SA v NZ. Interesting event

[Dickie E]

In last weekend's Test. 2nd half. Green attacking Black line and ref calls penalty advantage against Black. A couple of phases later (so advantage still alive) Green #4 dives for line. Ref immediately blows time off and asks TMO to check grounding as he was completely unsighted.
TMO undecided so no try and they come back the penalty.
What interests me is what the ref would have done if penalty advantage hadn't been in play. Would he still have blown time off for the TMO check? If so and no try, what would be the restart?
Is it ok for the ref to stop play knowing that at least the attacking team get the penalty?
I think a better process would be for the ref to continue play but ask the TMO to check grounding while play continues. But if the TMO is doing that, is he missing subsequent events?
Thoughts?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

So normal play and Referee is unsure about the grounding. It seemsto me that the refRef blows his whistle.

Well you have the following scenarios:
Try
or No Try (with options)
Held up short
Held up in goal
Ball lost forward Into in goal
Ball lost forward into the field of play

Why wait for a prolonged wrestle on the ground to take place? Short time to "let it breathe" and them blow. Refer to ARs /TMO as avaiable.

Assuming the answer is no try them you resrart according to which one of the answers is the appropriate one.

 

[Dickie E]

So normal play and Referee is unsure about the grounding. It seemsto me that the refRef blows his whistle.

Well you have the following scenarios:
Try
or No Try (with options)
Held up short
Held up in goal
Ball lost forward Into in goal
Ball lost forward into the field of play

Why wait for a prolonged wrestle on the ground to take place? Short time to "let it breathe" and them blow. Refer to ARs /TMO as avaiable.

Assuming the answer is no try them you resrart according to which one of the answers is the appropriate one.

Yes to all that. But I wondered if he hadn't had the penalty advantage as a fall back, would he have done the same thing?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Yes to all that. But I wondered if he hadn't had the penalty advantage as a fall back, would he have done the same thing?

Why do you he would not have?

 

[Dickie E]

Why do you he would not have?

because I don't think I've ever seen a referee do that before. It's either "I think its a try, please check grounding" or "I think it's held up, please check grounding". If a ref has absolutely no idea if he's even made it to the line (as in this case) I think he'd play on. I think the penalty advantage had a bearing in the ref's mind : "heigh, ho, doesn't really matter as worst case for Green is a penalty."
Let me ask it this way. Has anyone ever seen an elite referee award an attacking 5 metre scrum after a TMO review of a grounding?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

because I don't think I've ever seen a referee do that before. It's either "I think its a try, please check grounding" or "I think it's held up, please check grounding". If a ref has absolutely no idea if he's even made it to the line (as in this case) I think he'd play on. I think the penalty advantage had a bearing in the ref's mind : "heigh, ho, doesn't really matter as worst case for Green is a penalty."
Let me ask it this way. Has anyone ever seen an elite referee award an attacking 5 metre scrum after a TMO review of a grounding?

Yes I've seen the call; held up short and held up over the line given. In fairness, whether the ball in in goal ornot is generally an easier call to make than held up short. Generally if you think there may be a grounding your mind is already in-goal.

 

[Dickie E]

Yes I've seen the call; held up short and held up over the line given.

I'm not 100% sure what that means but I think it means that the ref incorrectly awarded a GLDO (or scrum if pre-GLDO) for ball not reaching goal line.
But have you seen a scrum for "The referee awards a scrum for any other reason not covered in law" because he couldn't see what happened? I know that conceptually it could happen, but have you ever seen it?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Well the ball could have been held up short or could have been held up over the line I've seen both given with the appropriate.

I've not seen "Scrum for any other reason not covered in law" Nor would I expect that. I'd expect "unplayable" and go from there.