Quarter Final - Brumbies vs Highlanders, 22 July 2016 @ 6:00pm
- Thread starter The torpedo
- Start date
- Status
I'll offer another point of view, how about the Law of Commonsense? If a player goes over the goal-line with the ball tucked into his stomach and falls on it most sensible refs would award a try.
I'll offer a few scenarios.
1. Some of us may recall the Second Test in Dunedin in 1986. The Wallabies had won the First Test and were looking at only the second series win in NZ. Oz were a few points behind (2 or 3?) when Steve Tuynman went over the goal-line with the ball clutched to his stomach and time almost up. An AB went over with him and got his hand around Steve's midriff. The preening, prancing, ponce of a ref, Derek Bevan, ruled no try as he adjudged the Kiwi had his hand under the ball. Most (all?) players' palms aren't big enough to completely cover a rugby ball, if ANY part of that ball touched the ground it was a try. It's difficult to rationally deduce no part of the ball touched the ground, but Bevan did. I always got the impression Bevan took up reffing to give himself opportunities to show off his calves, such was his predilection for blowing the pea out of his whistle while standing on tiptoes.
2. Many years ago I witnessed something similar while watching a grade game in Brisbane. This was, of course, in the pre-TMO days. A mess of players went over the goal-line with the ball-carrier at the bottom. The referee instructed all players to keep quite still, then he peeled them off one-by-one until only the ball-carrier was left. As he was over the line with the ball clutched in his lower stomach the ref awarded a try. In this instance the defending team didn't object, in fact they were quite complimentary towards the ref at post-match beers.
3. Me: while running the line for the Pirates in a second grade match at Chatswood many years ago the ref awarded a try without sighting a grounding. Play was at about the half-way line with the Pirates attacking when there was an intercept (match officials hate intercepts. There we are wandering up the field in one direction when some colt, much faster than us, grabs the ball and dashes off in the opposite direction). The Pirates full-back tackled the Gay Gordon as he went over the line. I couldn't see a grounding as I was too far away, and signalled this to the ref after he looked at me to see if I did. After I put my hand across my eyes to show I was unsighted he signalled try. Post-match he confirmed to me he used the Law of Commonsense, he said it was difficult to imagine how the Gordon player couldn't've scored in the circumstances. I agreed.
4. The Brumbies no-try. At no point did the TMO advise Gardner the Brumbies player dropped the ball, although replays did show it moving down his front; if the ball was in contact with both his stomach and hand we must presume it wasn't dropped. There are now replays to look at everything recorded, what about the ref instructing all players to keep completely still, as the old bloke did in Brisbane years ago, with the threat "the cameras are watching you, move and all bets are off"? Then he could've peeled off the players one-by-one to see if the ball was over the goal-line, time-wise it wouldn't've taken any longer than most of the contentious replays we get these days. I reckon it was and a try should've been awarded. A bit of imagination and a lot of courage could've helped here.
I'll offer a few scenarios.
1. Some of us may recall the Second Test in Dunedin in 1986. The Wallabies had won the First Test and were looking at only the second series win in NZ. Oz were a few points behind (2 or 3?) when Steve Tuynman went over the goal-line with the ball clutched to his stomach and time almost up. An AB went over with him and got his hand around Steve's midriff. The preening, prancing, ponce of a ref, Derek Bevan, ruled no try as he adjudged the Kiwi had his hand under the ball. Most (all?) players' palms aren't big enough to completely cover a rugby ball, if ANY part of that ball touched the ground it was a try. It's difficult to rationally deduce no part of the ball touched the ground, but Bevan did. I always got the impression Bevan took up reffing to give himself opportunities to show off his calves, such was his predilection for blowing the pea out of his whistle while standing on tiptoes.
2. Many years ago I witnessed something similar while watching a grade game in Brisbane. This was, of course, in the pre-TMO days. A mess of players went over the goal-line with the ball-carrier at the bottom. The referee instructed all players to keep quite still, then he peeled them off one-by-one until only the ball-carrier was left. As he was over the line with the ball clutched in his lower stomach the ref awarded a try. In this instance the defending team didn't object, in fact they were quite complimentary towards the ref at post-match beers.
3. Me: while running the line for the Pirates in a second grade match at Chatswood many years ago the ref awarded a try without sighting a grounding. Play was at about the half-way line with the Pirates attacking when there was an intercept (match officials hate intercepts. There we are wandering up the field in one direction when some colt, much faster than us, grabs the ball and dashes off in the opposite direction). The Pirates full-back tackled the Gay Gordon as he went over the line. I couldn't see a grounding as I was too far away, and signalled this to the ref after he looked at me to see if I did. After I put my hand across my eyes to show I was unsighted he signalled try. Post-match he confirmed to me he used the Law of Commonsense, he said it was difficult to imagine how the Gordon player couldn't've scored in the circumstances. I agreed.
4. The Brumbies no-try. At no point did the TMO advise Gardner the Brumbies player dropped the ball, although replays did show it moving down his front; if the ball was in contact with both his stomach and hand we must presume it wasn't dropped. There are now replays to look at everything recorded, what about the ref instructing all players to keep completely still, as the old bloke did in Brisbane years ago, with the threat "the cameras are watching you, move and all bets are off"? Then he could've peeled off the players one-by-one to see if the ball was over the goal-line, time-wise it wouldn't've taken any longer than most of the contentious replays we get these days. I reckon it was and a try should've been awarded. A bit of imagination and a lot of courage could've helped here.
I like to watch
David Codey (61)
Let's just get a bunker and refer everything,that will solve everything won't it?
Or we could just insist that those who make a living out of the game don't shit on it with petulant complaints.
Let's all take a lesson of the GOAT who conceded a 50/50 penalty to the Tahs on full time that cost his side the game and the GF.
Did he fucking moan like a bitch?
Nah,he said it was one of those 50/50's,what can you do and moved on.
Let's all do that.
Or we could just insist that those who make a living out of the game don't shit on it with petulant complaints.
Let's all take a lesson of the GOAT who conceded a 50/50 penalty to the Tahs on full time that cost his side the game and the GF.
Did he fucking moan like a bitch?
Nah,he said it was one of those 50/50's,what can you do and moved on.
Let's all do that.
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
IMO, If the ref didn't see what happened then he should make an educated guess in real time, based on what he saw as being the likely result. He has 2 assistant ref's to help him make this educated guess.
This is exactly what happens at every game in rugby in the world that doesn't have a TMO. The process should be the same at each level.
The fact that their is a TMO, then gives the ref the opportunity to either confirm his decision is correct or incorrect - or inconclusive which will result in his original educated guess being implemented.
It's seems pretty simple to me. However, we have ref's at the top level making no decision at all and relying on the TMO to make it for them. This is wrong.
What happens in the event he goes to the TMO and the system malfunctions and there is no footage? He'll just say ummmm okay lets just do a scum cos I can't decide what happened? Which is basically what happened in the quarter final.
This is exactly what happens at every game in rugby in the world that doesn't have a TMO. The process should be the same at each level.
The fact that their is a TMO, then gives the ref the opportunity to either confirm his decision is correct or incorrect - or inconclusive which will result in his original educated guess being implemented.
It's seems pretty simple to me. However, we have ref's at the top level making no decision at all and relying on the TMO to make it for them. This is wrong.
What happens in the event he goes to the TMO and the system malfunctions and there is no footage? He'll just say ummmm okay lets just do a scum cos I can't decide what happened? Which is basically what happened in the quarter final.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
Make it simple for the idiots:
If you don't actually see the ball, placed over the line with some control then it is not a try
If you don't actually see the ball, placed over the line with some control then it is not a try
Viking
Mark Ella (57)
So shouldn't the same be said of a knock-on or being held up?
If you don't actually see the ball held up then it is not held up.
If you don't actually see the ball being knocked on then it is not a knock-on.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
^^^^It is interesting when you consider all the elements around the decision.
Interestingly, with penalty tries, a referee makes his decision on the balance of probabilities usually favouring the attacking team.
The decision uses assumption as it cannot absolutely rule that the conclusion would have eventuated, only that it most most likely would.
You can simply argue that that penalty try decision is floored as this, below, may occur on each occasion, which is a plausible and reasonable argument to not allow penalty tries to be awarded.
- His momentum from sliding took him to and partially over the line.
- He did not reach out to place the ball or advance it
- The control rule only applies if he is before the line, so contact using the body is fine, control is irrelevant.
- He was not held up
- There was no knock on ruled
Interestingly, with penalty tries, a referee makes his decision on the balance of probabilities usually favouring the attacking team.
The decision uses assumption as it cannot absolutely rule that the conclusion would have eventuated, only that it most most likely would.
You can simply argue that that penalty try decision is floored as this, below, may occur on each occasion, which is a plausible and reasonable argument to not allow penalty tries to be awarded.
Scrubber2050
Mark Ella (57)
So shouldn't the same be said of a knock-on or being held up?
If you don't actually see the ball held up then it is not held up.
If you don't actually see the ball being knocked on then it is not a knock-on.
Mate with the Referee and 2 Assistant Referees there are 9 eyes out there to adjudicate. They should be able to "see" knock ons, held up etc
If not, it didn't happen
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
The outcome might be right, as losing the ball looked like a distinct possibility (I actually though that what they would have ruled based on the replays). I think its about the way its handled managed and lack of clarity in the process.
John S
Chilla Wilson (44)
The benefit of the doubt for this thread was exhausted long ago.
- Status