Referee changing his decision

[Baylion]

In the Lions vs Crusaders match the Crusaders scored what seemed to be a certain try and referee Marius van der Westhuizen awarded the try.

The replay on the stadium screen then showed it might not have been. As the Crusaders kicker was lining up his conversion kick the referee stopped the game and asked the TMO for a decision. The replays showed the Crusaders player grounding short and being turned by two defenders. The referee then cancelled the try and awarded a 5m scrum to the Crusaders.

In the end what seems to be the right decision was made but was he correct in changing his decision so long after the try was awarded? How long does a ref have to change his decision?

 

[winchesterref]

I like the correct outcome being reached. If they had taken the conversion then for me too late, but until then I can't disagree with the call

 

[Dickie E]

I didn't see the game but from your description the replay on the big screen was at the initiation of the stadium folk and not as a request from ref or TMO? Sounds ugly.

 

[leaguerefaus]

I wish SANZAR or the IRB would just come out and tell referees that once the try is given, that's it. Slow down the try process by having a quick look to the ARs to make sure they have nothing to report and then give it. Nice and simple, and has worked in the NRL forever.

 

[beckett50]

A dangerous precedent IMO.

Although no doubt a post match talking point between him and his assessor!

 

[damo]

I didn't see the game but from your description the replay on the big screen was at the initiation of the stadium folk and not as a request from ref or TMO? Sounds ugly.

Yes because it raises the question of whether the 'stadium folk' would have shown the same replay on the big screen if it was the home side that had scored a dubious try.

 

[crossref]

I wish SANZAR or the IRB would just come out and tell referees that once the try is given, that's it. Slow down the try process by having a quick look to the ARs to make sure they have nothing to report and then give it. Nice and simple, and has worked in the NRL forever.

that works where there is no TV, but where there is TV it's very uncomfortable sticking with a decision that is being shown on the big screen to be demonstrably wrong...

 

[Ernest Keller]

I listened to a weekly match report by former international referee Jonathan Kaplan, and he agreed that though the right decision was made in the end, the original try should have been given as the referee already awarded it. If he had referred it to the TMO first, it would not have been a problem.

To me it seemed as if there was a bit of a problem with communication as one of the AR's physically walked up to him to suggest a referral, but unfortunately he had already awarded the try.

 

[didds]

so if there was a simple comms error so the AR couldn't get his message to the ref in time then in fact the right result was arrived at because the right things didn't happen correctly?


eg in a parallel universe "Sorry you lost the world cup because the ARs comms didn't work and I awarded the winning try when in fact I shouldn't have".


maybe its time to do the RL thing of the ref visibly checking with both ARs before awarding the try?

didds

 

[damo]

If it was a comms error then I don't have such an issue with it, although that is not the impression I got from the description. It still isn't a good look to be so hasty to award a try that you have to rescind the decision to go upstairs, but it isn't catastrophic. I'm sure we all agree that if the ref only noticed after awarding a try that the AR had his flag up for touch, or his flag out for foul play there wouldn't be an issue in going back for it (since that is in the lawbook). This would just be a small extension on the law.

I was more worried about the ref making a decision to refer based solely on seeing it unasked for on the big screen. That is a problem IMO.

 

[Ernest Keller]

so if there was a simple comms error so the AR couldn't get his message to the ref in time then in fact the right result was arrived at because the right things didn't happen correctly?


eg in a parallel universe "Sorry you lost the world cup because the ARs comms didn't work and I awarded the winning try when in fact I shouldn't have".


maybe its time to do the RL thing of the ref visibly checking with both ARs before awarding the try?

didds

Hi,

I did not mean to say that the decision should be excused because of a comms error - it was merely an observation from my side.

I believe the right decision was made in the end, BUT the correct process was not followed and therefor the try should have been awarded.

Cheers

 

[crossref]

Hi,

I did not mean to say that the decision should be excused because of a comms error - it was merely an observation from my side.

I believe the right decision was made in the end, BUT the correct process was not followed and therefor the try should have been awarded.

Cheers

it's a brave person to stand there in front of the big screen saying 'yes of course the decision was wrong, but I can't reverse it because of the process'

 

[leaguerefaus]

it's a brave person to stand there in front of the big screen saying 'yes of course the decision was wrong, but I can't reverse it because of the process'

Except that's what happens in nearly every sport in the world...

 

[crossref]

Except that's what happens in nearly every sport in the world...

on the contrary I think every sport* is moving toward intensive use of after-the-event replays - whether Video replay, hawkeye, the snickometer or other technologies.
Protocols frequently include giving players the right to challenge a real-time decision and have it reviewed and where necessary over ruled.

'I made my decision, even though I know it's wrong, I still can't change it' is very 20th century.

(*with the notable exception of football which lags behind)

 

[Dixie]

We've said many times that the Laws are imperfectly written, and have to be interpreted flexibly to make the most sense out of them.

[LAWS]6.A.5 REFEREE ALTERING A DECISION
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to to signal touch. The referee may alter a decision when an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.[/LAWS]

What is the intent of this law? Is it to stress the limitations of Touch Judges' role? Or to deny the referee the opportunity to get the right result when an appointed and well-qualified AR tells him that he's got the wrong result? So if the winger dives for the line with his back to the ref, such that only the AR can see that the ball was dropped forward just prior to lanbing, is it the intent of the law to force the ref to man up and face the music for the error rather than correcting it? personally, I doubt that. If that were the case, then I see little poiunt in the Law 6 definition:

[LAWS]An assistant referee will also provide assistance to the referee in the performance of any of the referee’s duties as directed by the referee.[/LAWS]

What if the ref directs the AR to alert him to any errors, such as the failure to award an option that's properly available, or the award of an incorrect restart? For me, the correct result is the primary obejctive. Whether this is achieved as a result of Richie McCaw reminding the ref that an option is available or the AR is immaterial. And if Richie, then also the Big Screen.

 

[leaguerefaus]

on the contrary I think every sport* is moving toward intensive use of after-the-event replays - whether Video replay, hawkeye, the snickometer or other technologies.
Protocols frequently include giving players the right to challenge a real-time decision and have it reviewed and where necessary over ruled.

'I made my decision, even though I know it's wrong, I still can't change it' is very 20th century.

(*with the notable exception of football which lags behind)

If you want player-initiated reviews, that's another argument all together. If referees would just calm down when awarding tries and look at their ARs first, nearly all problematic situations could be avoided.

I would think many referees on here would be against player-initiated reviews. Possible alternative would be for the TMO to review all tries for obvious errors while the kicker is lining up (although I think this could be even more problematic). I don't like the idea of the referee seeing something on the screen and then deciding he should double check it though.

 

[RobLev]

...

I don't like the idea of the referee seeing something on the screen and then deciding he should double check it though.

THIS.

If this is going to be the way forward, then "the stadium folk" are going to have to relinquish editorial control over the big screen.

 

[crossref]

THIS.

If this is going to be the way forward, then "the stadium folk" are going to have to relinquish editorial control over the big screen.

how often do they have it? Isn't the big screen simply showing whats being broadcast to the world on the TV?

 

[RobLev]

how often do they have it? Isn't the big screen simply showing whats being broadcast to the world on the TV?

Dicke E and damo think not.

 

[Dickie E]

Dicke E and damo think not.

At our S15 venue there is a dedicated team that deals with what goes on the screen and they have a director who manages this (he sits near me when I am timekeeping).

He has the option of using the TV feed but he also has local content that he can use at his discretion (cameras on onfield announcers, crowd shots, etc & advertisements).

Most of this is proscribed and I doubt he'd have time or inclination to think "gee, that try looked a bit suspect, I'll bang it on the screen". I will ask him after next game on 18th April