TMO Intervention RWC Final

[kudu314]

I read an interesting opinion piece by Mark Reason, link at the bottom. The premise being that Aaron Smith's try should not have been disallowed as the knock on referred to by the TMO occured 5 phases earlier and not within two phases of the try being scored. Reason's argument hinging on TMO overreach/"cancel culture?"

My question to all here, is the protocol referred to by Reason correct or should the TMO have intervened as took place on Saturday and have the try disallowed?

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...-have-been-wiped-out-in-rugby-world-cup-final

 

[crossref]

It's very hard to argue, isn't it? that, in a RWC final, a knock on that leads to a try should be ignored because ..... well, protocol.

Was it a knock on ? Yes
Did we get a scrum Yes

So, happy days, right

 

[Dickie E]

If we look in Definition (as Reason should have done) we see:

"Phase of play: Scrum, lineout, ruck or maul."

Tackles are not in this list.

So were there 2 of these between the knock-on and the grounding?

 

[Pedro]

I agree with crossref , and IMO - better to get the right decision, even by the wrong method. But when you look at it - he actually came back for the penalty ( I think for playing the man in the air at the lineout). The TMO brought his attention to the knock on- but Barnes spotted the penalty infringement first . So all is well I think…

 

[Phil E]

I read an interesting opinion piece by Mark Reason, link at the bottom. The premise being that Aaron Smith's try should not have been disallowed as the knock on referred to by the TMO occured 5 phases earlier and not within two phases of the try being scored.

Please don't get your law knowledge from Mark Reason!

 

[BikingBud]

Please don't get your law knowledge from Mark Reason!

Whilst I have no knowledge of Mr Reason to support any consideration of his offerings in a negative way I do feel that some of his observations are bang on point:

This TMO protocol may have been updated in semi secrecy. Who knows. Rugby’s laws are so labyrinthine that they are now almost impossible to define. Either way the game has become an unholy mess of different rules at different levels in which the ref is no longer the sole judge of fact. It fuels vile social media spewing which vilifies the officials. Barnes and his family have been subject to death threats. Shame on World Rugby for creating this cesspit.

World Rugby has got itself in such a mess about trying to rule accurately on a mind-blowingly imprecise and interpretative game, that it is sucking the life out of the sport.

And I feel that is one of the significant problems on here where people want to build frameworks and rigidity, go into minutiae about some laws yet we allow head injuries, marginal late hits, offsides, squint throws etc to be declassified as low impact or immaterial.

Any way RWC is over, I may see you all later but my love is currently diminished.

 

[Phil E]

TMO Protocol is listed in the laws of the game under Law 6, its not a secret.

 

[Stu10]

The knock-on happened at 52:51 (game clock)... there were 4 rucks (phases), then the try was scored at 53:34.

From the TMO protocol:

All Clear and Obvious knock-on or throw forward infringements within two phases leading to a possible try.

TBF, Mark Reason isn't wrong... if you are going to ignore the protocol, then how far back do we go looking for an infringement? We've also had other discussions about the slippery road of which laws do we apply and which do we ignore.

I think it would have been more important for the TMOs to check if other offences leading to penalties and points had been called correctly... notable jackal/ruck and scrum penalties during the knock-out stages of this RWC that were called incorrectly and arguably decided the outcome of that match. Presently I don't think the TMO can be asked to review illegal jackal technique or hands in the ruck, but the TMO can review foul play, which includes forcing the opponent upwards out of the scrum and a front-row player intentionally collapsing a scrum.

 

[Pedro]

The knock-on happened at 52:51 (game clock)... there were 4 rucks (phases), then the try was scored at 53:34.

From the TMO protocol:

All Clear and Obvious knock-on or throw forward infringements within two phases leading to a possible try.

TBF, Mark Reason isn't wrong... if you are going to ignore the protocol, then how far back do we go looking for an infringement? We've also had other discussions about the slippery road of which laws do we apply and which do we ignore.

I think it would have been more important for the TMOs to check if other offences leading to penalties and points had been called correctly... notable jackal/ruck and scrum penalties during the knock-out stages of this RWC that were called incorrectly and arguably decided the outcome of that match. Presently I don't think the TMO can be asked to review illegal jackal technique or hands in the ruck, but the TMO can review foul play, which includes forcing the opponent upwards out of the scrum and a front-row player intentionally collapsing a scrum.

I think this is a spurious argument. The play was never brought back for a knock on - it was for the penalty against SA. The whole "Two Phases" argument doesn't apply for that.
It's true that the knock on seemed to be the reason the TMO flagged it to WB (it was certainly how the communication came across), but we don't know what he would have done had he not seen the penalty offence while watching the replay. He may well have allowed the try to stand?

 

[Stu10]

I think this is a spurious argument. The play was never brought back for a knock on - it was for the penalty against SA. The whole "Two Phases" argument doesn't apply for that.
It's true that the knock on seemed to be the reason the TMO flagged it to WB (it was certainly how the communication came across), but we don't know what he would have done had he not seen the penalty offence while watching the replay. He may well have allowed the try to stand?

After the try was initially awarded, the TMO said, "Barnsey, I'm about to show you a knock-on by New Zealand 8".

There was no penalty committed by NZ against SA... SA committed the penalty offence at the lineout (contact with an opposing player in the air, committed by Etzebeth).

 

[Cross]

I agree with crossref , and IMO - better to get the right decision, even by the wrong method.

I believe it's the first time I disagree with both of you. Method matters because it is what provides us with

a) Consistency
b) a rationale to explain the ref's call

Those two are some of the cornerstones from which games are planned. If you don't like the rules but you understand them, you can often find a way to work around them. If you don't know why the ref is blowing the whistle then planning becomes not only impossible but irrelevant (taking it to the extreme, i know).

I couldn't help thinking about the Arg vs Eng semi-final. That blatant forward pass leading to Arg's try, but it was more than 2 phases before Arg scored. Pundits and half the web pointed that (+2 phases) out, much to English fans' outrage. But whenever that outrage emerged the answer was unequivocally solid: those are the rules. And whether we like it or not, from a logical point of view, that is quite a strong defense.
If you don't like the outcome you change the rules. Omitting the rules you don't like at a certain moment and in a specific situation to achieve a result that you personally deem fair... well, that seems like a recipe for disaster. It happens, sure, but let's not normalize it as something good or desirable.

 

[crossref]

I think the rules ie the TMO protocol actually allows for discretion in phases etc to preserve the integrity of the game

Protocols generally are hard right, they can't anticipate everything

 

[Pedro]

After the try was initially awarded, the TMO said, "Barnsey, I'm about to show you a knock-on by New Zealand 8".

There was no penalty committed by NZ against SA... SA committed the penalty offence at the lineout (contact with an opposing player in the air, committed by Etzebeth).

Apologies, potentially poor working by me. The penalty was given against SA. i.e. To New Zealand.

...And yes as I stated - the TMO brought it back for a knock on - but Barnes didn't react to that because he didn't have to, having seen the penalty offence by Etzebeth while reviewing the knock on.

In fairness to Barnes - he wouldn't have known have far back the knock on occurred when the TMO checked in - only that it was a potential knock on leading up to the try.

 

[Pedro]

I believe it's the first time I disagree with both of you. Method matters because it is what provides us with

a) Consistency
b) a rationale to explain the ref's call

Those two are some of the cornerstones from which games are planned. If you don't like the rules but you understand them, you can often find a way to work around them. If you don't know why the ref is blowing the whistle then planning becomes not only impossible but irrelevant (taking it to the extreme, i know).

I couldn't help thinking about the Arg vs Eng semi-final. That blatant forward pass leading to Arg's try, but it was more than 2 phases before Arg scored. Pundits and half the web pointed that (+2 phases) out, much to English fans' outrage. But whenever that outrage emerged the answer was unequivocally solid: those are the rules. And whether we like it or not, from a logical point of view, that is quite a strong defense.
If you don't like the outcome you change the rules. Omitting the rules you don't like at a certain moment and in a specific situation to achieve a result that you personally deem fair... well, that seems like a recipe for disaster. It happens, sure, but let's not normalize it as something good or desirable.

Cross, in many ways I absolutely agree with you. The Laws are there for a reason - and should be followed whenever it's practicable to do so. However, the mess we find ourselves in at the moment with regard to the way the TV game is refereed, and the way the law book reads (despite many attempts to reword it, simplify it and clarify it), leaves us with so many grey areas - that it is almost impossible not to apply some interpretation - and in that interpretation, we should aim for fairness and equity wherever possible IMHO.
As an example - Stu10 states there were four rucks between the knock on and the NZ try. Watching it back - only one (maybe 2 if being generous) actually meet the definition of a ruck according to the laws.

Ruck: A phase of play where one or more players from each team, who are on their feet and in physical contact, close around the ball, which is on the ground

The rest are tackles, occasionally with several bodies flopping over the ball, but not meeting the definition of a ruck. So, if we stick to the black and white of the laws for the "two phases", should we not also stick to it for the definition of a ruck? Therefore there were less than two phases of play between the knock on and the try. If not - what is two phases of play? Is it 2 "things that look a bit like a ruck", or two tackles?

 

[crossref]

? Is it 2 "things that look a bit like a ruck", or two tackles?

Exactly I defy any two people to watch even 3 mins of modern rugby and to agree on how many rucks and mauls they counted (as opposed to tackles and breakdowns)

Give it 20 mins and I don't expect they would agree on how many scrums and lineouts either ..eg is a reset the same scrum or a new one?

 

[kudu314]

Please don't get your law knowledge from Mark Reason!

I wouldn't dare!

 

[kudu314]

If we look in Definition (as Reason should have done) we see:

"Phase of play: Scrum, lineout, ruck or maul."

Tackles are not in this list.

So were there 2 of these between the knock-on and the grounding?

This is a fantastic clarification! Thanks!!

 

[Stu10]

Apologies, potentially poor working by me. The penalty was given against SA. i.e. To New Zealand.

...And yes as I stated - the TMO brought it back for a knock on - but Barnes didn't react to that because he didn't have to, having seen the penalty offence by Etzebeth while reviewing the knock on.

In fairness to Barnes - he wouldn't have known have far back the knock on occurred when the TMO checked in - only that it was a potential knock on leading up to the try.

To quote @Cross , "Omitting the rules you don't like at a certain moment and in a specific situation to achieve a result that you personally deem fair... well, that seems like a recipe for disaster."

The TMO brought it back for a knock on. Barnes could have asked the TMO to check how many phases had elapsed (this has happened before, notably by Karl Dickson, who was an AR in the final). Saying he didn't have to "react to" the knock-on because he saw a penalty offense is ridiculous when the alternative is that the knock-on could not be considered following 4 phases between that and the try, and coming back for a penalty instead of awarding a try to NZ would have been the worst non-application of advantage in the history of rugby. Following the current laws, the try should have been awarded... I agree SA might feel aggrieved because the ball was knocked on, but small things are missed (illegal jackal, questionable scrummaging), that is the reality of rugby at every level, but the TMO protocol clearly says "All Clear and Obvious knock-on or throw forward infringements within two phases leading to a possible try."

Did the rucks I claim to have witnessed "actually meet the definition of a ruck according to the laws"... honestly, we all know the laws around the ruck at elite level are somewhat amorphous, but they are generally consistent, and I believe that my count of 4 rucks matches the generally accepted conditions for a ruck.

 

[Pedro]

But that’s exactly the issue Stu.

"Omitting the rules you don't like at a certain moment and in a specific situation to achieve a result that you personally deem fair... well, that seems like a recipe for disaster."

And

Did the rucks I claim to have witnessed "actually meet the definition of a ruck according to the laws"... honestly, we all know the laws around the ruck at elite level are somewhat amorphous, but they are generally consistent, and I believe that my count of 4 rucks matches the generally accepted conditions for a ruck.

To be clear, you're suggesting that we apply the law as absolute in regards to the TMO protocol, but allow interpretation when it comes to defining a ruck? Why not the other way around?
Isn't that the recipe for disaster?

 

[Stu10]

But that’s exactly the issue Stu.

And


To be clear, you're suggesting that we apply the law as absolute in regards to the TMO protocol, but allow interpretation when it comes to defining a ruck? Why not the other way around?
Isn't that the recipe for disaster?

The TMO protocol is written in clear black and white, whereas some subjectivity and judgement is needed when refereeing the ruck, at least to a certain degree. To clarify, IMHO, off feet and uncontrolled clear outs at the ruck are something different when comparing elite level and grass roots, but the concept of two players in contact with each other over the ball is less often in doubt, and the definition of a ruck is clear in the laws.

I've just watched it again and I'd happily revise my assessment to 3 rucks. First, Barrett (NZ12) is tackled and no SA players engage. Savea (NZ8) is tackled by SA16, then SA20 contests over the ball vs NZ3 and NZ5 (one); Retallick NZ4 carries, SA7 tackles and SA20 competes vs NZ2 and NZ15 (two); Barrett (NZ12) carries again, tackled by SA16 and then SA7 competes vs NZ2 and NZ13 (three).

I am 100% confident in my reading ability that the TMO protocol says "All Clear and Obvious knock-on or throw forward infringements within two phases leading to a possible try."

I am also 100% confident that 3 is more than 2.