their route through to the knockouts.
Despite the opening period ending 6-6, it was a thrilling half of rugby with typical European fire.
Morgan Parra and Ruan Pienaar did the honours from the kicking tee for Clermont and Ulster respectively, but chances came and went for both.
Parra and Pienaar continued their form with the boot as the visitors opened a 12-9 lead in the second half, but Ti'i Paulo's try gave the hosts the impetus they needed to secure victory.
The hosts started with typical fervour and tempo, and opened the scoring in the 14th minute from the boot of Parra after Dan Tuohy was sin-binned.
The Irish province, without the pressure of needing a result, gradually worked their way into the match. Pienaar levelled with a penalty, but the Clermont scrum-half responded.
Ulster continued to have their chances, though, and after their South African half-back had missed a three-point opportunity, he made the scores 6-6 at the half-time interval.
Pienaar and Parra traded penalties but Clermont were feelig the pressure as they started to needlessly infringe. And the visitors' fly-half kicked them into a 12-9 lead before Paulo powered over from close range. But a three-pointer apiece settled the contest.
The scorers:
For Clermont:
Try: Paulo
Con: Parra
Pen: Parra 4
For Ulster:
Pen: Pienaar 5
Clermont: 15 Lee Byrne, 14 Sitiveni Sivivatu, 13 Aurélien Rougerie, 12 Wesley Fofana, 11 Julien Malzieu, 10 David Skrela, 9 Morgan Parra, 8 Julien Bonnaire, 7 Julien Bardy, 6 Gerhard Vosloo, 5 Nathan Hines, 4 Julien Pierre, 3 Clément Ric, 2 Benjamin Kayser, 1 Lionel Faure.
Replacements: 16 Ti'i Paulo, 17 Vincent Debaty, 18 Daniel Coetzee, 19 Jamie Cudmore, 20 Alexandre Lapandry, 21 Kevin Senio, 22 Brock James, 23 Regan King
Ulster: 15 Stefan Terblanche, 14 Andrew Trimble, 13 Ian Whitten, 12 Paddy Wallace, 11 Craig Gilroy, 10 Ian Humphreys, 9 Ruan Pienaar, 8 Pedrie Wannenburg, 7 Chris Henry, 6 Stephen Ferris, 5 Dan Tuohy, 4 Johann Muller (capt), 3 John Afoa, 2 Rory Best, 1 Tom Court.
Replacements: 16 Andi Kyriacou, 17 Callum Black, 18 Adam Macklin, 19 Lewis Stevenson, 20 Willie Faloon, 21 Paul Marshall, 22 Nevin Spence, 23 Adam D'Arcy.
Referee: Dave Pearson (England)
Assistant referees: David Rose (England), Roy Maybank (England)
Television match official: Trevor Fisher (England)
Comments
crunchfit says...
@staph_glorious
Listen man, my point was the refereeing of Pearson was particularly poor at that moment in the game. You seem to agree. I'm not getting into a debate about the other thing because I know you won't change your opinion, and I won't change mine, and there are plenty of arguments and examples for both sides of the argument so I'm not getting into it. It's a pretty pointless argument anyway. I'd say you agree. You said this is tedious, so I don't get why you keep pressing that issue. I think it's kind of sad. And that's all I've got to say really.
Posted 11:03 24th January 2012
staph_glorious says...
Nice sidestep, crunchfit.
I'm happy to have learned the extent of your - or rather, your moniker's - rationale.
Nulla dies sine linea.
Posted 17:22 23rd January 2012
crunchfit says...
You're an astute writer. And you've already acknowledged that swipes were made. I'm sure you can find them.
I didn't even imply you were the aggressor. You brought that up. All I said is you made swipes, and you acknowledged that, twice, and you are making an argument out of nothing, which you are. Anyway, I've reportedly refused to get into that debate and how many times have you continued down that road?
If you actually found it tedious, you would have stopped addressing comments towards me. Especially when I've said I'm not getting into an argument on that issue.
Rescind allegations? What? That's pretty petty, my friend. It's only the internet. Get over it.
Anyway, I actually don't find this argument enjoyable, it's ridiculous and pedantic so and to be honest I'm not even sure what exactly you / we are arguing about, so, I'm out. Have a good day.
Posted 16:03 23rd January 2012
staph_glorious says...
Apologies for the terribly shoddy proofreading. Maybe a moderator can remove the italics?
Posted 15:27 23rd January 2012
staph_glorious says...
crunchfit,
What were the swipes?
<>
To what does this refer? I've admitted to addressing you.
This is tedious. My words were not hostile, but you portrayed me as an aggressor to eschew remark on your original 'loaded' comment.
I'm happy to agree on the "particularly grave error" of Pearson and close *any* debate, and for you to rescind the allegations of hostility.
Posted 14:57 23rd January 2012
crunchfit says...
@staph_glorious
There were more swipes than that (your words: "the swipes aren't personal"). Anyway, it's cool. I don't mind.
I know and don't worry, I understand the system. Anyway, everything you wrote, swipes and all, were specifically addressed to me. I didn't say only the swipes specifically were addressed to me. That's why I wrote "...you were specifically addressing me when you were writing". Again, it's not a huge volume I'm writing so try and read carefully so I don't have to address issues unnecessarily. This is why I can't be bothered entering a debate, particularly one about "game defining moments," with you. Anyway, I don't really get how what that changes anything. You were still specifically addressing me.
My advice is appropriate for everyone (I'd actually call it common sense rather than advice), just not everyone follows it.
Posted 12:50 23rd January 2012
staph_glorious says...
crunchfit,
The 'swipe' was at the use of common language, that cliché of 'game defining'. That language does not belong to your person.
I specifically addressed you, or gathered your attention, as a poster of this grating cliché. This facilitates a potentially easier discussion amidst a Comments section that is not kind to reader debate.
Your advice would be most appropriate for your own self.
Posted 12:12 23rd January 2012
crunchfit says...
@staph_glorious
I don't get how a swipe isn't personal (not that I said it was personal). Not to mention you were specifically addressing me when you were writing. And a "swipe", as far as I'm aware, is by its nature hostile. Eloquent writing is great and everything, but you should work on your logic and understanding of words a little bit.
Anyway, nope. Don't wish to engage in any more separate, unnecessary debates / arguments. Sorry.
Posted 22:08 22nd January 2012
staph_glorious says...
crunchfit,
'Nothing', or 'game defining'?
The swipes aren't personal. Certainly there was no hostility, and no cause to assume it. I'm only picking up on typically lazy commentary - irrespective of the commentator - that can insight and propagate bias in rugby fans. That's the argument with which you don't wish to engage - that a referee's decision or non-decision is *the* pivotal moment that determines a match result; the *actual* mountain-from-molehill so many fans cite.
It's perfectly fine if you don't want to discuss it. You're not required to comment, nor feel the need to portray me as an aggressor. What you *do* write though is, of course, fair game for riposte.
Posted 20:15 22nd January 2012
crunchfit says...
@staph_glorious
Talk about making an argument out of nothing... My point was that the standard of refereeing was unacceptable at a point which was of great importance to the game.
The moment lead directly to a 7 point score which had an effect on the game and the result of the game. It happened with 15 minutes to go in a low scoring match. You can argue about the phrase I used, whether or not such moments exist, territory, etc. and make a mountain out of a mole hill, but I'm not really in the mood for another pointless argument. Sorry.
Just a note:
"There were numerous phases... and his assessors". I didn't write very much so try read / retain the small amount that I do before taking unnecessary little swipes like in the last post (it's the internet, no need to be hostile, relax): "Just a particularly grave error by Pearson at a very important moment which is why I'm not didn't get into all the other moments and mistakes."
Cheers mate.
Posted 17:58 22nd January 2012
staph_glorious says...
crunchfit,
I can't agree. Had Parra not eventually followed the Paulo score with a penalty, then Ulster would not have been pushed to claim a try at the end; the goal attempt would have sufficed and earned an away victory. Ultimately, that penalty defined the match. OR the defensive lapse that brought that penalty. OR the subsequent poor restart etc etc
You're decreeing that the solitary try of the game 'turned the tables' or whatever the phrase is today. That's exciting reporting. But you could note the statistically poor return from territory (and possession) by Ulster in the final quarter - by example, two crooked Best throws and dissent from Muller.
The point being that hanging a game of rugby on one incident makes the spectacle and boosts viewer interests, but there is absolutely no reference to 'game-defining moments' and whathaveyou in the IRB glossary. (Though they may edge closer if they blindly extend the powers of TMO-referral). There were numerous phases of play for each team that will draw the meticulous eye of their respective coaches, and so too between Pearson and his assessors. These make the far more interesting discussions. I would hate to reduce myself to the diluted fancies of Stuart Barnes.
Posted 12:32 22nd January 2012
Carpelone says...
The match between such a fairly good sides was riuned by the referee, who allowed illegal cynical play from both sides.
Curate_eggs. Spot on. Hines should have been in the bin already, for holding two men at the same time. Henry's late charge on James is penalty, and possibly a yellow. How comes that in all breakdown not a single red player managed to stay on his feet (not to mention falling inadvertently on the wrong side) with some few penalties awarded is quite a mistery.
Honestly, I found wildebeest's stampedes far more entertaining than beakdown.
But I am putting the blame on the ref for this, not on the teams, which both proved to be worthy QFists.
Posted 09:27 22nd January 2012
Carpelone says...
@ rosbif
Contesting the ball at breakdown is different from a restart and the ball was rightly given to Clermont, if Terblanche was not caught in air.
Posted 09:17 22nd January 2012
J_HDK says...
Ulster can feel hard done by with a blatant off the ball tackle on the first defender leading to the Clermont try. But.... when you have been awarded a penalty with three minutes to go... don't mouth off to the referee and get the penalty reversed. Good effort by Ulster but they never looked like scoring a try.
Posted 05:38 22nd January 2012
curates_egg says...
Cracking high intensity match. Clermont deserved the win but their try was totally illegal. Hines (who possibly should have been in the bin already at that stage) totally took out the pillar one defender illegally, allowing Paolo to saunter over for a try. People like laissez faire refereeing but fair refereeing is more important, and Pearson fell down on this front. Home town ref.
Posted 02:28 22nd January 2012
Bones7 says...
@ carpelone - I thought it was quite an entertaining game, so did the pundits and everyone else I seem to have spoken to. The breakdown seemed evenly contested, Henry put in a pretty innocuous looking shoulder on Brock James which didn't seem bad at all and if Terblanche was off the floor when he was tackled then it was literally by the length of his studs. Hines obstructing for the try was obviously a mistake on Dave Pearson's part but I can see how it could easily have been mistaken for normal pushing and shoving on the fringes. If you don't find games like this entertaining then I don't know what competition to suggest as an alternative!
Posted 01:58 22nd January 2012
crunchfit says...
@staph_glorious
Except this moment did define the game so it's quite applicable here... Just a particularly grave error by Pearson at a very important moment which is why I'm not didn't get into all the other moments and mistakes.
Posted 22:31 21st January 2012
caramba13 says...
Mr Pearson failed to punish the off-ball infringements from the beginning ... so they went forth and multiplied in niggling tit for tat fashion throughout the game. A pity, as he could well have binned a couple of players (from either side) and spotted that terrible block by Hines (worthy of top flight American football) which paved the way for the Clermont try.
That said, Clermont took their chances whereas Ulster didn't. Trimble should have gone outside and scored when he had the chance.
Posted 21:40 21st January 2012
Rosbif says...
....maybe worth elaborating...when i say clermont deserved it, i look at their overall pool games and see they have conceded fewer points than any other team, despite having leicester and ulster in their group...on paper, not easy opponents...(although the same could not be said of aironi...)
(@carpelone, i thought the terblanche incident was blatant too at the time, but i'm advised the law is different if the catch is direct from kick-off, i.e. players don't benefit from the same protection in the air - I agree 100% with your other points though)
Posted 21:05 21st January 2012
ciaranbrk says...
Ulster were robed Person was afraid to card any Clermont player. Hines infringed once off the ball the second time was cynical to set up the try and Person could see him i don't know how that try was aloud for the life of me. but well done Clermont ur luck will run out soon enough.
Posted 20:53 21st January 2012