Super Rugby QF 2023 Brumbies vs Hurricanes:

[qwerty51]

I don't think this is true. Plenty of maul tries get awarded on the basis of probability that there were no defenders in the way of getting the ball down although the referee also didn't conclusively see a grounding.

I don't agree, I've seen maul tries that are very obviously a try but no grounding not gone up as a try. I'm almost certain you need a grounding to give it a try.

 

[Dan54]

I don't agree, I've seen maul tries that are very obviously a try but no grounding not gone up as a try. I'm almost certain you need a grounding to give it a try.

Of course you have to see it, always have. I don't know why this is still being discussed here, as I said day after, the ref doesn't put up his arm and blow his whitle to indicate a try, it's not a try fullstop! And if he says it a try and we don't think it is, it is still a try!!

 

[Marce]

His defence is still an issue for mine, his miss on Flanders was horrible.

Debreczeni too slow to catch the big man too. Come on!

 

[Marce]

Couldn't agree more. I subscribe to the SMH (both print and internet versions, not cheap, but I want to support proper journalism). I am on a readers' panel, and I am going to complain about this flea.

What did he said?

 

[Dan54]

Couldn't agree more. I subscribe to the SMH (both print and internet versions, not cheap, but I want to support proper journalism). I am on a readers' panel, and I am going to complain about this flea.

Mate I have a rule there a some so called writers, if I see it theirs I don't open and read them. Probably why I didn't really know who Cully was properly, but there is an incredible amount of clickbait journalism, they don't care how accurate they are, just that people read it, and like in here start talking about it. So he's winning. There are writers like Mark Reason, etc (some I won't click because headline is obvious a bait) I don't read.

 

[wamberal]

I’ve only seen footage of it being held up but Paul Cully wrote a meltdown piece claiming the rules need to be changed so that commonsense dictates that momentum would have been enough that he surely grounded it.

This is a good precis.

 

[fatprop]

The ref advise to the TMO is one of the more sensible things ref do

Ref thinks it is a try "TMO show why it isn't a try"

Ref thinks is isn't a try "TMO show why it is a try"

He thinks there was no grounding (and he is the closest) - TMO provides clear evidence there was a grounding, decision reversed

TMO didn't, it wasn't

 

[Slim 293]

I don't agree, I've seen maul tries that are very obviously a try but no grounding not gone up as a try. I'm almost certain you need a grounding to give it a try.

Really?

Despite being messy the ref is usually on the spot and you often see the try scorer with the ball planted on the ground once all the other bodies are out of the way.

The nature of the maul means that when it crosses the line it's unlikely the defenders have stopped the try unless one of them has a hold on the ball carrier.

 

[qwerty51]

Really?

Despite being messy the ref is usually on the spot and you often see the try scorer with the ball planted on the ground once all the other bodies are out of the way.

The nature of the maul means that when it crosses the line it's unlikely the defenders have stopped the try unless one of them has a hold on the ball carrier.

I think that's the only different scenario, where the ball carrier is on the ground and no defenders underneath or even touching him but the ref is obstructed from seeing the ball on the ground. Fine to go upstairs as a try.

 

[Braveheart81]

I think that's the only different scenario, where the ball carrier is on the ground and no defenders underneath or even touching him but the ref is obstructed from seeing the ball on the ground. Fine to go upstairs as a try.

That is what I was talking about when I said that referees can and do award tries based on probability when there is no sighting of the grounding. It isn't even sent upstairs for review. It's just awarded a try.

I don't think it happens nor should it happen when there is the potential that a try was stopped by a defender. Then the referee has to see the ball grounded over the line.