NZ v SA

BFG's point appears to be that centimetres and forensic examination is standard fare for some 'critical' incidents, yet not for others:confused:, its that inconsistency he's highlighting, he makes a fair point.

The TMO should have been asked to review the legality of RM's involvement, after all this is the whole point of such review for the 'critical' moments of the game, we have RWC2015 coming up and if this was the Final moment of the RWC Final then I'd expect .... nay ....'demand' that it's fully reviewed by a TMO.

For this case, id be amazed if any TMO would rule RM's involvement as C&O illegal.

In anything other than showbiz then the try would likely stand. Any referee who disallows it should have a 'C&O' reason to do so, and there is an absence of C&O here.

FWIW, & having read all the forensic analysis within these posts its still a valid TRY for me.

Ps... I love the NZ front lineout participant's kidology where he urgently offers to catch the ball :clap:, his contribution in this well executed ploy hasn't been given much credit thus far.

pps. I always chuckle when NZ posters bleat about Bias, its so laughable, because we all know that if the roles were reversed then their nanosecondometer, would have been plugged in within a nanosecond of the award !
 

OB..

, Advises in England
BFG's point appears to be that centimetres and forensic examination is standard fare for some 'critical' incidents, yet not for others:confused:, its that inconsistency he's highlighting, he makes a fair point.
No he doesn't. Contact with a visible line is quite different from estimating distance from an imprecisely defined line. Just what part of the lineout do you measure from? The realistic question is was there any uncertainty as to who was in the receiver position? That is what the 2m rule was intended to achieve.

pps. I always chuckle when NZ posters bleat about Bias, its so laughable, because we all know that if the roles were reversed then their nanosecondometer, would have been plugged in within a nanosecond of the award !
Unnecessarily provocative.
 
Unnecessarily provocative.
Don't be a plonker OB - I see what you've done, singled out that whilst happily blind-eyeing this prod

TheBFG will tell you that only New Zealander's think this move was legal. He would be wrong. He appears to be the only referee here (so far) who thinks it was illegal. Some people love to squash any innovation in the game or at least, any innovation that the team they support didn't think of.

ETA:: Keep an eye out on the SA Referees website. They will almost certainly say it was illegal because they are very biased towards South Africa. (yes, I am intentionally poisoning the well)
Maybe I was merely intentionally poisoning the well - there is that ok for you now?!
 

Crucial

Rugby Club Member
Bit like the millimetres the SA lock was from scoring from the rolling maul from their attacking line out? But that went upstairs and was rightly not given :wink:
I get your point and yes, it is an anomoly in using TMOs that we get tries awarded and disallowed on the basis of millimetres (eg split second gap between ball and hand before regaining hold) that aren't applied in general play incidents that are just as important in the overall scheme of things.

It's why I maintain that the fairest video review system is simply to provide the on field ref the opportunity to see what he was unsighted from in real time and let him make the call from there. TV producers and game analysts picking over millimetres later then just becomes after the fact whinging. Look for clear and obvious and (in some cases) benefit of doubt.
 

Crucial

Rugby Club Member
It was a great move, a very simple one, but all the best moves are, really, the more elaborate something is, the more likely it will go wrong.

But SA made it easy for them.. NZ form up for a 5m scrum and RM is standing at receiver., and SA didn't mark him, indeed they seemed to ignore him,

they must have decided he was a diversion and they weren't going to fall for it.
I find this comment enlightening. If Crossref is an indication then teams in the NH aren't using the 'forward standing at receiver' option very much. In Super Rugby it is quite common. Often for use during a maul attempt where you get some bulk added to the maul quickly (hence the deception in this case). The Brumbies usually stand Pocock at receiver to become the tail end of the maul drive and look for the try.
 

SimonSmith

, Referees in America, Rank Bajin!
TheBFG will tell you that only New Zealander's think this move was legal. He would be wrong. He appears to be the only referee here (so far) who thinks it was illegal. Some people love to squash any innovation in the game or at least, any innovation that the team they support didn't think of.

ETA:: Keep an eye out on the SA Referees website. They will almost certainly say it was illegal because they are very biased towards South Africa. (yes, I am intentionally poisoning the well)

​Reading Kaplan, he was right.
 

B52 REF

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
Hang on - didn't we have guidance some time back (adopted by all but USAR) (and a big thread about it on here) that receiver could not enter LO at 2 or 4 because he could not posssibly get there in time leaglly!!!(we were suppossed to mange it out of the game). HAS there been a further clarification or guidance that i have missed ? I will ask national panel conference but would prefer a heads up here if possible as will be coaching refs and teams tomorrow and they are bound to ask.
 

damo

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
Hang on - didn't we have guidance some time back (adopted by all but USAR) (and a big thread about it on here) that receiver could not enter LO at 2 or 4 because he could not posssibly get there in time leaglly!!!(we were suppossed to mange it out of the game). HAS there been a further clarification or guidance that i have missed ? I will ask national panel conference but would prefer a heads up here if possible as will be coaching refs and teams tomorrow and they are bound to ask.
Have you actually seen the try?

The throw in was very loopy and slow, no doubt because if it was fast and flat he wouldn't have been able to get there in time.
 

B52 REF

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
YES DAMO and it was marginal (and fuelled much debate ) as to whteher RM was o.k WHICH is why we had the guidance -to save refs getting their tape measures out and making bad calls ....it was deemed that in most cases receiver could not cover the 2.5 metres quickly enough to SAFELY partcipate therefore to manage it out of the game . You may not agree (and i enjoyed the try) but that was the guidance- just asking if that changed and i missed it..
 

Ian_Cook

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/newzealan
I have no doubt that, had this try been scored in the middle of a game that was comfortably won by either side, and/or was not scored by R. McCaw, then we would not even be discussing it.

The only reason the focus is on it is it because it won the game at the end.
 

ChrisR

Player or Coach
I have no doubt that, had this try been scored in the middle of a game that was comfortably won by either side, and/or was not scored by R. McCaw, then we would not even be discussing it.

The only reason the focus is on it is it because it won the game at the end.
I agree. Argentina attempted a similar ploy in their match against the ABs and it received no notice.

The differences between the two events are:

The ABs hammered the Pumas.
The Pumas attempted the ploy on their own 5m, not the AB's 5m.
The ABs stood up the catcher at the LOT.

In addition:

A Puma player not in the lineout who started, legally, in goal joined the lineout to form a maul at the LOT.
All the AB forwads not in the lineout ran up to the HMF of the maul before the lineout ended.

These last two were debatable points as it was not clear as to whether the ball had moved into the tramlines thus ending the lineout.

My point being that there was much more to discuss in that event but it drew no notice that I saw.
 

OB..

, Advises in England
If a correct outcome is the desired objective, then the review process should apply to both, lines or no lines, so i think he does.
That generalisation would mean every potential forward pass etc should be checked by the TMO, which is obviously impracticable.

Picking one point of similarity does not show that two situations are essentially the same. It is the significant differences that matter.
 

B52 REF

<img src="http://www.rugbyrefs.com/flags/england.p
Marauder - but if refs are supposed to be folowing guidance to tell receivers they may not do something then they do it C & O does not come into it , (he C and O entered the LO which he should have been told was not allowed unless guidance has changed ?)