[6N] Tmo farce

OB..

, Advises in England
#61
Have other posters gone back to the knock on/knee decision or only concentrated on grounding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43019960 see about 20 secs

You can see the finger of his left hand flex as the ball hits it. Why the TMO and Eddie Butler clearly thinks otherwise I do not know.

So he either knocked it forward onto his knee or knocked it on after it came off his knee. Either way the grounding question is superfluous.
I have now had a chance to replay my recdording frame by frame and still cannot be sure one way or the other.
 

CrouchTPEngage

Slowing down these days
#62
So, after all the internet debate, I had to reverse my opinion from the day of the game.
Evans' ring-finger touches the ball and it goes forward. It is not an intenional "kick" as required by the laws definition of a kick hence it is a knock-on. No try.
However, got to be honest. In one of my games, I'd probably have awarded a try.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#63
If Evans knocked it on over the line it wasn't a try, bit regardless of that the TMO process and decision on the grounding was worthy of discussion.
 

Thunderhorse1986

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#64
I can't buy that awarding the try in a game without TMO (as some here are saying they would do in their games) is a good decision, or an easy sell. In real time, at full pace and likely from a distance would people here really be confident in saying that red touched that ball down first? You have an easy "get out" as well as you are already playing penalty advantage. In the weeds, surely the decision has to be "I can't be certain about grounding, so I can't award the try; we'll go back to the penalty back here".

My main question is more on TMO process. When ased "Try, yes or no?": How confident does the TMO have to be that a try is scored to award it? Is it a "balance of probabilities (eg 51% sure)", "beyond reasonable doubt (say 75% sure)" or "absolutely certain".


FWIW I thought it was probablty going to be awarded but I don't think it fitted into either of the last two categories and was maybe a 60-40 even with the benefit of replays etc.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
#65
people who live in glass houses...
Couple of points here, SVW. In the still pic the evidence is there to say try:"the red hand is on top of the ball and under the White hand".In the video clip the ball strikes his hand (finger) but also his knee (see the ripple in the leg muscle). It is not clear to me, as I can't determine the camera angle, as to whether the ball went forward and whether it was propelled by hand or knee.

Given the circumstances the decision to return to the PK was the fairest as non of it is C & O.

So, SVW, I'm not throwing stones.
 

winchesterref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#67
Anyone know if the TMO can view front/side/other angle footage at the same time? If not, what stops them viewing in split screen? Even mobile phones can do that these days.
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Club Member
#70
My main question is more on TMO process. When ased "Try, yes or no?": How confident does the TMO have to be that a try is scored to award it? Is it a "balance of probabilities (eg 51% sure)", "beyond reasonable doubt (say 75% sure)" or "absolutely certain".
I thought it was an interesting example of the difference between "Try, yes or no?" and "Any reason I cannot award the try?". The referee asked the former, which requires C&O grounding, whereas the latter would have required a C&O failure to ground.

Watching full-speed, I thought it was a try. Watching the TMO footage, I wasn't 100% sure and couldn't have called it C&O. Subsequent images make it look like the grounding was indeed good, but following a knock-on.
 

DocY

Rugby Club Member
#73
I can't buy that awarding the try in a game without TMO (as some here are saying they would do in their games) is a good decision, or an easy sell.
Certainly not! When you have it in slow motion and people are still disagreeing, it's very safe to say that a referee 5m away (if we're being very generous) in real time could only say there was doubt about who grounded it first.
 

Phil E

, Referees/Trains Referees in England
#76
The referee agreed with the TMO.
The referee is the sole judge of fact and of law.

So the decision is correct.

I can't believe a group of referees are having a go at the officials when they can't even agree amongst themselves what the decision should have been.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
#78
I kind of agree with Phil

In a live game without a TMO I think the best call is doubt about grounding , attacking scrum

At the game with a short amount of time available to view the tmo footage I would have given a try

I haven't done any forensic examination myself but from what others say, turns out it probably wasn't a try but possibly for a different reason than we thought

Armed with all that its hard to say that the TMO made a gross error. It might be better to say well, thats how it rolls
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
#79
A couple of things strike me:

Was the TMO restricted by protocol? That is did the question restrict him to the grounding. Thus he did not consider the hand and knee - knock on scenario.

Did he rush the call?

It seems that Rolland has ruled that the TMO was wrong I guess on the grounding issue. I would agree. BUT there is consideralbe evidence to say that that was not relevant as there probably was a knock on. Of course Rolland may be sayng there was no knock on and the grounding ( by Wales) was fine.

Surely what we want. putting aside our national leanings, is the correct outcome. We don't need the protocols from that happening. Surely the TMO should have full rein to look at X phases of play and at everything that happened.

Had this happened then there would surely be less reason for debate.
 

davidlandy

Rugby Club Member
#80
A couple of things strike me:

Was the TMO restricted by protocol? That is did the question restrict him to the grounding. Thus he did not consider the hand and knee - knock on scenario.

Did he rush the call?

It seems that Rolland has ruled that the TMO was wrong I guess on the grounding issue. I would agree. BUT there is consideralbe evidence to say that that was not relevant as there probably was a knock on. Of course Rolland may be sayng there was no knock on and the grounding ( by Wales) was fine.

Surely what we want. putting aside our national leanings, is the correct outcome. We don't need the protocols from that happening. Surely the TMO should have full rein to look at X phases of play and at everything that happened.

Had this happened then there would surely be less reason for debate.
But the TMO *did* review the alleged knock on - because JG asked him to. They both watched the footage and agreed it was off the knee and not a knock on.

After that, the TMO reviewed two angles of the grounding in slow mo, once each (I think), and hastily declared "no clear grounding".

I remember being surprised at the time as I couldn't remember a TMO giving so close a decision so quickly without asking for freeze frames.

Were these really the only two angles?

Either way the rather refreshing admission from WR seems to be hinting at misinterpretation of the laws rather than about what the ref and TMO saw:

"World Rugby has clarified to the Wales team management as part of the usual review process with teams that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match at Twickenham," they said.

"In accordance with law 21.1 b Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43046791