[6N] Tmo farce

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
the issue for me is TMO appears to take only a cursory interest in the potential knock on near the touchline. Like he was in a hurry to get a decision made or something. From referral to decision was < 1 minute.
Again I made this point earlier in the thread. My concern was the time taken and not the outcome. Did the question allow the TMO to look for the knock on or was he hamstrung by protocol? We need to allow the TMO to access the full picture and to take the time make the right call.
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
Strange how World Rugby has commented on this decision but as I understand it the NZRFU are still waiting on feedback from WR on the contentious penalty no penalty in the 3rd Lions encounter
Surely that would have been covered in the referees debrief days after the game.

...But I'm sure the NZRU and WR have had this discussion and just didn't go to the press with the results of it! It's a far more useful discussion to have since it actually affects how the law should be interpreted and how players should play, rather than arguing about the facts of a specific situation.
I'm sure they were both more professional than Holwer about it. That might explain the lack of public pronouncement. Alternatively WR may not have agreed with NZ so there was little reason for them to go public. I guess we will never know.

What reamains true is that Howler was (is) unprofessional.
 
Last edited:

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
I think the way they have worded the 2018 laws makes it clear they think the pk was correct

9.17. A player must not tackle, charge, pull, push or grasp an opponent whose feet are off the
ground.

2017 said
10.4 (e)
A player must not tackle an opponent whose feet are off the ground.
Sanction: Penalty kick

Clearly the same inference for me.
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
good analysis in the Guardian...

The television match official Glenn Newman ruled that Anscombe had not properly grounded the ball before Watson did but after reviewing the 24th-minute incident World Rugby, whose head of referees, Alain Rolland, had spoken to Gatland, ruled that “in accordance with law 21.1b Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball”.

The law referred to defines grounding of the ball as “pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck”. The dictionary definition of the word to press is: “to move or cause to move into a position of contact with something by exerting continuous physical force”.

Anscombe struck the ball a glancing blow and repeated replays do not show evidence of any physical force, never mind continuous. It was one of those grey areas rugby union’s long list of laws and sub-clauses throws up: Scotland felt robbed of victory in the World Cup quarter-final when Australia were awarded a late penalty and World Rugby subsequently said that the referee Craig Joubert had been wrong.

There appeared to be an argument then for Joubert’s decision, just as there is for Newman’s, but World Rugby has now established a precedent for future groundings. Just as scrum feeds no longer have to go straight down the middle and forward passes are ruled to be within the laws if the movement of the distributor’s hands points backwards, so the grounding of a ball over the goal-line now involves a hand or hands being brought downwards on the ball and making contact, however slight.

Newman is entitled to feel aggrieved because if there had been a mistake, it was not blatant and the wording of the relevant law did not conclusively back up World Rugby’s pronouncement, which was only made after Wales made public the details of the conversation between Rolland and Gatland.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/tmo-decision-wales-england-precedent-six-nations

I agree with that.

If WR were going to issue a statement saying that the decision is wrong, they needed to explain their position
 

didds

, Resident Club Coach
I'm still finding it bizarre that WR hasnp;t made any form of official statement, and its all come to light because rob howley spoke about a phone call he'd had with Rolland.

Its just me I guess!

I'll avoid the other elephant in the room in that guardian piece though!

didds
 

crossref

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
the 2007 incident wasn't clever, I agree -- but, really, that was 2007.
the other two I don't think amount to much, especially if that's all there is in the last 11 years?


Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.
 

Marc Wakeham

Moderator Attention - New Usergroup Required
Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing allegedly throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.[/QUOTE]





I'm sure there would have bewn something said it Howler had lied!
 

OB..

, Advises in England
good analysis in the Guardian...
[...]Just as scrum feeds no longer have to go straight down the middle and forward passes are ruled to be within the laws if the movement of the distributor’s hands points backwards, [...]
That bit about a forward pass does not fit the essence of a good analysis! It does not represent a change in the laws, just in the mindset of journalists.
If WR were going to issue a statement saying that the decision is wrong, they needed to explain their position
Yes indeed.
 

Dixpat

Rugby Club Member
NZ Herald article by Wynne Gray 16/2/18

Warren Gatland complained about a TMO’s “terrible mistake” in the Six Nations and World Rugby compounded the situation — but the Wales coach should let his disapproval drift back six months to Eden Park.

The Lions had drawn the test series with the All Blacks after persuading referee Romaine Poite to overturn a late penalty for offside and deny Beauden Barrett a handy chance for victory.

“It comes in swings and roundabouts,” Gatland said, “you get calls that go for you and calls that go against you.”

All that c’est la vie feedback got the boot after Wales lost a first half verdict that Gareth Anscombe had scored and Gatland seized on that decision from Kiwi TMO Glenn Newman for his side’s 12-6 defeat rather than their failure to crack England in the remaining 57 minutes.

It’s enough to make you think there was some merit in the red nose caricature of Gatland that provoked such annoyance on the Lions’ visit. Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try. His organisation then issued a statement confirming the content of that conversation. That’s as misguided as New Zealand Rugby’s decision to set up an official grievance service where callers can register complaints about rugby players’ behaviour they feel is unacceptable, inappropriate or objectionable. It’s an invitation for social media sleuths, the vengeful or those who are anti-rugby to unfurl their grievance lists. Players are warned repeatedly about the misbehaving and if some of that spills over to the attention of the public or police then they like any other person should wear the consequences. Offering an open line for complaints is an invitation for vexatious and frivolous criticism which then has to be assessed by a senior lawyer. When World Rugby censured Newman in public, the governing body and Rolland opened themselves up to a torrent of questions about decisions from referees and the touchline assessments from his assistants.

In-goal verdicts are an influential part of the game but so are decisions referees make throughout a game. They make judgments on the run and many can be debated in a game which allows advantage.

If World Rugby’s inquiry and support for Wales was consistent, they’d need another company to deal with the 2007 RWC quarter-final where the sideline silence and the work of Wayne Barnes provoked All Black coach Graham Henry’s claims about a mass of unpunished offences.

Making retrospective judgments in public as World Rugby and Rolland did, weakens the reputation of referees and highlights their predicament as one set of eyeballs against a multitude of angles and slow-motion assessments from highpowered cameras.

Rugby is running the risk of sinking into the blame game. Tests have been delayed but never replayed and World Rugby should remind themselves that fulltime scores are only altered by hooligans and keyboard vandals.

Another thing that won’t change is fans debating the rights and injustices of refereeing decisions, the colourful third half of the game when emotions rise as pints are drowned in a zone authorities should avoid.

Certainly World Rugby should wear a dunce’s hat after referees’ boss Alain Rolland got on the blower to Gatland to say Anscombe should have been awarded the try.
 

davidlandy

Rugby Club Member
Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing allegedly throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.

I'm sure there would have bewn something said it Howler had lied!



Quite!

The only allegations of Howley behaving improperly come from a couple of otherwise distinguished posters on this board, and solely on the basis of pure conjecture.

Contradicting the allegations is the inconvenient fact that the BBC reported that WR backed up Howley's statement with one of their own to the BBC, confirming what he had said, and WR neither said nor hinted that they had any problems with Howley going public!

Go figure.
 

davidlandy

Rugby Club Member
the 2007 incident wasn't clever, I agree -- but, really, that was 2007.
the other two I don't think amount to much, especially if that's all there is in the last 11 years?


Anyway, coaches complaining about a ref is very different from the WR head of refereeing throwing a particular official under a bus, in an ill-considered semi-official? phone call.
The point about Eddie Jones complaining about Alun Wynn Jones last week, was that he (Eddie) was effectively saying that the ref on the spot got it wrong. And then he complains about others undermining refs.

And yes, 2007 was 11 years ago, but how many other national coaches have been fined $10000 for ref abuse?!?

No one is comparing a to b - just pointing out that Jones is a sanctimonious prig ?
 

davidlandy

Rugby Club Member
For the sake of transparency owning up to mistakes is important. It's not 'throwing the TMO under the bus'.

As a referee if you make a blunder do you admit it with "Sorry guys, my bad" or do you try to escape by distorting the laws?

C'mon the TMO is human but was he under pressure to get it right or make it quick? They can give the guy an out by reviewing process instead of just dumping it on him.
Totally agree ChrisR, I think you hit the nail on the head. In any professional situation when we make mistakes we should own up and put it right as best we can.

Obviously in sport it doesn't work to alter the score after no side, but admitting errors can at least help bring understanding and closure to controversial situatuons. We're all human, after all.

But of course WR can't figure out a way of doing this consistently, nor in a way that doesn't leave refs here feeling undermined...
 

davidlandy

Rugby Club Member
good analysis in the Guardian...


The dictionary definition of the word to press is: “to move or cause to move into a position of contact with something by exerting continuous physical force”.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/15/tmo-decision-wales-england-precedent-six-nations
But the Guardian is being selective in its presentation of fact: the same dictionary states that a synonym of "to press" is "to push (down)", which has no connotations of having to be continuous for any length of time, thus destroying their entire argument.

And thinking in physical terms you cannot touch something and not press on it, however slightly.

And if you press on something anywhere on its upper side, some component of the applied force will be downwards.

Is it really news that a try can be scored by pressing anywhere on the top half of the ball, and by only pressing slightly, and not for very long? (Perhaps it is!)

If WR were going to issue a statement saying that the decision is wrong, they needed to explain their position
Agree 100%.

Which bit of law was misapplied and in what way?!? Surely we are entitled to know.