[6N] Tmo farce

[pedr]

The Welsh player got there first and almost certainly had his hand on the ball at the same time as the ball was touching the ground, but whether the downward motion had turned into his hand slipping off rather than pressing down by the time the ball was touching the ground isn’t clear from still images we’ve seen and is more doubtful than I felt when I was watching it (through red-tinted glasses!) at the time.

I still think it’s likely that more TMOs would have given it than would not have. This seems to be more evidence that we’d probably have decisions which were more understandable to fans if the on-field officials had to make a decision, which they then referred to the TMO. I’d actually ask them to make a decision on any contentious issue they saw, so here Garces would have to decide whether he’d call a knock on if there weren’t a TMO and whether he’d say it was grounded for a try. (He would probably have said no knock on and doubt over grounding, Welsh scrum 5, so the result would have been the same!)

 

[Flish]

Is that still being trialled in the Southern Hemisphere? On pitch decisions? I’m a big fan of this (hell for most of us *all* our decisions are on pitch!), am hoping this will come North

 

[L'irlandais]

.. (He would probably have said no knock on and doubt over grounding, Welsh scrum 5, so the result would have been the same!)

Yes, the «*No try*» decision would still stand, but with an attacking scrum 5, you get a second bite of the cherry.

How about this? New rugby ball invented with built-in referee. In the future, the match referee can put his feet up, in the TMO wagon around the back of the stadium and technology will do all the work. Not entirely sure how well, low frequency magnetic fields will be at interpretation of current LoTG in a matchday situation.

 

[OB..]

It was a 100% try.
It was a 100% cock up by tmo.

It is a farce .
The rules of grounding a ball are there in black & white for occasions when the ball is on the floor .
It met them loud & clear .

They are indeed clear
[LAWS]21
1. The ball can be grounded in in-goal:
a. By holding it and touching the ground with it; or
b. By pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck. [/LAWS]

Else where in the media, debate about the Welsh player not being in control of the ball, or not exerting enough (WTf?) downwards pressure on the ball is bollox. Those people are basically accepting he did get a hand to it before White, but still calling it a try to England. sad!

It was disappointing to hear the commentator say that no downward pressure was needed, and no surprise at all to see that Stephen Jones in the Sunday Times made the same basic error.

I was at the game and therefore watching the replay on the big screen. I am a pessimist and was expecting a try to be awarded. However when I got back and was able to replay the incident for myself, I could see how the TMO might have decided that Anscombe did not press down on the ball.

I'm just glad that I did not have to make that decision.

 

[BikingBud]

For clarity on my post, I am not claiming its knocked on into in goal by the welsh player, but that the diving welsh player did not have contact with the ball whilst the ball was in contact with the ground and that it travelled forward off his hand onto the ground.

However as several people have said it was far too quickly discharged by the TMO, and it looked like Garces didnt look at the footage himself and own the decision.

Great test rugby though.

I think that is exactly what happened.

You can see his fingers bend at the point of contact before the ball goes forward into goal. So the questionable decision is not about the grounding but about the ball going forward in the field of play.

 

[BikingBud]

Have other posters gone back to the knock on/knee decision or only concentrated on grounding?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43019960 see about 20 secs

You can see the finger of his left hand flex as the ball hits it. Why the TMO and Eddie Butler clearly thinks otherwise I do not know.

So he either knocked it forward onto his knee or knocked it on after it came off his knee. Either way the grounding question is superfluous.

 

[Camquin]

Do we believe that it was clear and obvious that Red got to press down on the ball before White.
If so why have we been discussing it for 46 posts.
If not then the correct deciison was made.

Would I have given the try - without a TMO or ARs and probably a metre out of position or two (on a good day) .
No I would have try to sell doubt about the grounding.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

 

[ChrisR]

With only the image below to go on (couldn't get video) I'd say that the red hand is on top of the ball and under the White hand. Therefore try to Red. I could also be persuaded that it is not C&O, therefore an atticking 5m.

 

[peperami]

Based on the last two images its a try, however I didnt see either shown clearly to the TMO. So can see the doubt.

 

[chbg]

No , it's only a knock on if it comes off hand or arm

Scrum half throws a pass out to stand-off which hits him on the body, head or legs and goes forward. Stand-off picks up the ball and continues. What do you rule?

No contact with arms or hands, so play on.

 

[Ian_Cook]

I doubt that this was a image capture from the video stream. It looks more like a cropped photo from a photographer in the in-goal. If so, then the TMO did not see this , so its not really relevant to the discussions.

This is the best angle the TMO had to judge from.....

With only the image below to go on (couldn't get video) I'd say that the red hand is on top of the ball and under the White hand. Therefore try to Red. I could also be persuaded that it is not C&O, therefore an atticking 5m.

View attachment 3699

... but now lets go back a couple of frames to the important point, i.e. the point where the ball first touches the ground.

A couple of frames before the ball touches the ground - both players have fingers touching the ball.

The first available frame where the ball is touching the ground - both players still have fingers touching the ball.

This is not be clear enough for me to remove doubt about grounding

 

[Pinky]

I doubt that this was a image capture from the video stream. It looks more like a cropped photo from a photographer in the in-goal. If so, then the TMO did not see this , so its not really relevant to the discussions.

This is the best angle the TMO had to judge from.....



... but now lets go back a couple of frames to the important point, i.e. the point where the ball first touches the ground.

A couple of frames before the ball touches the ground - both players have fingers touching the ball.

The first available frame where the ball is touching the ground - both players still have fingers touching the ball.

This is not be clear enough for me to remove doubt about grounding

Ian, thanks for digging out the stills. In the frame with the ball on the ground you say both players still have fingers touching the ball. I think it is clear that Anscombe does but not clear about Watson. His pinky might have been touching, but the camera shot suggests it was not. However I do think some would see that as doubt about the grounding, but what I don't agree with is the conclusion that white grounded the ball first.

 

[OB..]

I doubt that this was a image capture from the video stream. It looks more like a cropped photo from a photographer in the in-goal. If so, then the TMO did not see this , so its not really relevant to the discussions.

This is the best angle the TMO had to judge from.....



... but now lets go back a couple of frames to the important point, i.e. the point where the ball first touches the ground.

A couple of frames before the ball touches the ground - both players have fingers touching the ball.

The first available frame where the ball is touching the ground - both players still have fingers touching the ball.

This is not be clear enough for me to remove doubt about grounding

[LAWS]If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarts witha five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking
team throws in.[/LAWS]
In this case the ref was playing advantage for a penalty, so they went back to that.

 

[Balones]

Ian, thanks for digging out the stills. In the frame with the ball on the ground you say both players still have fingers touching the ball. I think it is clear that Anscombe does but not clear about Watson. His pinky might have been touching, but the camera shot suggests it was not. However I do think some would see that as doubt about the grounding, but what I don't agree with is the conclusion that white grounded the ball first.

Watson must have the longest pinky in the world!

 

[Jolly Roger]

Watson must have the longest pinky in the world!

As the ref went back to the penalty advantage the KO or white grounding first issues are irrelevant. Either try or go back to penalty. Decision was not CandO so back to penalty.

 

[Dickie E]

https://rugbyonslaught.com/update-enhanced-footage-shows-anscombe-try-disallowed-anyway/

Looks like the point may be moot

 

[ChrisR]

How can you determine, from that little video clip, that the ball went forward from his hand?

 

[shnipvanwinkel]

How can you determine, from that little video clip, that the ball went forward from his hand?

With only the image below to go on (couldn't get video) I'd say that the red hand is on top of the ball and under the White hand. Therefore try to Red. I could also be persuaded that it is not C&O, therefore an atticking 5m.

View attachment 3699

people who live in glass houses...

 

[BikingBud]

https://rugbyonslaught.com/update-enhanced-footage-shows-anscombe-try-disallowed-anyway/

Looks like the point may be moot

See post 45/46, it seems nobody wants to look and comment upon that Dickie