Quarter Final - Brumbies vs Highlanders, 22 July 2016 @ 6:00pm

[ACT Crusader]

Lots of tries are awarded without seeing the ball grounded. Maul tries the prime example.

All I'm saying is, in 50/50 calls the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt.

Not sure I agree with that at the top level of rugby that lots of tries are awarded without seeing grounding. Most of the refs get themselves in very good positions on maul drives to see the grounding.

Also there is no benefit of the doubt in rugby.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I continue to be impressed by the Highlanders, they play positive smart rugby.

Shitty windy night, stick a decent jumper at two and make them go to 4 or throw wide going long.

They simply took the ponies only consistent, potent attacking weapon off the table.

All those 300,000 5m scrums would have been mauling lineouts if they hadn't negated it early and made the ponies look for other options

I agree that the Landers played a smart game against the Brumbies' lineout, but it was helped immeasurably at least on the occasion of a 5m lineout when the Brumbies jumped Michael Wells at No 2 when they still had Carter (I think), Enever and Staniforth on the ground. Totally mystifying.

 

[galumay]

Lots of tries are awarded without seeing the ball grounded. Maul tries the prime example.

No, thats simply untrue.

All I'm saying is, in 50/50 calls the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt.

Why? This case shows the current system works, ref unsighted, refers to TMO, no clear and obvious grounding so no try. In this specific case they had quite a few angles and in none of them did it appear the ball was grounded over the line so I dont think this one was even one where there was any reason for controversy.

 

[wamberal]

If the referee had not slipped over he might have seen the ball grounded.


But, as it stands, there is no visual evidence anywhere that the ball was grounded.


So, how on earth can a try be awarded?



Can you imagine the uproar?

 

[Viking]

No, thats simply untrue.



Why? This case shows the current system works, ref unsighted, refers to TMO, no clear and obvious grounding so no try. In this specific case they had quite a few angles and in none of them did it appear the ball was grounded over the line so I dont think this one was even one where there was any reason for controversy.

No reason for controversy? The fact is we will never know if it was grounded or not. There is every chance he DID get the ball on the line we just couldn't see it. Seriously, all you need to do is ground the ball with any part of your body on one hair-line part of the line and technically it is a try.

There is no conclusive evidence that is wasn't 100% not a try. There was no conclusive footage of him being held up, and no conclusive footage of him losing the ball. The footage was INCONCLUSIVE!

So just because no-one saw it doesn't mean it wasn't a try. The fact is, it is an unknown.

So why should unknowns be awarded no try rather then try? My point is, attacking teams should get the advantage in unknowns. This would lead to a dominate maul being awarded with a try even though bodies are flying everywhere and you can't see the ball grounded.

 

[Viking]

If the referee had not slipped over he might have seen the ball grounded.


But, as it stands, there is no visual evidence anywhere that the ball was grounded.


So, how on earth can a try be awarded?



Can you imagine the uproar?

But if he did get the ball down he should be awarded a try. Why should the try-scorer be penalised because no-body saw it? Essentially he is being penalised because the ref wasn't doing his job properly.

 

[RugbyReg]

If the referee had not slipped over he might have seen the ball grounded.


But, as it stands, there is no visual evidence anywhere that the ball was grounded.


So, how on earth can a try be awarded?



Can you imagine the uproar?

Yep. It'd be the same as this just coming from our east.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Braveheart81]

Either way Gardner went there, there would be controversy. In a situation where it was highly likely that the ball was grounded over the line but no replay was able to conclusively show that, no decision is going to be without drama.

 

[Viking]

Either way the Brumbies didn't deserve to win. Although I thought the effort was superb.

It was also a great game to watch despite the weather and scoreline. Entertaining.

 

[Dan54]

But if he did get the ball down he should be awarded a try. Why should the try-scorer be penalised because no-body saw it? Essentially he is being penalised because the ref wasn't doing his job properly.

None knows if anyone is being penalised! Noone has seen the ball grounded over the line so how can it be called penalising the player? I can't for the life of me comprehend that we would want refs to award tries without knowing where the ball is!
I was in NZ (again) on weekend, and must admit haven't seen aftermatch comments by Larkham, but would be a little disappointed if he uses that as an excuse to lose, otherwise you have to go back to all decision like the one where Moore was offside when he handled the ball after the kick through stuff up earlier in game which was in throwing distant of goalposts, and so Brumbies wouldn't of been within striking distance anyway. I can understand internet warriors jumping up and down ,but not sure I like coaches to be blaming refs straight after game.
I still think Gardiner is probably one of best refs around anyway.

 

[Brumby Runner]

There is little doubt in my mind that Taliauli got the ball down on or over the line. The ball was under his body and some angles showed he was a good half body over the line. No doubt at all that there wasn't a hand or other part of a defender's body stopping the ball touching the ground. But, as I say there is a little doubt - on that basis I don't think the try can be awarded.

What leaves a sour taste is that this year alone we've probably seen more questionable tries awarded.

On Gardiner - he is one of the best refs in Super Rugby, but still not outstanding. Unfortunately, the current crop of refs are just about the least competent as a group that I've seen, with the NZ refs all pretty much at the bottom of the pile.

 

[Viking]

None knows if anyone is being penalised! Noone has seen the ball grounded over the line so how can it be called penalising the player? I can't for the life of me comprehend that we would want refs to award tries without knowing where the ball is!
I was in NZ (again) on weekend, and must admit haven't seen aftermatch comments by Larkham, but would be a little disappointed if he uses that as an excuse to lose, otherwise you have to go back to all decision like the one where Moore was offside when he handled the ball after the kick through stuff up earlier in game which was in throwing distant of goalposts, and so Brumbies wouldn't of been within striking distance anyway. I can understand internet warriors jumping up and down ,but not sure I like coaches to be blaming refs straight after game.
I still think Gardiner is probably one of best refs around anyway.

If he scored the try. Then he was penalised. If he didn't then the right call was made. Either way we will never know!

I agree on Larkhams comments. It was disappointing how critical he was of the ref. I thought was fine! I disagreed with the no try call but it was a bloody tough call either way, I can accept those are 50/50 calls and can go either way.

We had many chances to make justice prevail (provided it actually was a try) by scoring in the following phases. We were unsuccessful multiple times.

I hope the highlanders or Lions win the comp. Highlanders because they knocked us out and their travel schedule is crazy. The Lions because it would be something new.

 

[Viking]

It was amazing seeing the contrast of Moore addressing the ref compared to B.Smith. Even the way NZ players address refs are miles ahead of ours.

 

[cyclopath]

Not sure about this Gardiner guy, but Angus Gardner is a terrific ref.

 

[Braveheart81]

Not sure about this Gardiner guy, but Angus Gardner is a terrific ref.

Touché Cycliopath.

 

[Viking]

Not sure about this Gardiner guy, but Angus Gardner is a terrific ref.

Best part of his reffing was telling Moore he needed to show some leadership. Bout time someone told him that.

 

[fatprop]

Lots of tries are awarded without seeing the ball grounded. Maul tries the prime example.

All I'm saying is, in 50/50 calls the attacking team should get the benefit of the doubt.

it wasn't even 50/50, there wasn't any visual evidence seen by either the ref or the cameras that a try was scored, it simply couldn't be given

 

[Viking]

it wasn't even 50/50, there wasn't any visual evidence seen by either the ref or the cameras that a try was scored, it simply couldn't be given

That fair enough if it wasn't 50/50. But I disagree, I think it was 50/50. In real time it looked for all the money a try was scored. My first reaction was "why is he even going to a video ref it looked like a try". Replays showed something different.

I'm not the only one who's first reaction was it was a try. Even Ben Smith stated he thought it was a try in real time until he saw the video.

Anyways, moving on. I've posted too much about a decision I actually care very little about, I understand those tough calls go either way.

 

[Hawko]

Not sure I agree with that at the top level of rugby that lots of tries are awarded without seeing grounding. Most of the refs get themselves in very good positions on maul drives to see the grounding.

Also there is no benefit of the doubt in rugby.

There is benefit of the doubt in rugby. There was doubt the ball was grounded over the line. The benefit of that doubt went to the defensive team.

If five defenders all pile on top of an attacker before the ball hits the ground two metres over the try line, such that the grounding cannot be seen, does that mean it should be ruled no try? I doubt many refs would see it that way. They only see it that way when its close to the line or when there is some other doubt.

TMO's are instructed that if the grounding is not clearly visible it is no try. There are numerous other situations where referees rule on the balance of probabilities (think scrum penalties). You have to have a good reason why you sometimes have to be certain and at other times only probable. The protocols are too biased to the defensive team in this case and they need adjustment.

 

[I like to watch]

....... My point is, attacking teams should get the advantage in unknowns. This would lead to a dominate maul being awarded with a try even though bodies are flying everywhere and you can't see the ball grounded.

Fuck that, rather than rewarding dominant mauls,they should eliminate them.
They are a blight on the game.