Yes, not sure how much credence to place on that
However, as I've posted earlier, I think it is black and white that the TMO protocol was not applied correctly with regard to number of phases.Yes, not sure how much credence to place on that
On the one hand it is Stuff
On the the other hand WR leaked a lot of things in the RWC ..
Yes but there is an escape clause isn't there about intervening to correct and error when necessary to preserve the integrity of the game.However, as I've posted earlier, I think it is black and white that the TMO protocol was not applied correctly with regard to number of phases.
Are you referring to this text in the guiding principles:Yes but there is an escape clause isn't there about intervening to correct and error when necessary to preserve the integrity of the game.
I don't see that as an escape clause. Also, must be credible and consistent...The application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent and in doing so,
contribute to maintaining the integrity of the game, while attempting to deal with the clear and obvious and 'big moments' during a game of rugby.
Ref errors that give field position advantage and that advantage leads to points in the next set of phases are just as big moments - perhaps to maintain the integrity of the game the TMO should intervene here as well!!Yes, I think that phrase is what TF felt applied.
There is no "bigger" moment than a knock on in the lead up to a try ... in a RWC final.
I think it's hard to say that the TMO should ignore it because protocol
(But would not be entirely surprised if WR had briefed some journalist somewhere that that is the case)
Looking back: time and again when TMOs have kept quiet about a mistake because of protocol, WR have changed the protocol to allow them to intervene the next time
What other than missed foul play?Yes, I think that phrase is what TF felt applied.
There is no "bigger" moment than a knock on in the lead up to a try ... in a RWC final.
I think it's hard to say that the TMO should ignore it because protocol
(But would not be entirely surprised if WR had briefed some journalist somewhere that that is the case)
Looking back: time and again when TMOs have kept quiet about a mistake because of protocol, WR have changed the protocol to allow them to intervene the next time
well, at least i manage to say what I think you are always on the fence.I still find it quite incredulous that you post what you think about what others might have felt but lack any real assessment of the germane evidence.
I say lots about what I think but I try not to surmise what others may have thought or why they may have done something based upon very limited evidence.well, at least i manage to say what I think you are always on the fence.
why do you think the TMO felt able to intervene ?
1 - perhaps he counted the phases differently, counted two, and therefore beleived he was within protocol?
2 - perhaps he felt it was a big moment, integrity at stake, protocol therefore allows him to overturn the try ?
3 - perhaps he forgot all about the protocol?
For 1 - Stu's analysis is pretty convincing for me. I don't think that was the reason
For 3 - Tom Foley is a great TMO, he works carefully. Don't think so
Which leaves me with (2) as the most likely explanation
what do you reckon?
some other explanation I haven't considered?
If you are correct (which I doubt) then what else occurred in the game that he saw and should have brought to the attention of the ref but choose not to because he felt he was the sole arbiter of the “game’s integrity“?You may be right .... I guess one day we will find out
I find it more plausible that he decided to ignore the number of phases, rather than that he forgot about it.
you mean were there other incidents where he should have over-ruled the protocol in order to highlight an offence?If you are correct (which I doubt) then what else occurred in the game that he saw and should have brought to the attention of the ref but choose not to because he felt he was the sole arbiter of the “game’s integrity“?
Neither do I but neither of us had the benefit of multi screen, multi angles etc.you mean were there other incidents where he should have over-ruled the protocol in order to highlight an offence?
I don't recall any - I think this was the only one that hinged on protocol.
Why is that absurd?Neither do I but neither of us had the benefit of multi screen, multi angles etc.
The issue I was trying to highlight was the absurdity of inferring his call was designed to preserve the integrity of the game
Indeed. Maybe Safety, Equity, Law applies to TMOs too.Why is that absurd?
I mean it may be wrong, perhaps he did forget all about the protocol, but why is the idea of breaking protocol to highlight an actual forward pass in the run up to an actual try... absurd?
I remember when Craig Joubert made his big mistake at the RWC , the consensus was that he and the TMO should have found a way to overcome the protocol (at the time) that prevented the TMO from correcting the obvious mistake...
FTFY ;-)Indeed. Maybe Safety, ENJOYMENT, Law applies to TMOs too.