Bulls v Chiefs

[Dixpat]

An interesting incident at the end of the game when the Chiefs scored in the corner and CJ signaled a try [he was right on the spot at the end of a flowing move from halfway - kudos to him for his fitness].

When the teams were preparing for the conversion attempt he must have got a hint from the TMO that he should review his decision - he agreed to do so.

There was only one replay needed to show his original decision was totally correct.

The try having been awarded:

what gave the TMO the right to suggest that he should review the try

if the ref's decision had been shown to be incorrect having awarded the try did he have the option to change the decision

Incidentally the sideline conversion was successful to draw the game 34-34

 

[Ian_Cook]

Was it the TMO?

I thought it was the nearside AR

 

[Dixpat]

Was it the TMO?

I thought it was the nearside AR

The nearside AR [Stuart Berry] as the try was being awarded gave the finger pointed up signal suggesting a review but he was ignored by CJ

As I saw it it was as the ref was walking back to go behind the kicker that it was suggested - whether it was the AR or the TMO is immaterial to my queries

 

[Browner]

TMO review should precede the TRY being awarded, but given we all want the correct decisions , I'm not adverse to Decision then Confirmation if doubt from a AR exists but was not viewed by an AR.

But I agree it doesnt look slick

 

[Dixpat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6baN6S5y7nA

The try was awarded at 79:48 on the game clock and after the TMO [Shaun Veldman] spoke to CJ at 80:25 he called for the review

As an aside count how many times in the lead-up to the try White players entered the ruck from in front of the hindmost - see previous thread at http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17493-Chiefs-v-Stormers-Does-CJ-have-a-weakness-with-adjudicating-an-area-of-the-game

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't know if it is within the protocols for the TMO to do this. If KML1 reads this, perhaps he will give us his view.

As for the principle, I really don't have a problem with it. Don't we want to have the best possible chance of having the correct decision made? Lets indulge in some "what ifs". Assuming that the referee has already awarded a try and in so doing, missed seeing one of the following "what ifs"....

1. What if the Blue defender had succeeded in knocking the ball out of the White player's hand. (would result in no try)

2. What if the Blue defender had intentionally knocked the ball into touch-in-goal (could result in a penalty try)

3. What if the Blue defender had committed an act of foul play after the try was scored (could result in a PK to White on half-way)

Wouldn't we want the TMO to say something?




* * * * * * * * * *

Another thing I would like looked at from the same game; formation of a maul from a line-out...

IMO both of these are illegally formed mauls. The blue line-out jumper (Matfield) hands the ball back to a team-mate who is standing behind two other team-mates, before his (Matfield's) feet touch the ground, he is therefore never tackled (he cannot be since he is in the air) and therefore the conditions of a maul are never met. (ball carrier + team-mate + opponent)

The iRB Law Application Guidelines (Maul Working Group outcomes) state...

"The maul must be formed so that the opposition can contest the maul at the formation; this includes the formation of the maul at a lineout and from a maul formed after kick-offs or restart kicks."

How can the opposition contest the maul when the line-out jumper cannot be touched until his feet hit the ground, and in any case, after he has already handed the ball back? How can the opposition contest a maul when it is not legally formed in the first place? The eventual ball carrier takes possession of the ball and then immediately binds onto two team-mates in front of him. To me, this looks, feels and smells like obstruction.

 

[OB..]

To me, this looks, feels and smells like obstruction.

To me also.

 

[Browner]

'I agree, but Sacking the jumper' has caused this offload counteract tactic

but the real development in the sport is the BC slipping his binding to reposition on the tail of the maul. Until this is resolved mauls will continue to be illegal / difficult to defend against.