Happy
Alex Ross (28)
That's exactly what happened. It went back to the place where the ball was kicked (by Fainga'a) for a scrum with Brumbies feed.
Refereeing decisions
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
That's exactly what happened. It went back to the place where the ball was kicked (by Fainga'a) for a scrum with Brumbies feed.
Do you have any idea when approximately in the game it was? I haven't seen it and would be keen to see.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
On the issue of Savea's knock-on in the leadup to Fidow's try, had to do some digging but think I found what I was looking for in 2.2.2 of this document which, I believe, is the current TMO protocol. It comes directly from WR (World Rugby)'s site (6.16).
"2 Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
Seems pretty clear to me that the officials should not have been allowed to look at anything prior to the penalty against White? In saying that, there were some obnoxious TMO interventions in SRAo winding back up to two or three minutes of game play, so who knows wtf the rules are.
"2 Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set-piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls"
Seems pretty clear to me that the officials should not have been allowed to look at anything prior to the penalty against White? In saying that, there were some obnoxious TMO interventions in SRAo winding back up to two or three minutes of game play, so who knows wtf the rules are.
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
^ in SRAo they used a Variation that basically scrubbed out the "two previous rucks" bit. Not sure if that carried over to TT.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Because they were playing under advantage they could go back
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Roigard takes a quick tap for the penalty (72:27 on the match clock), so they weren't playing under advantage. His tap restarts play and marks the point of no return for the TMO's intervention.
Rebel man
John Thornett (49)
Look in that case you’re right I forgot that detail
Dctarget
Tim Horan (67)
Yes but you forgot regulation 2.4.1 ss. (h) which states: "how do you like 'dem apples! Cop the loss, where's your humility now? Australia has always been better at rugby. We're going to make NZ a state of Australia. Nay not even a state, you'll be a territory. We'll call you the Eastern Territory."
It's a small but significant clause.
mst
Peter Johnson (47)
Ah, now this is where it gets murky, and from what I understand (and I am happy to be corrected) the quick tap (restart) provides the opportunity for the TMO intention via a "fair play concept" later down track. It's unfortunate under the circumstances, but consider it like taking the quick conversation to stop a TMO review in the past. As there was no opportunity for the TMO intervention without stopping play for no reason due to the quick tap (its in this stoppage they would normally due the review) they then wait until the next stoppage. It stops teams using a quick restart as a mechanism to prevent TMO review like in the past with the quick conversations.
Its common, and I will say I not a fan of leaving it so long. I think Rugby needs to decide who needs make the decisions during a game. It give me the shites that the TMO makes the decision there is an infringement but them passes the back to the on field ref to decide via a replay, and half the time it goes back to the TMO to decide. Yet if a touchie makes a call, it is accepted and we don't review (noting sometimes the touchies are Junior refs). Why cant the TMO just frigging make the decision and ditch the referral unless it foul play?
[Rant inserted here] IMHO the referring, use of TMO, inconsistencies and differing interpretations is becoming a blight and embarrassing element (and frustration generator) of the game.
I had to explain to my confused Mr nine year old that; " in Rugby the "concept" of what is forward does not exist. In rugby it is what a single person, being the referee, decides what is not, not backwards. But there are many influences that can change what is not, not backwards, such as which way your hands are going. Yes, in the real world this directly corresponds with the the direction the ball travels but.... actually, you know how sometimes you just guess what right and wrong, well that's what referees generally do. You just need to try not to get hang up on it. Its stupid, but you know adults can be very silly sometimes. Lets just get back to watching the game. I will explain the knock on later when we get home". (fingers crossed he does not remember to ask!).
Up the Guts
Steve Williams (59)
You’ve missed the point of this thread.
I think this is right, there was a forward pass or knock-on by the Crusaders in the lead-up to one of their tries last week but the video ref said it was outside the two phases so the try stood.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
yep I know mate.
Set piece magic
John Solomon (38)
Not sure if this is the thread for it, but has to be a huge congrats to Nic Berry on being appointed to the first test match of BIL v South Africa. Nic is a great ref despite some of the nonsense randomly thrown aroundd, he makes good decisions, polices the offside line well and is a deserved appointment.
zer0
John Thornett (49)
Just tuned in to the Hurricanes/Reds match and saw the officials go back ~90m and about a minute of play for a penalty and card. As a general comment, if they're going to go increasingly further back for penalties -- at some points they went back two or three minutes in SRA -- then they need to start resetting the clock, as happens in the NFL. It's a bit farcical to invalidate a few minutes of play but not rewind the clock to match.
dru
David Wilson (68)
If that was the Kiwi head shot, it did not need to let run even 1m. Obvious to all.
Dan54
David Wilson (68)
Actually saw a good one that would wind everyome up the other day from NH . The TMO went back to a direct contact to head. the ref (rightly in my opinion) said he had gone as low as he could, and said it was just a rugby incident. The TMO came back again, as did the ARs and said but he made contact with head. Ref said again he was as low as he could be in a tackle and so he didn't penalise him even. Was good to see a ref being in charge and making right call in my opinion!
