What decision would you have made - Hurricanes vs Chiefs

[Blindpugh]

Guys,

I have not officiated for over 2 years but when i did at grassroots level man on the floor was out of the game.

Enjoyed above game but at 78th minute chiefs scrum half made break and scored try:clap:

Hurricanes appealed for knock on so Glen Campbell (former Saracens 10) went to TMO Vinney Jones - decision knock on.

Replay showed that Hurricanes player on the floor and out of the game had interfered with play and caused knock.

Cn somebody explain this decision please. I would have awarded penalty to Chiefs and stuck Hurricanes player in the bin if i had benefit of video.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Guys,

I have not officiated for over 2 years but when i did at grassroots level man on the floor was out of the game.

Enjoyed above game but at 78th minute chiefs scrum half made break and scored try:clap:

Hurricanes appealed for knock on so Glen Campbell (former Saracens 10) went to TMO Vinney Jones - decision knock on.

Replay showed that Hurricanes player on the floor and out of the game had interfered with play and caused knock.

Cn somebody explain this decision please. I would have awarded penalty to Chiefs and stuck Hurricanes player in the bin if i had benefit of video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72kZbS3wJGE


This guy describes it quite well..

I saw this game. Yes, it was a knock on by Black (Chiefs) but as you say, the Gold (Hurricanes) player on the ground interfered with the Black player on the ground, a PK offence. The black player on the ground then grabs the ball (also a PK offence) from where it has been knocked forward to and brings to back to where the SH picked it up.

IMO, the decision to disallow the try is correct, its the restart that the referee and TMO have wrong. It should have restarted with a PK to black - 15.4 - not a scrum to gold for the knock on.

PS:
Glen Campbell is a country singer, Glen Jackson is the referee
Vinny Jones is an ex-Soccer player (a filthy one by all accounts), Vinnie Munro is the TMO

 

[Crucial]

:clap:

I think you may mean Glen Jackson and Vinny Munro, but that did raise a chuckle.

I agree with your decision, but would like to ask others if there is any advantage to play out here?

Only vid I could find with just the incident

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72kZbS3wJGE

 

[Crucial]

Ian, I would agree with your decision but if the ball is knocked from the black players hands by a yellow player on the ground is it a knock on/ lost forward? Agree also that black then retrieved the ball also while on the ground and that nullifies any advantage if you strictly apply the Law. However given that the attacking team is always allowed latitude to get the ball back with their hands at every other ruck in the game, an argument could be made for play on.
VM couldn't even see the first offence so I doubt he would have seen the second.

Certainly penalty against yellow. Probably YC.

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian, I would agree with your decision but if the ball is knocked from the black players hands by a yellow player on the ground is it a knock on/ lost forward? Agree also that black then retrieved the ball also while on the ground and that nullifies any advantage if you strictly apply the Law. However given that the attacking team is always allowed latitude to get the ball back with their hands at every other ruck in the game, an argument could be made for play on.
VM couldn't even see the first offence so I doubt he would have seen the second.

Certainly penalty against yellow. Probably YC.

Even in slo-mo, its hard to tell whether Gold knocks the ball out of Black's hand by knocking the ball itself, or by knocking Black's arm, or a bit of both. Its not C & O, but either way, whether Gold first impacts the ball or not, its still an infringement under 15.4 (b) or (c)
If the ball is not knocked forward, IMO the latitude we allow a player on the ground in possession of the ball to get the ball to the back of a tackle/ruck does not extend to allowing a player not in possession to reach over and grab the ball to get the ball to the back, i.e. the infringement by Gold does not justify a further infringement by Black.

 

[Crucial]

Even in slo-mo, its hard to tell whether Gold knocks the ball out of Black's hand by knocking the ball itself, or by knocking Black's arm, or a bit of both. Its not C & O, but either way, whether Gold first impacts the ball or not, its still an infringement under 15.4 (b) or (c)
If the ball is not knocked forward, IMO the latitude we allow a player on the ground in possession of the ball to get the ball to the back of a tackle/ruck does not extend to allowing a player not in possession to reach over and grab the ball to get the ball to the back, i.e. the infringement by Gold does not justify a further infringement by Black.

Fair enough. That's what I suspected, just wanted to make sure I understood it clearly. Even if the ball was knocked free of possession illegally, two wrongs can't make a right.

I have come to the conclusion that this event, while obvious to everyone else that saw the replay was missed by the officials due to tunnel vision and poor process. The reason GJ went upstairs is that the yellow team were screaming at him that there was a KO. He saw nothing himself. That raises questions of fair process as many times in the game the Black captain asked him to review something and his replay was 'I saw nothing, I'm not going back'. Needless to say he was placed in an awkward position then, because the replay would have shown an incident and he would have been pilloried by Yellow if he hadn't reviewed.
Then the tunnel vision in the TMO process. Because GJ was alerted to a possible KO by Black, he asked VJ to check for a KO at the ruck. Once he said that it narrowed the scope of what was being looked for and between them neither saw the obvious interference..


Similar situation to AGs poor QT call in the Rebels/ Blues game. Because the question being asked was focused on some aspects the other aspects were ignored.

Seems to me that there is a lot of room for improvement in the tMO system still and a move to something similar to what cricket have done with the DRS is a good starting point. They now use a prescribed script to run through for the third Ump rather than have conversations and misunderstandings.