I am not so sure. I think it's one of those situations where the best decision is the one that all thirty players are expecting.
It was a bit of a gotcha
Yes, but we also don't want the ref to be the talking point, and the centre of the game , we would rather be invisible
Knock on would have helped with that. It's the expected decision
It might be the expected decision, but surely can’t be appropriate if it is the wrong decision. Surely we should be aiming to get things right not expected.
I can’t believe that some people are moaning about a referee getting a decision right!
MA did exactly what he is ‘expected’ to do at that level of game.
Yes, but we also don't want the ref to be the talking point, and the centre of the game , we would rather be invisible
Knock on would have helped with that. It's the expected decision
Yes, but we also don't want the ref to be the talking point, and the centre of the game , we would rather be invisible
Knock on would have helped with that. It's the expected decision
normal service has resumed. I cannot disagree with this more strongly.
Knock on would have been wrong and denied the score. Let's now make this, for example, a wc semi final and not just an autumn tour. One score difference and it's this one.
You are saying a team should be denied the opportunity to go to the wc final because the ref should give an expected and not the correct decision? Really?
.Sydneysider Marshall, who controlled 28 Tests between 1993-2003, is increasingly disillusioned over the TMO's constant interference.
He believes referees are losing the feel for a game.
Talking about the Tompkins incident, Marshall said: "In my day, if 30 players thought it was a knock on then you'd rule a knock on.
"That's what I reckon happened in that situation.
"If he'd blown his whistle straight away, no-one would have questioned it.
"Even the player that's scored the try has gone 'I don’t think it’s going to be a try'.
"There were no celebrations under the posts….he knew it was likely to be pulled back.
"That's the way we used to rule. We definitely looked at reaction and body language of players."
The body language of frustrated and infuriated fans would suggest World Rugby has a crisis on its hands.
The game is being strangled to death by its own laws.
This incident reminded me of a lecture I got from an advisor once about the difference between a bad call and a wrong call.
There are some things that as a referee you're expected to get right, and if you get them wrong it's a bad decision; there are some things you'd be expected to get wrong (like this one) and if you get them wrong it's okay - either nobody will notice or they'll understand.
But this was one of those really good calls where you'd expect the referee to get it wrong, but he actually got it right! If he'd called a knock-on, nobody would have cared and it wouldn't be a talking point - maybe someone saying "I don't think that went forward, you know" but that would be it.
I see CR's point - it needed a replay to show he was right, which the likes of me and thee wouldn't have - so if we'd given a knock on, it'd have been a reasonable decision.
But he did have the replays so most of the discussion is probably caused by the Australians stopping playing! And the ref couldn't do much about that.
But he did have the replays so most of the discussion is probably caused by the Australians stopping playing! And the ref couldn't do much about that.
Yes I like this bit
Talking about the Tompkins incident, Marshall said: "In my day, if 30 players thought it was a knock on then you'd rule a knock on.
In his day, people also played to the whistle and didn't throw up their arms and stare at the ref.