What does Clear & Obvious really mean?

[Dickie E]

http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-who-put-it-out/2830275/

The assistant referee did not have thew advantage of a slow-motion replay but it is always wise to use the principle of clear and obvious. It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out, because that did not happen. The second principle involved is the absolute ban on guessing. Guess and you get it right, you are lucky; guess and you get it wrong and you deserve censure. It is after all a form of dishonesty.

I understand the concept of C&O when it relates to an offence - a possible throw forward that is not C&O is play on, possible offside that is not C&O is play on ,etc.

But the author of the quote above has, I think, extended the concept beyond where it was meant to go. While the comment "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball and then put his foot out" is accurate, it is equally accurate to say "It was not clear and obvious that Habana had caught the ball while his foot was in touch".

And to characterise an official's judgement call as "a form of dishonesty" is just offensive.

 

[crossref]

What a terrible article by SA refs.
It was a simple mistake. End of

The talking point from the incident is why can't the TMO be used? The replays showed the decision to be wrong even before the lineout had been taken. Oops, peep, TMO , SA throw

 

[Dickie E]

I've sent an email of complaint to the SA website

 

[Ian_Cook]

While I disagree with the tone of the SA article, I partially agree with the sentiment. However, I don;t think clear and obvious can really apply here.

When we judge sometihng like a forward pass, we have a default position to fall back on; we regard a pass as OK unless we see it clearly and obviously forward. However, in the case of the Habana catch, there is no default position to fall back on; the AR has to make a decision one way or the other. Watching at full speed without a second look, I challenge anyone to honestly say that it was clear and obvious one way or the other. It was so close that no matter what the AR decided, he could have been wrong.

 

[Dickie E]

, I partially agree with the sentiment.

in what way? The TMO thing?

 

[crossref]

I thought the article was plain wrong and the reference to dishonesty is offensive.

Denied the ability to use a TMO, the AR has no choice but to make a decision, a judgement, a 'guess' if you will.
As Ian says there's no default position to fall back on ... it was either catch/foot out or foot out / catch, and it was very close.

At grassroots with no TMO, often no reliable TJ, we refs make these sort of decisions all the time. Sometimes we'll get it wrong, shrug.

 

[Ian_Cook]

in what way? The TMO thing?

Yes. I see no reason why the TMO shouldn't simply be able to call up the referee and say "AR got it wrong, It South Africa's throw in"