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

[crossref]

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.

I think 21.17 would apply only if you can't see who got the hand on it first. If you can determine that, the first one gets the touchdown.

In this case it is difficult to see who got the hand on first

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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"

The AR said "he thinks it is a try" That is certainly not enoug to say 'our decision is a try'. Nigel turned a "think" into a clear decision. That relly is not good enough, The subconsious bias to wards the attacing side turns "think" into "know". Poor.

THe AR did not award the try ( I am going on the posters wording) from this there is not way Nigel's wordign is appropriate. Therefore "subconsious bias" twists the call into "Onfiield it's at try".

Based on the wording the question wshould have been "Try, yes or no?" Subconsios bias changed the question.

 

[Jolly Roger]

I think 21.17 would apply only if you can't see who got the hand on it first. If you can determine that, the first one gets the touchdown.

In this case it is difficult to see who got the hand on first

Hi CR I disagree. I don’t see the relevance of “who got the hand on first” as both got a hand on before it was grounded and maintained contact with the ball until it was grounded.

Law 8.2 states
“A try is scored when an attacking player:
a. Is first to ground the ball in the opponents’ in-goal.”

Law 21.1 states
“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.”

Therefore, what is relevant is who is touching the ball at the moment that it was grounded. Who touched it before is not relevant.

If an attacker and defender were wrestling for the ball and fell to ground in goal while both. maintaining contact we would not be bothered with who held it first.

 

[crossref]

I don't agree:
Speaking generally if green is going in to score, and gold manage to add a hand on the ball, that's still a try, I reckon

 

[Jolly Roger]

Bad example from me about 2 players wrestling for the ball.
It clouds this discussion.
I withdraw that.

 

[chbg]

I don't agree:
Speaking generally if green is going in to score, and gold manage to add a hand on the ball, that's still a try, I reckon

I agree with that when attackers (green) are in possession of the ball. When neither side is in possession, which has to be patently so in this instance (neither man could have been fairly tackled), then the official(s) have to determine who grounded it (applied downward pressure etc etc) first.

 

[Dickie E]

The AR said "he thinks it is a try" That is certainly not enoug to say 'our decision is a try'. Nigel turned a "think" into a clear decision. That relly is not good enough, The subconsious bias to wards the attacing side turns "think" into "know". Poor.

THe AR did not award the try ( I am going on the posters wording) from this there is not way Nigel's wordign is appropriate. Therefore "subconsious bias" twists the call into "Onfiield it's at try".

Based on the wording the question wshould have been "Try, yes or no?" Subconsios bias changed the question.

Yes I agree. But current protocol appears to be either "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". The old (& better) "try, yes or no" seems to have been relegated. I expect it was a reaction to refs appearing to abrogate their responsibility of making decisions but may now have led to incorrect decisions.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Yes I agree. But current protocol appears to be either "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". The old (& better) "try, yes or no" seems to have been relegated. I expect it was a reaction to refs appearing to abrogate their responsibility of making decisions but may now have led to incorrect decisions.

I much prefer the method where the referee makes a decision and the video has to show clear evidence the decision is wrong to overturn it. This works well in the NRL and the NFL; there is no reason it should not work well in RU.

The problem with this decision that there was clear evidence it was not a try, and even a law that covers that scenario....

[LAWS]Law 21.17

DOUBT ABOUT GROUNDING
If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in.[/LAWS]

The AR said he thinks its a try - that sounds like doubt to me, so the TMO should have ruled accordingly - no try.

I have had a rant about this once before with regard to Jerome Garces. A player (Mike Brown IIRC) grounded the ball on his own forearm. Jerome Garces said "I think its a try, but you should check". The AR should never say what he "thinks" he sees, he should only ever say what he actually sees

1. Try
2. No-try
3. Not sure

 

[Dickie E]

The AR said he thinks its a try - that sounds like doubt to me, so the TMO should have ruled accordingly - no try.

but it appears to me that that isn't an option. It seems that the ref must either say "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". Then the TMO can only overule if there is C&O evidence to the contrary.

Or can the ref say something else?

 

[Ian_Cook]

but it appears to me that that isn't an option. It seems that the ref must either say "onfield we have a try" or "onfield we have no try". Then the TMO can only overule if there is C&O evidence to the contrary.

Or can the ref say something else?

IMO, Doubt About Grounding counts as evidence to overturn; its a specific law in the Laws of the Game

 

[Dickie E]

IMO, Doubt About Grounding counts as evidence to overturn; its a specific law in the Laws of the Game

it would need a TMO with some serious stones to overule an "onfield we have a try" call because he had doubts on grounding. Doubts about grounding unlikely to pass the C&O test, IMO

 

[Ian_Cook]

it would need a TMO with some serious stones to overule an "onfield we have a try" call because he had doubts on grounding. Doubts about grounding unlikely to pass the C&O test, IMO

As TMO, I would simply say....

"Nigel. The attacking player and the defending player grounded the ball simultaneously"

... and leave it up to him.

 

[Dickie E]

As TMO, I would simply say....

"Nigel. The attacking player and the defending player grounded the ball simultaneously"

... and leave it up to him.

and as Nigel I would reply : "so there is no C&O reason to overule our onfield decision? Thank you" Peep, try.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

and as Nigel I would reply : "so there is no C&O reason to overule our onfield decision? Thank you" Peep, try.

At least then there is no doubt where the blame for the wrong call lies. Don't hang the ref out to dry. But if he wants to shoot himself in the foot there is nothing to be done.

Incidentlly the score was close when this error happened. Who knows but it was potentially a game changing call.

 

[Ian_Cook]

and as Nigel I would reply : "so there is no C&O reason to overule our onfield decision? Thank you" Peep, try.

You could, but of course, that decision would be in direct defiance of Law 21.17.

 

[crossref]

I think NO mismanaged this .. he would have been better to say
"On field decision, doubt over grounding, 5m scrum, please can you check"

That makes it very easy for the TMO to come back with try, 22m or 5m scrum, depending on what he can see on the video

 

[Dickie E]

I think NO mismanaged this .. he would have been better to say
"On field decision, doubt over grounding, 5m scrum, please can you check"

well, he couldn't really say that cos the AR had said its a try.

 

[crossref]

well, he couldn't really say that cos the AR had said its a try.

Basically between the four of them they used a poor dialogue to reach the wrong result

 

[Marc Wakeham]

well, he couldn't really say that cos the AR had said its a try.

THe AR said "I think..." there is the, very clear, doubt! Nigel SHOULD have said: "We think we have a try but we are not sureasthere is doubt over the grounding. Can you take a look please Sean?" Sean B could then have easily said "yes Nige your doubts a well founded. There is clear doubt over who grounded the ball. Scrum 5, attacking ball.

 

[OB..]

[...]The AR said he thinks its a try - that sounds like doubt to me, so the TMO should have ruled accordingly - no try.

If he says "I think it is a try", then he is expressing a firm opinion.
If he says "I think it is a try", then he is uncertain.