[Law] Compelling evidence?

[Baylion]

During the Stormers vs Lions Super Rugby game yesterday the TMO "awarded" a try saying "there is compelling evidence that the ball was grounded"



"Compelling evidence" was a term I haven't heard used before.

What is meant by "compelling evidence" and how does that compare to "clear and obvious"?

 

[oliver]

It's part of SANZAAR's new TMO protocol. The referee makes an on-field decision (e.g. "No try") and then the TMO must find "compelling evidence" to reverse the referee's decision (e.g. award a try).

 

[Pegleg]

A bit like "umpire's call" in cricket?

 

[oliver]

SANZAAR's aim was to align it with other sports. I'd just like to see it adopted globally.

 

[ChuckieB]

On this one, what was the context of the TMO, i.e. what was the on field call in the first place?

Has it been shared what constitutes compelling evidence in TMO decisions?

I suspect there is at least some understanding/clarification and buy in to what actually constitutes compelling evidence. Hawkeye as an "outside technology" has become generally accepted, something that has ben bought into. Instances of fingers under the ball on questionable catches is where the jury perhaps remains out.

 

[Taff]

It's part of SANZAAR's new TMO protocol. The referee makes an on-field decision (e.g. "No try") and then the TMO must find "compelling evidence" to reverse the referee's decision (e.g. award a try).

So, it's a way of saying "You got that wrong" then.

 

[Pegleg]

I would say compelling evidence is evidence that the TMO has that the referee does not have which indicates a particular out come is correct.

I woudl not say it is saying "you got it wrong" The whole point is that the onfield official, in real time, does not always have all the compelling evidence to hand to make the right call. The referee made the correct call: "It looks like a try to my view. can you see anything that changes my call?"

Why reduce it to a "contest" the TMO is part of the team of officials trying to reach the best call, it's not about "I'm right and you're wrong".

 

[Baylion]

On this one, what was the context of the TMO, i.e. what was the on field call in the first place?

On field decision was No Try. TMO said that there was compelling evidence that the ball was grounded.

From the clip it seems the ball was grounded but the camera view is obscured by the defender's arm.

Which is why I posted this and asked the question as it seems that "compelling evidence" is a broader concept than "c&o". More like a "reasonable doubt" concept

 

[didds]

maybe its code for "you need to reconsider".

similar to "would you like another look at that" ?

didds

 

[L'irlandais]

This is what match referee JP Doyle and TMO David Grashoff were calling "conclusive proof" during Munster v Toulouse at Thomond Park a couple of weeks ago. A few times JP said "Unless you have a more conclusive view to show, I am staying with the decision I made". Notably on a suspected forward pass, the reverse camera angle didn't help decide whether or not it was forward. In relation to this discussion, the replay does not show the ball actually being grounded, so insufficient grounds to reverse the on-field call of "No try." More like Compelling evidence that a defender (or two) had gotten his forearm under the ball.

 

[Taff]

maybe its code for "you need to reconsider". similar to "would you like another look at that" ?

Personally, I am not a big fan of "coded" messages. I still reckon the TMO and Ref should be able to speak frankly and in confidence ie the public shouldn't be able to listen in.

I accept that these days (where everybody reckons they are entitled to hear everything and "feelings" are all important) a lot will disagree, but I reckon a good TMO and Ref should be able to get the right decision with no resentment eg "Hang about Mike. From my angle that looked like a try. Would you like to see it mate?".

 

[L'irlandais]

Robbie's Clear and Obvious blog defined it as 100% sure. The clip in the OP does NOT show us a clear and obvious Try being scored. So the match referee should be saying, unless you have a better angle or something more conclusive, I am not changing my decision.

 

[Rawling]

Ignoring post #2 about how this is a new protocol SANZAAR are trialling, and thus probably not in line with a 2015 blog post?

 

[L'irlandais]

Not ignoring #02 at all. Just fail to see what this"New" Super Rugby TMO protocol adds to previous WR protocols already in place. Vodacom are only one of the sponsors, so only RSA matches are covered by this trial.

The amendment only covers Vodacom Super Rugby fixtures.

Also see my #10, ERC refs are using very similar terms this season. In fact the only difference appears to be the suggestion that the match referee avoid taking any on field decision, when consulting with the TMO.

 

[VM75]

probably ?

 

[Ian_Cook]

The NFL uses "clear and obvious"

RULE 15 : OFFICIALS AND INSTANT REPLAY
SECTION 2: INSTANT REPLAY
ARTICLE 3. REVIEWS BY REFEREE.
All Replay Reviews will be conducted by the Referee on a field-level monitor after consultation with the covering official(s). During the review, the Referee will consult with designated members of the Officiating department at the League office. A decision will be reversed only when the Referee has clear and obvious visual evidence available that warrants the change.

IMO "compelling evidence" and "clear and obvious evidence" are the same thing.