Fair enough.
On the TMO front I am not convinced that in 2006 the match referee had the luxury of consulting the video referee on such a "trivial" matter.
Video referees came into being as early as 2001. Originally the TMO was only to be consulted in assisting a referee as to whether points had been scored.
The first ELVs were implemented as law on 1 January 2007, in view of the RWC2007. So in the context of the video clip, those don't apply.
version 2006 was [laws]6.A.7 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(a) The referee may consult with touch judges in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play, or timekeeping.
(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
(c) The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
(d) The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
(e) The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judge is unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
(f) The official may be consulted if the referee or touch judges are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
(g) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(h) The referee must not consult with any other persons[/laws]
Funny how one never hears Tiger fans, criticizing the referee's poor decision in
this 2002 infringement:tongue:
