• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

Grounded?

didds said:
Meanwhile…

in rugby parlance, a try was PROBABLY scored. Which is good enough for a PT after all?
Click to expand...

Probable is (must be!) good enough for the ref decision. To *overturn* a ref's on-field decision you need incontrovertible evidence.
 
Berry came up with "no try" on field because he was unsighted (presumably).

Otherwise what's the point of a TMO? Cos in THOSE circumstances there will extremely rarely be incontrovertible evidence.

And then... what else did the TMO mean when he said "There is the ball on the ground". (see links etc above). I really can't think what else he could possibly have meant except .. well... he sees the ball on the ground!
 
Maybe in their heads both ref and TMO were thinking there was always a chance of a French hand under the ball and unless the TMO could find an angle that showed the lowest point of the ball there would not be total certainty either way.

The flip side, of course, is that had NB gone “on-field decision is a try” then there would not have been the certainty to overturn that decision.

Did the TMO err rather than Berry? Was the ref unsighted so had to go with held up and was waiting for “the ball is grounded, a try can be awarded“ or something equally unambiguous from the TMO - to echo @didds, isn’t that the point of the TMO who is staring at a HD screen inches from their nose and not a giant field projector half a pitch away.

I’m ok with a lower bar of “probable try” for a PT as this provides a higher risk of sanction for foul play and provides a greater deterrent.
 
Volun-selected said:
Maybe in their heads both ref and TMO were thinking there was always a chance of a French hand under the ball a
Click to expand...
It has been stated here before that evidence of a hand under the ball is not evidence that not a single part of a foot long ball is touching a single blade of grass :-)
 
Volun-selected said:
Did the TMO err rather than Berry?
Click to expand...
Clearly.

Berry couldn't see, fair enough.

the TMO erred with his call that "the ball is on the ground" and then back pedalled. Aided and abetted by a protocol that says allegedly (I've not seen a source for this) incontrovertible evidence must be shown to over rule the on field decision. And a protocol that requires an on field decision rather than, for example "I've no chance of making that call. What do you see with multiple repeats from multiple angles on a screen a foot from your nose?"

I've read this weekend, now, that apparently pro/elite level refs don't like to be overruled by the TMO as it undermines their position etc etc . Well if that really is true they need to grow up and accept they are part of a wider role CF cricket umpires and DRS over ruling. I'd hope they arent so puerile TBH.

I suspect we'll be seeing a different set of "procedures" appear now, though they wont actually be advertised widely CF red cards in the RWC.

didds
 
meanwhile - if Berry had been on the other side of the drive/ruck, so had no chance of seeing anything - would/could he still have been making a call of "on field decision, no try" ? On the basis he wouldnt have been in a position to make ANY call at all?
 
didds said:
It has been stated here before that evidence of a hand under the ball is not evidence that not a single part of a foot long ball is touching a single blade of grass :)
Click to expand...
as I picked from here

"it's a size 5 ball, and you don't have size 5 hands"
 
Barnesy in the Telegraph

There will be some who will highlight that while the TMO was working through this difficult decision he said “there is the ball on the ground”. But, after reviewing it further, he explains that he needs “definitive evidence of the ball on the ground” to award the try. His conclusion that he “cannot say for certain” that is the case means the match officials stick with Nic’s initial decision, who was the person closest to the action after all
 
Frankly, they are weasel words. At best he hung himself out to dry.
As "for the person closest to the action" etc - then why bother with the TMO at all in such cases?
 
didds said:
meanwhile - if Berry had been on the other side of the drive/ruck, so had no chance of seeing anything - would/could he still have been making a call of "on field decision, no try" ? On the basis he wouldnt have been in a position to make ANY call at all?
Click to expand...
Absolutely @didds hence my comment:
If he'd been on the other side of the play I feel it would have been given as he would make a differing statement, whereas for these circumstances the TMO did not believe he had sufficient evidence to counter the ref's on pitch call.
Click to expand...
As always communication is the key issue, and while the comms are open we will not get the frank and open interchange that the TMO and Ref might wish to have. Hence we have coded and about the bush discussion rather than clear and precise terms:
I did not see the ball grounded. I feel it was held up and unless you can provide me a clear angle showing grounding of the ball that is no-side.
Click to expand...
If the ref doesn't control that discussion effectively, we get the apparent shambles.

It might still be the "incorrect" decision for some but at least it comes across better as a co-ordinated and managed activity
 
didds said:
Frankly, they are weasel words. At best he hung himself out to dry.
As "for the person closest to the action" etc - then why bother with the TMO at all in such cases?
Click to expand...
On the subject of wording, do we think WR will lower the bar for grounding, or just instruct the TMO to only use stock phrases and only signal a turnover of the ref’s decision after stating “your initial decision was double-plus ungood”?
 
I hope they will discard the poisonous "on field decision" which is basically a noose around everyone's neck when they get to the next stage

They can all see what the sensible answer is, but the momentary, instant reaction on field "decision" prevents them from getting there
 
crossref said:
I hope they will discard the poisonous "on field decision" which is basically a noose around everyone's neck when they get to the next stage

They can all see what the sensible answer is, but the momentary, instant reaction on field "decision" prevents them from getting there
Click to expand...
So maybe just move to an honest, neutral exchange of:
Ref - “I didn’t get a clear view, show me what you’ve got”
TMO - “This is all I have, closest I’ve got to grounded is this, waddya think?”
Ref - “Hmm, looks <best guess> to me. <Makes a decision based on what we’ve all seen>”
 
Volun-selected said:
So maybe just move to an honest, neutral exchange of:
Ref - “I didn’t get a clear view, show me what you’ve got”
TMO - “This is all I have, closest I’ve got to grounded is this, waddya think?”
Ref - “Hmm, looks <best guess> to me. <Makes a decision based on what we’ve all seen>”
Click to expand...
far too sensible to be used...
 
crossref said:
I hope they will discard the poisonous "on field decision" which is basically a noose around everyone's neck when they get to the next stage

They can all see what the sensible answer is, but the momentary, instant reaction on field "decision" prevents them from getting there
Click to expand...
The on field soft signal from the ref came about as a result of complaints from the coaches that the on-field ref was abdicating responsibility to the TMO which was seen as a bad thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top