Wales vs Eng - Knock on and Time back on after asking captain to speak to players

[Dickie E]

This is one of those situations where the process worked, to (probably) the wrong outcome.

PG said on-filed decision was a try.
For the TMO to nix that, he has to see something clear and obvious.
There is a lot of debate about the decision, which suggests to me that there was nothing C&O in error. So, we stick with the onfield decision.

I wonder what would have happened if he had been able to ask " Try yes or no?" and given the tMO freedom?

it wasn't the TMO making the call. The ref watched the replay on the screen and reached his own conclusion. When he asked if anyone disagreed, they couldn't really do anything but keep schtum.

 

[crossref]

For the knock on , the presence of a TMO, unusually, didn't help.
Without a TMO, without replays he would surely would have given a ko

The replays gave him time to confuse himself

Looking forward to hearing what WR have to say about this one

 

[didds]

Theyll say nothing. They rarely hang their refs out to dry.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

THey have their own video to help them:

https://www.world.rugby/the-game/la...0WxqLU4KU_CqZb_Hna-415bkM3NvNWSsdv8FPeX0Jouyg

 

[DocY]

Interesting parallels with Wayne Barnes's handling of the O'Mahoney RC.

After reviewing the footage, Barnes said something like "okay, so what are the facts? His shoulder has made contact... blah blah blah"

Whereas in this case, they just jumped straight to the outcome. Granted there may have been language issues on Saturday, but that's a much better way of doing it. Make the on-field referee the only one responsible for getting the law right and have the TMO report the facts.

In this case
TMO: "okay, he's knocked the ball forward with one hand, tried to gather it with his other, he's not in control, it's gone straight down off his hip then gone backwards off his calf"
Ref: "Thanks, so there's a clear knock forward off his hand and he's not re gathered the ball. Scrum" (of course, he might say the other thing, but you wouldn't get two referees disagreeing about law!)

And that'd give us a better understanding of their decision making.

 

[SimonSmith]

Interesting parallels with Wayne Barnes's handling of the O'Mahoney RC.

After reviewing the footage, Barnes said something like "okay, so what are the facts? His shoulder has made contact... blah blah blah"

Whereas in this case, they just jumped straight to the outcome. Granted there may have been language issues on Saturday, but that's a much better way of doing it. Make the on-field referee the only one responsible for getting the law right and have the TMO report the facts.

In this case
TMO: "okay, he's knocked the ball forward with one hand, tried to gather it with his other, he's not in control, it's gone straight down off his hip then gone backwards off his calf"
Ref: "Thanks, so there's a clear knock forward off his hand and he's not re gathered the ball. Scrum" (of course, he might say the other thing, but you wouldn't get two referees disagreeing about law!)

And that'd give us a better understanding of their decision making.

Barnes was exemplary.

Theyll say nothing. They rarely hang their refs out to dry.

Yup. Paddy OBrien has retired

 

[Dickie E]

Whereas in this case, they just jumped straight to the outcome. Granted there may have been language issues on Saturday, but that's a much better way of doing it. Make the on-field referee the only one responsible for getting the law right and have the TMO report the facts.

In this case
TMO: "okay, he's knocked the ball forward with one hand, tried to gather it with his other, he's not in control, it's gone straight down off his hip then gone backwards off his calf"
Ref: "Thanks, so there's a clear knock forward off his hand and he's not re gathered the ball. Scrum" (of course, he might say the other thing, but you wouldn't get two referees disagreeing about law!)

And that'd give us a better understanding of their decision making.

if the ref is doing his own TMOing off the big screen makes me wonder what the purpose of the chap in the box is

 

[crossref]

if the ref is doing his own TMOing off the big screen makes me wonder what the purpose of the chap in the box is

didn't the TMO initiate the review (because he'd seen a knock on) ? Or did PG just decide to check

 

[Jz558]

Whilst finding the conversation between referee and TMO interesting I've always felt uneasy that it means that the TMO and AR's can't actually say what they mean hence the need for coded language such as "Let me show you it from another angle". After Saturday I am convinced that there ought to be the facility for the TMO and Referee to speak privately (maybe a second channel). Refs regularly make wrong decisions or have brain farts but the system is made to look foolish if a team of 4 cant collaborate to rectify those mistakes for fear of seemingly undermining the referee.

 

[didds]

Aye. When the discussion is fully public and the ref comes to a conclusion and says "Do we all agree" it leaves 2 x ARs and a TMO in a difficult position if they do disagree.

didds

 

[Dickie E]

I like the NRL bunker system.

Ref says "I think it's a try [or not]". Then over to bunker to confirm or deny.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Granted there may have been language issues on Saturday,

Referee Frenchman Pascal Gauzère FRANCE

ARS Andrew Brace & Frank Murphy Ireland

TMO Alex Ruiz FRANCE

Why would the Referee and the TMO have "language issues"?

 

[DocY]

Referee Frenchman Pascal Gauzère FRANCE

ARS Andrew Brace & Frank Murphy Ireland

TMO Alex Ruiz FRANCE

Why would the Referee and the TMO have "language issues"?

Well they were both speaking English.

I don't know how good both their English is, but maybe they weren't as confident explaining what they were looking at as if they were speaking French. I'm just speculating. It might not have been an issue at all.

 

[OB..]

[...]Player throws ball forward to kick it, in laws theoretically a knock but evidently not.

I have often pointed this out as a flaw in the laws.

[...]Throwing a ball forward over a defender and regaining it.

A deliberate throw forward is just as much a PK offence as a deliberate knock on.​

 

[OB..]

In today's Times, Rob Debney agrees with Nigel Owens that the two tries in question should have been disallowed.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

And the ref has, according to Jutge admitted he was wrong. for both try 1 and try 2.

 

[didds]

In today's Times, Rob Debney agrees with Nigel Owens that the two tries in question should have been disallowed.

So accepting that as the case and with a view to moving on...

does this then mean the TMO concept is not working and may as well be scrapped?
Does it mean the concept is fine but its implementation/use in some cases is very flawed?
- and what to do about that wrt fixing it? Presumably in real time?

FTR my view is the TMO stuff is valid - but when it breaks down how to "fix that" I dont know. With the acceptance of that "both tries were incorrectly awarded info above" Im not sure how it can be prevented from happening again. Short of somehow permitting an "after the event" scratching of the points - and Im not overly comfortable with that either.

I guess it is what it is.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I have often pointed this out as a flaw in the laws.

​

It is not a "flaw in the laws". To kick the ball it has to be dropped therefore it is obvious that you must be able to drop the ball in order to kick (punt or drop kick) the ball. Therefore, since kicking is allowed, the dropping of the ball in that CONTEXT is clearly legal. It is tacetly implied if nothing else.

Perpetuating this myth is just not helpful.

 

[Camquin]

The problem is that our law framers have gone for a short law book rather than a clear law book.
I would prefer to see notes to the laws.
One could clarify the intention if the ball goes from hand to leg.

I think he never had the ball under control, therefore cannot have been intending to kick and the fact that it hit his leg is irrelevant - but I understand the laws are ambigous and could be interpretted as if it comes off the legg below the knee - it is a kick, so cannot be a knock on.

It would also be the place to clarify that for a knock on the player's movement is not considered. However, for a throw forward it is.

But once the TMO cannot see a knock on, the referee has to give the try.

 

[Skids]

It appears Mr Gauzere admits he got both decisions wrong.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-v-england-referee-pascal-19938253