George Ayoub - Was there any reason…… ?

[Lee Grant]

NZ v England - Eden Park 2014

Mike Brown of England has the ball and is over the NZ goal line and may have scored a try.

Jaco Peyper asks TMO Ayoub if there is any reason etc.

It appeared that Brown had his own arm between the ground and the ball.

Ayoub replied that there was no NZ arm between the ball and the ground and when Peyper mentioned something about seeing an arm being between the ball in the ground Ayoub said it wasn't a New Zealand arm and that Peyper could award the try.

Peyper did, but he didn't sound like a happy camper.

Did anybody else see this?

If Brown had his own arm under the ball at all times then wasn't that a reason why a try should not be awarded?

But was Ayoub indicating that he did not see the ball from go to whoah and could not be certain that the arm of anybody stopped the ball being grounded. In the absence of a continuous view was that his reason for "no reason"?

It's the only thing I could think of. What about other people?
.

 

[Browner]

We've all seen instances where the BoD goes to the attacker personally I think that MB might not have grounded it, but I could see why it wasn't C&O that he hadn't.

The ball length is longer than the hand is wide, maybe we need vertical hawk eye?!!!?!!!

 

[didds]

it only requires a very minisicule part of the ball to touch a blade of grass to count.

Given the question asked, there is nothing C&O that shows the try was NOT scored. there were things that maybe showed it wasn;t 100% positive - but equally nothing to show it definitively hadn't been scored.

Had a different question been asked eg "try or not" then a different outcome may have occurred. JP was clearly happy at the time of going to the TMO that the try was good. That his own thoughts changed after he'd seen inconclusive shots from 3 or 4 camera angles replayed on the big screens merely shows that he was now in the position of not being sure he asked the right question.

didds

 

[Browner]

it only requires a very minisicule part of the ball to touch a blade of grass to count.

Given the question asked, there is nothing C&O that shows the try was NOT scored. there were things that maybe showed it wasn;t 100% positive - but equally nothing to show it definitively hadn't been scored.

Had a different question been asked eg "try or not" then a different outcome may have occurred. JP was clearly happy at the time of going to the TMO that the try was good. That his own thoughts changed after he'd seen inconclusive shots from 3 or 4 camera angles replayed on the big screens merely shows that he was now in the position of not being sure he asked the right question.

didds

Sorry for being picky but i think it requires slightly more than that....grass isn't ground , least i think not.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Sorry for being picky but i think it requires slightly more than that....grass isn't ground , least i think not.

What?

That being the case you'd better chalk off all the tries scored at Twickenham from 1910 'til they cut the grass correctly in c1999.

I am coming to the conclusion that you are sporting a big white beard and have moved to Redruth.

I can't believe I have risen to this - I shall look for something important to do at work.

 

[Dixie]

I shall look for something important to do at work.

I tried that once, but found myself reverting to RugbyRefs.com.

So Browner - the ground is only the earth, and not the grass covering it. On a decent, well-grassed pitch, have you ever seen a try scored? If so, it was scored against the grass, not the earth. In real time, do you seriously expect a referee to establish that there was indeed a bit of brown in contact with the ball at the material time? Is this why they call you Browner?

 

[wayner]

Is "I do not believe the ball was grounded" a valid response to "Is there any reason why I should not award try?"

Or given the second question does there have to be a clear reason like a knock on, in goal, etc.

 

[TNT88]

We score tries not touchdowns in rugby. I think the call is wrong.

 

[Ian_Cook]

NZ v England - Eden Park 2014

Mike Brown of England has the ball and is over the NZ goal line and may have scored a try.

Jaco Peyper asks TMO Ayoub if there is any reason etc.

It appeared that Brown had his own arm between the ground and the ball.

Ayoub replied that there was no NZ arm between the ball and the ground and when Peyper mentioned something about seeing an arm being between the ball in the ground Ayoub said it wasn't a New Zealand arm and that Peyper could award the try.

Peyper did, but he didn't sound like a happy camper.

Did anybody else see this?

If Brown had his own arm under the ball at all times then wasn't that a reason why a try should not be awarded?

But was Ayoub indicating that he did not see the ball from go to whoah and could not be certain that the arm of anybody stopped the ball being grounded. In the absence of a continuous view was that his reason for "no reason"?

It's the only thing I could think of. What about other people?
.

Ayoub was wrong when he said that there was no NZ arm under the ball. There was Cory Jane's under the ball in front of Brown's forearm, and it was plainly obvious. If any part of the ball could have potentially have been grounded it was the tip of the ball as it was rolled forward, but Jane's hand would have prevented that.

However, I think the blame for the cock-up has to fall mostly with Jerome Garces. He said "I think it was a try". As AR, that is NOT his remit. Saying you "think" you saw something is unhelpful, and is more likely to be confusing than clarifying. His only options are...

1. I did not see the ball grounded.

2. I saw the ball grounded

These statements will trigger what the referee asks the TMO. No 1. leads to the the first question "Try or no try?" and No. 2 leads to the second question, "any reason I cannot award the try?

To answer your question though, "the ball was not grounded" is a valid answer to the question.

I have not been impressed with Garces, and the fact that he will referee the third test worries me a bit as his decision-making often seems like a bit of a lottery. like Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates".. you never know what you are going to get.

 

[crossref]

Ayoub was wrong when he said that there was no NZ arm under the ball. There was Cory Jane's under the ball in front of Brown's forearm, and it was plainly obvious. If any part of the ball could have potentially have been grounded it was the tip of the ball as it was rolled forward, but Jane's hand would have prevented that.

However, I think the blame for the cock-up has to fall mostly with Jerome Garces. He said "I think it was a try". As AR, that is NOT his remit. Saying you "think" you saw something is unhelpful, and is more likely to be confusing than clarifying. His only options are...

1. I did not see the ball grounded.

2. I saw the ball grounded

These statements will trigger what the referee asks the TMO. No 1. leads to the the first question "Try or no try?" and No. 2 leads to the second question, "any reason I cannot award the try?

To answer your question though, "the ball was not grounded" is a valid answer to the question.

I have not been impressed with Garces, and the fact that he will referee the third test worries me a bit as his decision-making often seems like a bit of a lottery. like Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates".. you never know what you are going to get.

I kinda agree that Garces didn't use the best language,
I kinda agree that Peyper ddin't ask the best question

but it wasn't either of them's fault : the decision was unequivocally handed over the TMO, the TMO was quite entitled to say 'Yes there is a reason why you cannot award the try: the ball wasn't grounded'

I just don't believe that the TMO, beleiving it was held up, neverhelss felt bound by the protocol and had to respond 'No reason' .
The reason the TMO gave the try is much simpler than that ... it's becasue he thought it was a try.


Completely agree, though, about the prospect of Garces reffing NZ v Eng III

 

[TheBFG]

but how often do we see a player "scoring" a try when the cradle the ball and slide with it, forearms on the ground and the ball never touches the turf and those are always given?

 

[Ian_Cook]

but how often do we see a player "scoring" a try when the cradle the ball and slide with it, forearms on the ground and the ball never touches the turf and those are always given?

When there are no players to try to hold the ball up? Always, though I dispute the the ball never touches the turf.

In this case you have two players (Aaron Smith a Cory Jane) executing a quite brilliant piece of desperate defensive work, succeeding in holding the ball up and preventing the grounding, only to be foiled by third rate communications by three supposedly top level match officials who could not get their act together.

Jaco Peyper was quite obviously reluctant to award the try after he saw the big screen for himself, and I felt he was "shoehorned" into giving it after George Atoub made an incorrect determination as to whose hands/arms were under the ball. I feel that a referee such as Wayne Barnes or Steve Walsh would not have given it,. They would likely have taken charge and said something to the effect of "...thanks George, but I am happy to rule on what I have seen on the screen, No try"

 

[Dickie E]

I have not been impressed with Garces, and the fact that he will referee the third test worries me a bit as his decision-making often seems like a bit of a lottery. like Forrest Gump's "box of chocolates".. you never know what you are going to get.

Getting your excuses in early?

 

[Dickie E]

a referee such as Wayne Barnes or Steve Walsh would not have given it,. They would likely have taken charge and said something to the effect of "...thanks George, but I am happy to rule on what I have seen on the screen, No try"

Vinny talked Wayne out of a try on Saturday.

WB: "not clear & obvious, I'm going with the try"
VM: "Wayne, I have another angle for you" (code for 'I think you're about to cock this up')
Next angle is the worst of the lot
WB: "so you think no try?"
VM: "no try"
Penalty France.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Vinny talked Wayne out of a try on Saturday.

WB: "not clear & obvious, I'm going with the try"
VM: "Wayne, I have another angle for you" (code for 'I think you're about to cock this up')
Next angle is the worst of the lot
WB: "so you think no try?"
VM: "no try"
Penalty France.

In the end though, it was the 100% the correct decision. The Wallabies player plays the defender without the ball, in WBs words, "causing him to overrun the ball"

Getting your excuses in early?

Yes, and Garces is a bit random. I watch enough French Top 14 to see some of the decisions he comes up with, and frankly, "rabbit out of a hat" is a phrase that comes to mind.