TMO Protocol

[Marc Wakeham]

Player grounds the ball against he foot of the post. Refere asks TMO "Is it a try - Yes or No?".

TMO grounding is fine BUt the is a player pulled back so no try.

Ignoring JUSTICE.

Did the officials follow correct protocol inview of the question asked?

 

[crossref]

Sounds ok ? The tmo looks at foul play in the last phase doesn't he ?

 

[beckett50]

If the TMO has said the grounding "...is fine." then the fact the ball carrier is pulled back after this event is irrelevant; unless it needs escalation to a sanction (YC)

 

[DocY]

Player grounds the ball against he foot of the post. Refere asks TMO "Is it a try - Yes or No?".

TMO grounding is fine BUt the is a player pulled back so no try.

Ignoring JUSTICE.

Did the officials follow correct protocol inview of the question asked?

Why would this be wrong?

Maybe if the referee asked about grounding specifically, but if he just asked "try - yes or no?" then why would foul play be outside his remit?

 

[Camquin]

I am not sure what point Marc is making.
If there is a C&O offence by the attackers before the ball is grounded, then surely the TMO needs to bring this to the refs attention and that negates the try.

If there is an offence by the defence, then play advantage - so in this case award the try, assuming the grounding was good.
There is not really a more advantageous place to score a try, so I donto see how you could award a PT (unless it was not grounded).
Though if there was dangerous play in the build up I believe you can still issue a card.

Or did the TMO say the ball was not grounded but miss the pulling back - in that case it was poor work and sounds like a clear PT.

 

[didds]

If the TMO has said the grounding "...is fine." then the fact the ball carrier is pulled back after this event is irrelevant; unless it needs escalation to a sanction (YC)

His name is Bob Deans and I claim my florin.

didds

 

[didds]

I can only think - rereading the OP a few times - that the attackers pulled a defender back maybe ?

we have all been thinking its the otherway ... I think.

didds

 

[crossref]

I can only think - rereading the OP a few times - that the attackers pulled a defender back maybe ?

we have all been thinking its the otherway ... I think.

didds

We need more context :wink:

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I am not sure what point Marc is making.

I'm asking a question, not making a point.

 

[SimonSmith]

It isn't clear who was pulled back is the issue

 

[Marc Wakeham]

The specific nature of the incident is not the issue. The protocol is.

WR TMO protocol states

The referee will then ask the TMO one of three questions:

1) Is it a try - Yes or NO?

2) Can you give me a reason why I can't award a try?

3) But for the act of foul play – probable try or no try?

What do those questions mean in terms of what can the TMO look at? or what is the "practical" difference betwee nthe questions

from that we have the question I posed which was:

Did the officials follow correct protocol in view of the question asked?

 

[Flish]

Nothing to back this up, but I don’t think the questions change what he can look at, the questions just define the type of answer he’s looking for?

 

[crossref]

:

Did the officials follow correct protocol in view of the question asked?

From the information you gave , I am going to say yes.
I suspect you think the answer is no, but I am not clear why

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Nothing to back this up, but I don’t think the questions change what he can look at, the questions just define the type of answer he’s looking for?

Thanks Flish!

 

[crossref]

I still don't get it