[In-goal] Try: Yes or No? Or?

[chbg]

Blatant plagiarism from RugbyReferee.net Facebook site for those unfortunate enough not to see it there. Your decision, in Law?

https://youtu.be/JYH_moAbMbI?t=87

 

[CrouchTPEngage]

Looks like one of Law 21.17 - If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.

 

[tim White]

I wasn't sure even with the replay; 5m Scrum. " I can't tell, even you can't tell, we'll have a scrum 5 please"

 

[didds]

and in the interests of C&O, and not nano grame by nano frame and save ten minutes fo fraff attacking 5m scrum seems to be the obvious choice?

 

[beckett50]

I'd have said "No", defender got there first - my justification being that his right arm was underneath that of the Red attacking player and appeared to have touched the ball to the ground first.

Therefore 22m drop-out as a restart.

 

[Flish]

Without the TMO protocol I would say “no idea” and go with attacking scrum, however technically NO has awarded a try - so assume no doubt? - at that point it’s either try or clear and obvious reason not to isn’t it? Attacking scrum off the cards? Appreciate that doesn’t give us the correct outcome though.

 

[Dickie E]

red 21 offside at the kick

 

[Not Kurt Weaver]

worst haircut ever, what is going on in the valleys?

no try, bad haircut

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Subconsious bias towards the attacking side from elite officials? At ruck and maul and elsewhere the expectation is that the "defendiers" are more likely to offend whilst the "attacking" side are "rewarded" for positive play.

 

[Lee Lifeson-Peart]

Subconsious bias towards the attacking side from elite officials? At ruck and maul and elsewhere the expectation is that the "defendiers" are more likely to offend whilst the "attacking" side are "rewarded" for positive play.

Cardiff fan then?

 

[Camquin]

Listening to the comentary, No admits he has had no idea - the AR tells him he thinks it is a try but needs to be checked, so NO tells the TMO 'our decision is a try'. Which I think is good use of the team.

I cannot see a C&O offside at the kick.

 

[Jz558]

Even with the benefit of being able to pause the screen I can't differentiate and therefore scrum 5, Red ball. What I'm interested in is how Ben Whitehouse was so certain that the try had been scored from his position behind the two (three) players competing for the ball that his only concern was whether it had been knocked on?

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Listening to the comentary, No admits he has had no idea - the AR tells him he thinks it is a try but needs to be checked, so NO tells the TMO 'our decision is a try'. Which I think is good use of the team.

I cannot see a C&O offside at the kick.

That is big leap (without subconsious bias).

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Cardiff fan then?

Far Far from being a Cardiff Blues Fan. Sorry to spoil your party.


You did see the word "SUBCONSIOUS" in front of the word bias I take it? Subconsious bias and bias (consious) are two wery different things.

 

[Dickie E]

That is big leap (without subconsious bias).

why? What Camquin describes is exactly what happened. So effectively the AR awarded the try because neither NO or the TMO had reason to overule. I think that is the flaw with "onfield we have a try" process. It should be "onfield we have no idea so over to you with the slo-mo"

 

[crossref]

for me there was two questions

1 - did NO make an error when he told the TMO 'On field decision try' ? should he have been more circumspect?
2 - once NO had had said that, was it possible for the TMO to over-rule him with a non-decision decision ?

 

[Dickie E]

1 - did NO make an error when he told the TMO 'On field decision try' ? should he have been more circumspect?

I kind of have the feeling that isn't an option. But I'm not 100% on that. Is the ref allowed to be equivocal?

 

[Jz558]

NO said he hadnt seen anybody ground it and gave the on-field decision solely on the basis that BW said he had seen it (but thought it should be checked for a knock on). Thats all fine except I'm still wondering how the AR could see it when he was behind play with both bodies between him and the ball. What would be interesting though is what the TMO said which obviously isnt in the clip.

 

[Dickie E]

What would be interesting though is what the TMO said which obviously isnt in the clip.

presumably the TMO said 'I can see no C&O reason to overule your onfield decision'

 

[Jolly Roger]

As I see it from the slow motion replay a player from each side places a hand on the ball whilst it is in the air. Both hands remain in contact with the ball until it touches the ground. Therefore under LOTG law 21.17 neither team grounded the ball first and it is not a try.

If the TMO is asked “any reason why I cannot award the try” then the answer is “yes under law 21.17 both player touched it down simultaneously so no try”.
If TMO was asked “can you see a knock on or off-side...? If not I am awarding the try” then the TMO says “I cannot see evidence of those offences stated. However, it is clear from the footage that both players touched the ball down simultaneously. You may wish to review”

What is important here? I suggest that the objective is to ensure that the correct decision is made by the team of 4 in accordance with LOTG.