Gloucester v Worcester

W

Waspsfan


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
504
Post Likes
32
Current Referee grade:
Level 5
Final play of the game; TMO awards match winning penalty try and a red card.

For me, penalty and a yellow card. Anyone else seen it?
 
With you on that. Maybe a red, but no way a PT. 2 covering defenders with options to tackle.
 
http://www.premiershiprugby.tv/?WT.mc_id=pr_video

1:35:45 ish is the start of the passage on the last play. Note the desperation of Richard Hill getting on a blood sub to show the heat of the occasion!

Red card for the trip, I would say penalty but no penalty try. But totally empathise with the decision.
 
the award of a penalty try is a bit harsh. The TMO states that the attacking player was clear, was he really? there was cover there in defence but does anyone think that the TMO took into account the time this foul play occurred, being the last play and that it was cynical a PT was the only option to recommend
 
The one would be tackler goes to ground. There is another coming back and one coming across. You can discount the retreating player but the one coming across must have been considered to have had a fair chance of making the tackle. Huge call and, for me, probably wrong.
 
I suspect the TMO judged that the winger was sprinting clear of the defenders, and it only appeared that they might catch him after he had been slowed down by the rip.
 
After the trip, he actually fell on one of the cover tacklers. Seems like there was a good chance of the tackle being made
 
stuart3826 said:
After the trip, he actually fell on one of the cover tacklers. Seems like there was a good chance of the tackle being made
Click to expand...
If there had been no contact, do you really think that? I doubt it, personally.
 
Don't see why not. Hodgson had tripped too. And Lemi was tracking across further on. I don't think a try was nailed on
 
I'm going to go against the grain and say that with less than 20m to go, I think it is unlikely that 21 white would have gotten close enough to stop the flying winger. It's close, but if the question is "would a try have probably been scored?", I have to answer yes. PT is correct IMO.

RC is even more correct.
 
I saw it late last night after a weekend full of rugby on TV and out on the pitch, so perhaps tired eyes.

No doubt about RC - quite right.

PT - with benefit of slo-mo TMO made a decision and was very clear to Rosey about it. Good protocols, management and crystal clear - but TMO is a role I would struggle to do personally.

In real time, I would struggle to have justified the PT as it appeared two potential tackles might have got there (Lemi is very quick).

I would love to have heard Richard Hill's comments. As always Goode apeared petulant and argumentative on the touchline.
 
I'm with Damo and ST here, definite red card.

As to the PT, as I was saying to fellow spectators who were questioning a refs f/p decision, that is a judgement call and we buy in to allowing the ref to make them. Obviously if it was clearly wrong, we has some justification for feeling (but not shouting) we were ill done to. In this case, was it so inconceivable that we consider a try to have been scored that we disagree with the TMO? I think on this one it is go with his judgement (and perhaps be thankful we were not being asked to decide :))
 
Just seen it on the rugby club. Does the tripping player fall victim to the "beam me up" line of thinking? If so, then yes PT as Gloucester winger wouldn't have stepped and would have run it into the corner.
If not, I have to say he'd probably be tackled by one of the covering players.
 
I wrote it on another thread but, why the beam me up line of thinking?

I mean, the fullback by being there makes the attacker slow down. Were he not to commit an act of foul play -simply not tripping the player in possession by lifting his leg-, the attacker was still slowed down by his presence and the need to do a sidestep. Because of that, and not the trip itself, the other defenders had a chance to tackle him (full tackle or just an ankle tap).
 
I only mentioned it because it was suggested in the "Savea Halai" incident from the weekend. Could you even apply it here? or does it exist as a policy?
 
Why have none of you said that its 100% nailed on that he would of been tackled and his team lost the ball? IMO a try would probably have been scored so both the RC and the PT are correct
 
Sometimes something is lost on translation, so I went to the Merriam Websters website:

probably
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected
: without much doubt <is probably happy> <it will probably rain>

Well, I don't think that without much doubt he was to score a try being two other players near. Nor it was expected once he had to sidestep.
 
I think it was to be expected. He tied the fullback in knots, and has more gas in one leg than the covering defenders together! Correct decisions. We will never all agree though!
 
MrQeu said:
Sometimes something is lost on translation, so I went to the Merriam Websters website:

probably
: insofar as seems reasonably true, factual, or to be expected
: without much doubt <is probably happy> <it will probably rain>

Well, I don't think that without much doubt he was to score a try being two other players near. Nor it was expected once he had to sidestep.
Click to expand...

I have always interpreted this "probably" as being "more likely than not". I would have thought that is its most natural meaning here.
 
If a player commits foul play to prevent a try, you cannot say "but given he was there, what if he had played legally?" You have to discount everything that was part of the foul play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top