NZ v. England 2nd Test

[RussRef]

Just finished watching the match. Can someone explain to me the very strange exchange between Peyper and Ayoub following the possible try by Mike Brown?

First, Peyper asks (I think, but it's not entirely clear), "Any reason why I can't award the try?" Why is that the right question? Either Peyper saw the grounding himself, in which case he doesn't need the TMO, or he didn't see the grounding, in which case the question should've been something like, "Can you see the grounding?" -- i.e., can I award a try? Isn't the standard whether you can award the try, not whether you can't?

Then it gets stranger. Ayoub clearly says that Brown's arm, not a defender's, prevents the grounding -- which Peyper somehow takes to mean that he can award the try, and he does. The commentators are, for once, rightly confused.

Is it just me, or do the TMO/referee exchanges at the elite level involve a lot more miscommunication than you'd think?

 

[Ian_Cook]

There is already a thread on this match here...

http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?17809-NZ-v-England-II

...and the issue of Brown's try has been discussed there widely.

My take is as follows (copied from a post of mine in that thread)

I lay the blame for that cock-up squarely at the feet of Jerome Garces and George Ayoub. First, Garces should not have said he "thought" the ball was grounded unless he was 100% certain it was. His bad advice to the referee triggered the "second" question..."any reason not to award the try", and the TMO then does not really look at the grounding. What Garces should have said was that he was not sure. That would have triggered the "first" question... "Try, yes or no", and with that question the try would probably have been disallowed. He said.. "I think it was a try". You should not say that as an AR. You either see the ball grounded or you don't see the ball grounded...there is no "think".

As for Ayoub, where on earth did he get the idea that you can ground the ball on your own arm (which is precisely what he argued to Peyper)?

Peyper "...there was a hand between the ball and the ground"
Ayoub "... it was the English players hand"

In saying that, Ayoub is admitting that the ball was not grounded, and that a hand was between the ground and the ball. That is is not in the Law book. I think the two All Black players, A. Smith and Cruden, did brilliantly to hold Brown up, and they have not been rewarded for their good work due to the incompetence of one official, and a lack of Law Knowledge by another.

I bet Peyper now wishes that he had taken control and gone with his own decision.

Whether or not Brown actually did ground the ball or not we'll never know, and none of the video angles gives us any clue. Anyone who says they SAW the ball touch the ground is telling pork pies!

What concerns me more is that a senior iRB referee (in this case, George Ayoub) thinks that the ball carrier grounding his own ball carrying arm, without actually grounding the ball, has successfully grounded the ball. Nowhere in the Laws of the game does it say that.

 

[Dixie]

Just finished watching the match. Can someone explain to me the very strange exchange between Peyper and Ayoub following the possible try by Mike Brown?

First, Peyper asks (I think, but it's not entirely clear), "Any reason why I can't award the try?" Why is that the right question? Either Peyper saw the grounding himself, in which case he doesn't need the TMO, or he didn't see the grounding, in which case the question should've been something like, "Can you see the grounding?" -- i.e., can I award a try? Isn't the standard whether you can award the try, not whether you can't?

Then it gets stranger. Ayoub clearly says that Brown's arm, not a defender's, prevents the grounding -- which Peyper somehow takes to mean that he can award the try, and he does. The commentators are, for once, rightly confused.

Is it just me, or do the TMO/referee exchanges at the elite level involve a lot more miscommunication than you'd think?

Ian has referred you to what has already been written. Your question, though, suggests that you feel "Any reason why I can't award the try" is not ever an appropriate question. In fact, it was one of the original questions adopted when the TMO first came in, and has been available (and frequently used) ever since. In essence, it gets used when an official has seen a grounding, but is not sure whether there was something about the lead-up to the grounding that might invalidate the try.

In this case, IIRC, Jaco consults initially with Jerome Garces, his AR on the left - and we don't know whether it was to ask for his view as the only official who might have seen something, or to confirm Jaco's own view. I was unable to hear that conversation, but it looked from the gesticulations and body language as though Garces felt he has seen a grounding, but it was worth going upstairs to check.

If that was indeed the case, the question used can be debated. JG's response indicates an uncertainty about grounding, in which case Try, yes or no would be a better question. But surely one of the reasons not to award a try that the officials think has been scored is that the ball did not touch the ground? By going with the question, I feel Jaco was indicating to the TMO that the balance of probabilities seemed to indicate a grounding, and he should only override if there is a clear and obvious case to do so. I don't think that existed - while Brown's wrist was clearly between the main part of the ball and the ground, which of us can say for certain that no part of the ball touched a blade of grass? I think the TMO felt unable to say that.

I agree that "Try, yes or no?" would have produced a different result, and it could be adopted as the sole question for a TMO. But that question gives the benefit of any uncertainty to the defence, and limits the available viewing to what the static cameras can see, replacing the on-field officials' judgement with that of the TMO. An international referee supported by fellow international referees as AR bloody well ought to be better placed than a static camera to determine whether a try has been scored. I am personally happy that the on-field officials' judgement should have primacy, to be overruled only when it is clear and obvious that that judgement was mistaken. I accept that this means there will be instances such as this where many will take the view that a mistake has been made, but equally I have absolutelyn no doubt that players will be able to tell of many instances where Try, yes or no? has resulted in genuione tries not being given.

 

[Ian_Cook]

In this case, IIRC, Jaco consults initially with Jerome Garces, his AR on the left - and we don't know whether it was to ask for his view as the only official who might have seen something, or to confirm Jaco's own view. I was unable to hear that conversation, but it looked from the gesticulations and body language as though Garces felt he has seen a grounding, but it was worth going upstairs to check.

Dixie, we do hear it in the NZ feed. Watch from 1:33:00 and listen at 1:33:30

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgf-B98C9KQ

Peyper: "Did you see a grounding?"

Garces: "I think its a try, but have a look"

Garces' response is next to useless. Peyper was unsure before asking, and the answer he got gave him nothing. Peyper's question required a "yes" or "no" answer. If Garces was 100% sure he saw the ball grounded, he should answer "yes" otherwise he should answer "no". "I think" is not a valid answer.

 

[FlipFlop]

Garces' English is not great. But he makes a good job of saying - "I think it is a try, but think you should check upstairs". He isn't 100% certain - or he would not have used the word "think" or mentioned checking it upstairs.

If you believe you see something, but are not sure - how do you answer a yes/no question? You can't answer it accurately. The accurate answer is "I believe I saw a grounding, however due to the angles, light, number of moving parts, and speed of occurance, my mind may be playing some tricks on me, so can I be sure that this really happened, no, so I would advise you to use the TMO who will look at it from various fixed angles, with all the foreshortening issues, to come up with a definite (or not) decision"

The world is not black and white. You can never be 100% certain that what your mind tells you that you saw is what happened (Magicians use this all the time, and we always have issues with this as refs). So if you have to be 100% certain to award a try, then lots of tries will never be awarded. Garces was "fairly certain" it was a try, but wanted it checked to confirm. I think he conveyed this, and for him - the correct question was asked.

Now you can say Garces was wrong. Fair enough (although how you can tell what Garces believed he saw, is open to question). But he told the Ref what he believed he saw, and told the ref the element of doubt.

Garces could easily have said - "Yes - but have a look". Same outcome. And this is basically what he said.

People read way too much into the exact words people use, rather than the overall meaning. Especially when it comes to non-native speakers of a language.

 

[leaguerefaus]

If you "think" you see a grounding on the weekend are you going to award it? I sure hope so.

The cricket and NRL system seems to be decent - the referee/umpire gives his opinion. If the video evidence is inconclusive then we go with the original decision. If the AR thinks he has seen a grounding and the video is inconclusive, it's pretty harsh to disallow the try!

 

[RussRef]

Thanks, guys, and sorry to cause you to repeat what's been said elsewhere. I just couldn't find it. I had suspected that English as a second language to some involved was part of the problem.

Without getting too philosophical about it, l don't think there's any room for "I think I saw ..." in the game. I acknowledge that I'm not omniscient in any call I make, so I make my calls based on what I saw -- with the emphasis on "I." So you can ask me what I saw, and I'll tell you. And if I didn't see a grounding, then my unavoidable conclusion is there's no try (or, in the exceedingly unlikely event that I'm ever involved in a match with a TMO, we go there). I've always understood that in goal, the uncertainties about tries go the defense, and I've never had a problem saying, "Sorry guys, I couldn't see any grounding ..." I guess what puzzles me more than anything is how ad hoc and random the interchanges are at the elite level.

And Dixie, of course you're right that in the play leading to a try the question, "any reason not to award a try?" can be legitimate. But in the ENG-NZ match, the issue was the grounding, not anything leading up to it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Garces' English is not great. But he makes a good job of saying - "I think it is a try, but think you should check upstairs". He isn't 100% certain - or he would not have used the word "think" or mentioned checking it upstairs.

If you believe you see something, but are not sure - how do you answer a yes/no question?

By saying "no"

Saying "I think I saw it" does not tell the referee anything. He might just as well have not asked you. This is especially important for an AR because if the referee didn't see a grounding, the question he asks the TMO is going to depend on your answer, and if you have misled him into thinking there was a grounding when there in fact wasn't a grounding, that will lead him to asking the wrong question.

 

[crossref]

Ian do you really think the TMO in this instance felt he was forced by the question to award a try that he didn't believe in?

Come off it. He was perfectly entitled to answer that there was a reason : viz the ball wasn't grounded

There is much simpler explanation : TMO awarded a try because..... he thought it was a try. ..

You may think the TMO was wrong, he may have been, but if he was, it wasn't because of the question.

 

[damo]

Ian do you really think the TMO in this instance felt he was forced by the question to award a try that he didn't believe in?

Come off it. He was perfectly entitled to answer that there was a reason : viz the ball wasn't grounded

There is much simpler explanation : TMO awarded a try because..... he thought it was a try. ..

You may think the TMO was wrong, he may have been, but if he was, it wasn't because of the question.

I don't believe any of that. Does anyone else?

Of course the question influenced the decision. Listen to what the TMO says.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian do you really think the TMO in this instance felt he was forced by the question to award a try that he didn't believe in?

Come off it. He was perfectly entitled to answer that there was a reason : viz the ball wasn't grounded

There is much simpler explanation : TMO awarded a try because..... he thought it was a try. ..

You may think the TMO was wrong, he may have been, but if he was, it wasn't because of the question.

AFAIK, unless the TMO Protocols have changed, when the referee asks "any reason that I cannot award a try", he is saying that he has seen the ball grounded, or that his AR has seen the ball grounded, but not how it got there. He is looking for the TMO to advise him on anything that might have happened beforehand, for example, a knock-forward or an illegality that he might have missed.

The TMO does not look at grounding as such when asked this question, and is not to comment on it.

As far as I am aware, the Trial protocols do not change the nature of the questions

Grounding not seen = "try or no try"
Grounding seen = "Any reason I cannot award the try"

In the case of this try, Peyper did not see the grounding, and Garces wasn't 100% sure either. This is why the AR says what he saw, or what he didn't see, NOT what he "thinks" he saw.

 

[FlipFlop]

Disagree Ian.

Any reason not to award the try, means the TMO must see a clear and obvious reason NOT TO award a try. For example - not grounded.
Try, yes or no, means the TMO must see a clear and obvious reason TO award the try.

It has nothing to do with the act of grounding (although that is part of it).
Or to phrase another way:
"Try, Yes or No" - ref is saying I have no idea, over to you OR I think it is not a try, but want you to check.
"Any reason not to award the try" - ref is saying I THINK (believe) the try is scored, but please check.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Disagree Ian.

Any reason not to award the try, means the TMO must see a clear and obvious reason NOT TO award a try. For example - not grounded.
Try, yes or no, means the TMO must see a clear and obvious reason TO award the try.

It has nothing to do with the act of grounding (although that is part of it).
Or to phrase another way:
"Try, Yes or No" - ref is saying I have no idea, over to you OR I think it is not a try, but want you to check.
"Any reason not to award the try" - ref is saying I THINK (believe) the try is scored, but please check.

Have you read the TMO protocols Flip Flop? I have...


[LAWS]7. TMO EXAMPLES:
Explanation of:"I believe a try has been scored. Can you give me a reason... "

An example of this may be where a rolling maul moves into in-goal and the referee is aware that a try is most likely to have been scored, however, there are now a large number of bodies lying on top of it. This process will allow the TMO to advise the referee if there is any reason why he should not award the try... The TMO can only state things that he can see and should tell the referee that the ball is unsighted and that there is no infringement that disqualifies a potential try. The TMO must use his discretion in advising the referee. Referees are to then make the decision

Checklist for TMO

Look for clear evidence that try cannot be awarded according to above protocol.

The fact that he may not be able to see the actual grounding of the ball is not clear proof that the try was not scored. He then advises the referee that he has seen no infringement, that the ball was unsighted and the decision becomes the Referee’s responsibility.

Further Communication Examples: "The maul went over the goal line. I did not see the ball touch the ground and I did not see which team was in possession could you please advise."

or

"I am entirely happy with the touch down, please can you check if the players foot was in touch prior to grounding and please advise."

or

"I believe that a defender touched down and I believe I award a 22. Please advise."

or

"I believe the attacking side grounded the ball and scored a try unless you tell me otherwise."

To this last request the TMO may respond accordingly:

“You may award a try."
"NO there was a foot in touch, line-out."
"NO there was a hand under the ball, five-metre scrum."
[/LAWS]

In this case, Ayoub did NOT see a grounding, but he argued that because it was Brown's hand under the ball, that this counts as a grounding. Its BS; there is no such Law in the book that supports this view. Also, Ayoub must have had a blind-spot, because despite having several looks, he failed to see the obvious Cory Jane hand under the ball. I saw that on the first replay.

 

[crossref]

Ian -

If your agument is that Ayoub knew it wasn't a try, but felt he was forced to award the try because of the question.. I say bollocks.

But if your argument is

In this case, Ayoub did NOT see a grounding, but he argued that because it was Brown's hand under the ball, that this counts as a grounding. Its BS; there is no such Law in the book that supports this view. Also, Ayoub must have had a blind-spot, because despite having several looks, he failed to see the obvious Cory Jane hand under the ball. I saw that on the first replay.

ie Ayoub DID think it was a try (but he was mistaken and got it wrong), then you are on much safer ground.

 

[OB..]

When there is a blur of motion and somehing happens in a split second, I have no problem with an AR saying "I think the ball was grounded, but you had better check with the TMO."

Without a TMO he might have said "IMHO the ball was grounded".

 

[damo]

ie Ayoub DID think it was a try (but he was mistaken and got it wrong), then you are on much safer ground.

Ayoub says that there was a hand under the ball. Are you suggesting that Ayoub thought that the hand underneath the ball made no difference? It is implausible that any TMO would not know the most basic of laws.

Therefore, the only explanation that makes sense is that he felt he could not tell the referee not to award the try because of the question asked. Ask a different question he would have given a different answer.

 

[RobLev]

Ayoub says that there was a hand under the ball. Are you suggesting that Ayoub thought that the hand underneath the ball made no difference? It is implausible that any TMO would not know the most basic of laws.

Therefore, the only explanation that makes sense is that he felt he could not tell the referee not to award the try because of the question asked. Ask a different question he would have given a different answer.

On the hand under the ball; Peyper asks him about a hand under the ball and Ayoub responds that it's the English player's arm holding the ball (Jane's is also on the ball, but further up).

Garces was asked the direct question by Peyper - did he see a grounding. He says that he believes it was a try - so he must have believed there was a grounding. He did however also suggest that it go upstairs - so he felt that although he thought there was a grounding, there was room for doubt.

So Ayoub was asked the right question. Given his answer, there's a choice between Ayoub (i) not knowing that the owner of the arm that he was asked about makes no difference - a basic rule of the game; (ii) not knowing that (as shown in Ian's comment) the protocol allows him to say that the ball was not grounded - knowledge of the protocol being a basis essential for him to play his role as TMO; or (iii) believing that the ball was grounded - or at least that the video was inconclusive either way, so the on-field view (Garces's) stands.