Saturday, August 20, 2011
TMO calls a forward pass after All Blacks appear to have scored
You can have a look at the incident yourself below, but in a nutshell, Israel Dagg broke the line and was pulled down short of the tryline, then popped the ball to Jimmy Cowan with a pass that went forward. Cowan crossed over, placed the ball, and it looked like it would be called a try.
Referee George Clancy and his assistant ref missed it, or possibly had some doubts, and there appeared to be some questions over the grounding so he called for TMO Johan Meuwesen, who after saying there was no problem with the grounding, then offered further advice.
"Do you need any other information before the goal line?", said Meuwesen, to which Clancy responded in the affirmative, only to be told there was a forward pass. Clancy then ruled a forward pass without hesitation.
This is, unless otherwise stated by the IRB in a directive that the majority of us are unaware of, not part of the TMO protocol. Therefore Meuwesen was technically in the wrong, even if the decision was correct. It's a bit bizarre really, but that piece of initiative will come under criticism.
Some extracts from the laws state the follow, under law 6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
'(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.'
There have been incidents in the past where a similar thing has occurred, but because of the limitations of the law, the wrong decision was made, for the sake of the officials making sure they're doing a good job. There's huge amounts of irony in that.
So while a bad call was made, Clancy and Meuwesen will now have to face up to the fact that there may well be repercussions of them taking the initiative, to make the right decision.
Whether you watched the game live or are seeing it for the first time now, what are you feelings on what took place? Do you think that this might help extend the TMO capabilities in future, or should they both be reprimanded, and we make sure this never happens again?
Time: 02:09
Posted at 8:54 pm | 144 comments
|
|
|
Viewing 144 comments
Anonymous August 20, 2011 9:42 pm
How bad was Slade's kicking or how bad were the ABs discipline that they lost to 18 points all from penalties + drop goal?
Anonymous August 20, 2011 9:43 pm
ha i thought so straight away! well it was forward but the rule is pretty clear on that one.
maybe one possibility would be to give the captain of each team the chance of one videoref decision per halftime, like for a hightackle where the captain saw it differently and wants the videoref to check it out as well
maybe one possibility would be to give the captain of each team the chance of one videoref decision per halftime, like for a hightackle where the captain saw it differently and wants the videoref to check it out as well
Baz August 20, 2011 9:45 pm
The same happened in Magners LEague at end of last season, in March 2011 between Ulster andScarlets. Try was scratched by TMO for infringment outside in goal area
Iain Mac August 20, 2011 9:52 pm
Am I the only one missing something here? You stated that "Clancy then awarded the try without hesitation" however in the clip, he disallowed the try due to the forward pass.
Anonymous August 20, 2011 9:58 pm
"Clancy awarded the try without hesitation"???
James Roblin August 20, 2011 9:58 pm
What do you mean 'Clancy then awarded the try without hesitation'? He disallows the try..... ?!
petnzme August 20, 2011 9:59 pm
That was not a bad game!....A loss is ok. Slade may have been off the mark a little. The advantage was in the Spring Boks favour. Penalties and Drops won the game. Nothing to brag about. ABs played an attacking game. Ruling or no ruling if the line unpire is only to rule after the line then he is in error.
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:01 pm
i really dont mind this sort of reffing happening,in my opinion they should change the way TMO's are used and get rid of that 'in-goal' law so TMO's can look back at the play
I'd be in favour of using a time frame, using the 15-20 seconds before the try is scored to see if there was an infringment, and only use that time frame if the ref asks for any infringements in the lead up to a try being scored
I'd be in favour of using a time frame, using the 15-20 seconds before the try is scored to see if there was an infringment, and only use that time frame if the ref asks for any infringements in the lead up to a try being scored
RD August 20, 2011 10:02 pm
Apologies, half asleep. It's amended now. Good to see that some of you do actually read what's written though :) Cheers
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:02 pm
well the all blacks cant complain but would it not be an infringment in the act of scoring?
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:04 pm
What a fucking yawnfest, again.
Watching South Africa is worse than watching England of 2003.
Watching South Africa is worse than watching England of 2003.
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:04 pm
Damn the springboks suck ass at the moment, how could the ABs lose?
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:08 pm
Because, anonymous, like the springboks, the ABs also suck.... The wallabies is where it's at!
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:09 pm
Yes rugby dump wrote it the wrong way around
annonymous August 20, 2011 10:13 pm
thats what happens when you count your chucks before they hatch...no way they will win in ports elisabeth...
Rich August 20, 2011 10:17 pm
Its hard to argue a case for the AB's since the right decision has been made. Saying that, had the try been awarded, you live with it and good on the AB's for working an opportunity to score, forward pass or not.
From a neutral perspective, this is an interesting situation, had the TMO kept schtum, Clancy would have awarded the try. But as soon as clancy is made aware of a forward pass, how can he award a try he knows should not be allowed.
So the question is, is the TMO at fault for offering more info than he is at liberty to divulge, or Clancy for saying he wanted to hear what happened before the play entered the in-goal area...
From a neutral perspective, this is an interesting situation, had the TMO kept schtum, Clancy would have awarded the try. But as soon as clancy is made aware of a forward pass, how can he award a try he knows should not be allowed.
So the question is, is the TMO at fault for offering more info than he is at liberty to divulge, or Clancy for saying he wanted to hear what happened before the play entered the in-goal area...
Anonymous August 20, 2011 10:25 pm
I don't see any problems with that and hopefully the IRB wont take any action against a very good young referee, he used his common sense! fair play to him
SpencaH August 20, 2011 10:34 pm
Listen, you can whine all you want, but the game is done and ultimately utilising video evidence is going this way as the game evolves. Try and be objective about this as we all want this to happen when our teams are on the receiving end of poor decisions!!
The overarching point is it WAS a forward pass end of.
The overarching point is it WAS a forward pass end of.
Ben August 20, 2011 10:49 pm
I think if that situation had occured in a WC game, let's take NZ vs France for example. Let's imagine the possibility that France scores a try, with a forward pass just before the ingoal, the ref (let's assume his name is Wayne Barnes) consults the TMO, who follows the rule at the letter, allows the try, and then give victory to France.
...
THAT WOULD BE SO AWESOME ! :D
...
THAT WOULD BE SO AWESOME ! :D
Horse August 20, 2011 10:55 pm
The refs should stick to their rules, and not make things up as they go along.
That said, if a change of rules is what is required to make the results more just, then that's what should be done.
At the end of the day you don't want tries happening from forward passes, whether it's France beating NZ in a World Cup game or NZ losing to SA in yesterday's game.
That said, if a change of rules is what is required to make the results more just, then that's what should be done.
At the end of the day you don't want tries happening from forward passes, whether it's France beating NZ in a World Cup game or NZ losing to SA in yesterday's game.
Peter de Villiers August 20, 2011 10:56 pm
The only place NZ lost was on the scoreboard.
Anonymous August 20, 2011 11:34 pm
This TMO decision was the only exciting part of a boring fucking game.
Anonymous August 20, 2011 11:42 pm
What if Clancy asked the other/different question "Is there any reason to disallow the try?". In fact it was pretty clear the ball was touched down cleanly...so would the other question have given the ref n' TMO more flexibility???
Kember August 21, 2011 12:30 am
It would have been more of an injustice had the try been awarded as a foward pass is a forward pass no matter what the nitpickers think.
AB's still would have lost anyway as it would take the score to 18-12 at best...
AB's still would have lost anyway as it would take the score to 18-12 at best...
Guy August 21, 2011 12:45 am
The touch judge should have spotted the forward pass, not the TMO.
So, disallowing the try is a bad decision by the ref. It sounds a bit contradict but thats the rules.
What if there had been for example a high tackle in midfield? Should that be taken in account also? Where do you draw the line?
The rules say: at the in-goal-area. The pass did not happen there so bad advice by the TMO and even worse by the ref for taking the advice over.
So, disallowing the try is a bad decision by the ref. It sounds a bit contradict but thats the rules.
What if there had been for example a high tackle in midfield? Should that be taken in account also? Where do you draw the line?
The rules say: at the in-goal-area. The pass did not happen there so bad advice by the TMO and even worse by the ref for taking the advice over.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 12:52 am
cowans try was allowed and there was a forward pass in the build up. is that fair? is that wat u want. rugby to turn into american handegg???
Anonymous August 21, 2011 1:02 am
It was a forward pass but the 'south african' TMO should've stuck to the rules.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 1:08 am
If this was Arron Cruden and not slade, would this decision have mattered? Its time GH gives Arron Cruden a chance
Anonymous August 21, 2011 1:18 am
The tmo should not have ruled on the pass even though it was a mile forward.
The boks scrambling defense was great, the blacks were cutting them up all day but still only scored one try.
The boks scrambling defense was great, the blacks were cutting them up all day but still only scored one try.
Robert August 21, 2011 2:09 am
Refs wouldn't usually ask for TMO confirmation when the grounding is as clear as that. If the ref had an inkling of a forward pass he must surely consult the touch judge rather than TMO. In my view, the error here lies with the touchie - it was his miss. He's in the 'best position' to see the forward pass.
Once the replays went up in the stadium everyone could see it was a forward pass. The TMO and ref then had to either break protocol or face a ravenous SA crowd reaction, not to mention some immediate and awkward questioning from the Bok captain.
Once the replays went up in the stadium everyone could see it was a forward pass. The TMO and ref then had to either break protocol or face a ravenous SA crowd reaction, not to mention some immediate and awkward questioning from the Bok captain.
Canadian content August 21, 2011 2:30 am
Glad the call was made. Common sense prevailing.
To anonymous
"What a surprise the "untouchable blacks" get away with murder all over again, as they ALWAYS do...
I'm just glad their pathetic win streak gets broken by a pathetically boring team!
Obviously a bit of a race card and political correctness nut jobs come out to play!
Oh and RD, you a little PC bitch too? removing my comments"
Thank god for people like you, you make us all feel better about ourselves :)
To anonymous
"What a surprise the "untouchable blacks" get away with murder all over again, as they ALWAYS do...
I'm just glad their pathetic win streak gets broken by a pathetically boring team!
Obviously a bit of a race card and political correctness nut jobs come out to play!
Oh and RD, you a little PC bitch too? removing my comments"
Thank god for people like you, you make us all feel better about ourselves :)
Anonymous August 21, 2011 2:57 am
Common sense prevailed.Forward pass more or less in the act of scoring therefore the try should be disallowed. Yes 99% of the time the rules should be followed to the letter of the law but there are times when common sense is the better way to go. For example, what ref is going to send off a player for swinging a soft punch in the heat of the moment and missing when to the letter of the law it's a card? The TMO rules should be changed to allow the TMO to judge on events immediately preceding a score i.e. last pass, offside for kick to corner etc. If you think back to the Ire v. Wal game in the 6N Wales scored a completely illegal try that was allowed as TMO wasn't allowed make a simple call. Common sense ruling is the way to go.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 3:04 am
The problem I have with this whole incident is that, if it were the Boks that were in the place of the All Blacks, you can be certain that the TMO would have stuck to the rules and said nothing. He wasn't asked to rule on the passage of play before Cowen was in goal, he was asked about the scoring of the try. The refs often miss things in rugby and people get away with them, thats just the way it is. So just because this happened just before the line and not 30 metres from goal he can rule on it when not legally entitled to? It really angers me. Typical South African officials yet again...
Anonymous August 21, 2011 3:54 am
I thought the ref should have asked is there any reason i cant award the try, then the tmo would have said there was a forward pass in the scoring of the try, like has happened many times before. job done.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 4:03 am
So if it see it right the majority of people are keen to break the rules as long as the right decision is made. What is the point of a rule if someone can break it when they think they are right? Remembering that the right decision can only be made AFTER breaking the rule. Consider if the pass had NOT been forward, would Clancy then have been right in breaking the rule and asking for more information from the TMO or the TMO for offering it. Sport is slowly becoming a game ruled by absolutes, if TMO decisions are to called on for in field play it can only get slower as more and more decisions reviewed. Rugby could soon become a 1 day game the same as NFL. Due to the ego of players and the huge pressure to win no one wants to accept a wrong decision. Let the game flow and accept the swings and roundabouts of a competent referee.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 5:00 am
The tackler didn't release Dagg, did that delay his pass until Cowan was in front of him? Splitting hairs I know.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 5:19 am
RD, stop trying to take away from a dominant Bok win and actually show the highlights.
Kia Kaha? August 21, 2011 5:20 am
Brussow stole about 10 turnovers last night with a broken nose. Best player in the world coming from a kiwi.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 5:45 am
Good win by the boks but hardly dominant. The all blacks backs were ripping the SA's to shreds, desperate cover defence was the only thing that saved them. Looking forward to next weeks game where the ab's will play their A side against a live wire wallabies on home soil.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 6:01 am
"RD, stop trying to take away from a dominant Bok win and actually show the highlights".
What highlights? All the penalty kicks?
What highlights? All the penalty kicks?
Jimmy P August 21, 2011 7:02 am
Right decision made, just went the wrong way about getting it. Good to see how SA are going to try and approach the RWC, shut the game down and kick 3 pointers.....BORING.
Israel Daggs best game in Black.
Smart money is still on the AB's.
Israel Daggs best game in Black.
Smart money is still on the AB's.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 7:51 am
Typical cheating from a boring rugby nation, if it isn't your players... its your officials!
Xanatos August 21, 2011 7:57 am
I am a bit confused. How often rule TMOs that the player was in touch before grounding the ball? Strictly speaking, that's not the in-goal area either, is it?
Overall, awarding the try just because the TMO wasn't allowed to say anything, would have been stupid, really.
Overall, awarding the try just because the TMO wasn't allowed to say anything, would have been stupid, really.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 8:15 am
Justice appears to be done. You need to learn to live with it. Wales scored against Ireland in the 6N and justice was not done and we had too!
moddeur August 21, 2011 8:15 am
In the French Top14, video refs are allowed to rule on events leading up to a try, up to 5 (or is it 10?) meters before the try line.
Craig August 21, 2011 8:32 am
I have concerns about the TMO making rulings before the try line, for the simple fact that in rugby (due to the technicality of the game) you could analyse almost every passage of play and indentify at least one or two infringements (most that go unnoticed). Then I also am concerned about potentially how far back they will analyse for offences
Getting pulled back for a borderline pass on half way would surely upset a few fans.
Getting pulled back for a borderline pass on half way would surely upset a few fans.
Scotland August 21, 2011 8:41 am
From a neutral perspective:
Typical reaction from AB fans... worse losers in the world. They lose a test match and moan how they were defeated by a "Boring" team. Well i guess they were boring enough to beat you. get over yourselves.
I doubt the result would've changed yesterday even with McCaw and Carter playing. Just saying
Typical reaction from AB fans... worse losers in the world. They lose a test match and moan how they were defeated by a "Boring" team. Well i guess they were boring enough to beat you. get over yourselves.
I doubt the result would've changed yesterday even with McCaw and Carter playing. Just saying
Anonymous August 21, 2011 8:45 am
Which was everyones favourite South African try from their last two games?
Lets vote.
Lets vote.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 9:02 am
The first AB try was also scored off a forward pass. In fact, Clancy and both line judges missed several forward passes and other incidents. I've seldome seen such incompetence on the field...
Unknown August 21, 2011 9:04 am
speaking as a rugby referee I think they both did a great job!! the TMO answered the referee's question and offer him the option for further information and the referee aloud the TMO to carry on...
The TMO is a great part of a rugby game and the IRB most certain thought about extend the capability of the TMO...but the technology is simply no good enough yet. When a referee decides to ask TMO for the decision the referee has to follow whatever TMO tells him or her and that is just too much of a risk if we extend the TMO capability...I think the law should be the TMO can only make a call outside of in-goal area when is clearly missed by all the referees (includes the 3rd, 4th, and 5th official) and before he or she makes the call he or she has to get the promotion from the referee
The TMO is a great part of a rugby game and the IRB most certain thought about extend the capability of the TMO...but the technology is simply no good enough yet. When a referee decides to ask TMO for the decision the referee has to follow whatever TMO tells him or her and that is just too much of a risk if we extend the TMO capability...I think the law should be the TMO can only make a call outside of in-goal area when is clearly missed by all the referees (includes the 3rd, 4th, and 5th official) and before he or she makes the call he or she has to get the promotion from the referee
Fastmongrel August 21, 2011 9:23 am
How about if the ref or the assistant is unsure about something anything he/she doesnt have to specify it sometimes you get the feeling something wasnt right. Then the ref asks the TMO can you call that one for me. No check the grounding was it forward or in touch just can you call that for me. The only decision to be made is deciding how far back the TMO can go. Personally I would say 1 pass wherever it was made even if it was the other end of the field behind the sticks.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 9:40 am
Typical cheating AB's they always get away with murder, ofcourse they see nothing wrong with this and "of course the referee is following the rules" but if this happened to them then of course all hell would break loose and it would be a conspiracy against the AB's.
The untouchable AB's once again get away with everything. I hope they choke in the RWC!
The untouchable AB's once again get away with everything. I hope they choke in the RWC!
Nico van Zyl August 21, 2011 9:43 am
The refs are unfortunately just not good enough for the fast paced game these days. The number of errors made in this years tri nations alown is shocking by refs. The inconsistancies from refs are unacceptable. Rugby bosses need to do something about this drastically. The refs are just not up to standard for the Game anymore. Therefore I am of the opinion that the TMO must be given a lot more say in the game.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 9:55 am
QUOTE:
from a earlier post
"Common sense prevailed.Forward pass more or less in the act of scoring therefore the try should be disallowed. Yes 99% of the time the rules should be followed to the letter of the law but there are times when common sense is the better way to go" i think the players would agree, and they wouldnt want to win a event like a world cup in those circumstance.....
from a earlier post
"Common sense prevailed.Forward pass more or less in the act of scoring therefore the try should be disallowed. Yes 99% of the time the rules should be followed to the letter of the law but there are times when common sense is the better way to go" i think the players would agree, and they wouldnt want to win a event like a world cup in those circumstance.....
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:12 am
"The refs are just not up to standard for the Game anymore. Therefore I am of the opinion that the TMO must be given a lot more say in the game."
And now as the game becomes more professional we move onto American Football and it become more dull dry and fucking boring than it already is!
And now as the game becomes more professional we move onto American Football and it become more dull dry and fucking boring than it already is!
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:18 am
got to give the officials all respect ultimately the right decision was made.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:41 am
Scotland:
You need to get over yourself buddy. The majority of Nzers didnt even care about the TMO, even graham henry said it was the right call. Get your facts straight before making accusations.
You need to get over yourself buddy. The majority of Nzers didnt even care about the TMO, even graham henry said it was the right call. Get your facts straight before making accusations.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:58 am
In instances like this, it makes sense for the TMO to call the forward pass. He did not have to look back a long way to see the forward pass. The question was "Is this a try, yes or no". Well, yes it was grounded, but does that make a try? There was a forward pass and so the ref called no. I'd hate to see the TMO getting involved more than he has to, but this was the correct call.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 11:19 am
I really don't see the problem.. even Graham Henry said that he thought the TMO and ref made the right decision.. It's just using common sense to rule out a try that came of a forward pass..
I do wonder however, what the touchies actually do apart from determening where the ball went out. He was standing about a meter away from where Dagg through the pass and had a perfect view, surely he must have seen that the pass went forward, but why didnt he say anything?
I do wonder however, what the touchies actually do apart from determening where the ball went out. He was standing about a meter away from where Dagg through the pass and had a perfect view, surely he must have seen that the pass went forward, but why didnt he say anything?
Kember August 21, 2011 11:26 am
There's some real jobsworths on this site. Glad I don't know any of you guys!
Oooh! A little rule been broken!
Oooh! A little rule been broken!
Anonymous August 21, 2011 11:29 am
This is bullshit, the try was a clear try as the pass was lateral!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
Mpc-33 August 21, 2011 11:36 am
Well, even as a French ABs fan (sorry for my poor English), I think the TMO did well.
Imagine the controversy (and rightly so) if the try had been awarded ?
I watched the whole game, and when it happened, the boks were only leading 15-5. With the conversion, it would have been 15-12. It could have been a turning point in the game.
I don't imagine what would have been written in the comment section if the AB's have managed a come-back through this try !
But let's stop talking about what could have happened.
Honestly, as a team, the Boks were better than the AB's in this game.
They had nothing to offer in attack except grunting and using their opponent faults, but boy, they did well.
Imagine the controversy (and rightly so) if the try had been awarded ?
I watched the whole game, and when it happened, the boks were only leading 15-5. With the conversion, it would have been 15-12. It could have been a turning point in the game.
I don't imagine what would have been written in the comment section if the AB's have managed a come-back through this try !
But let's stop talking about what could have happened.
Honestly, as a team, the Boks were better than the AB's in this game.
They had nothing to offer in attack except grunting and using their opponent faults, but boy, they did well.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 11:41 am
Lol @ "The pass was lateral"?
Im a kiwi and i watched the game in a bar full of kiwis and we all started laughing when we saw the pass to cowan. It cant get anymore forward then that mate.
But you have to admit. If it was the other way round do you think the saffa tmo would've said anything about the pass? I dont think so.
Im a kiwi and i watched the game in a bar full of kiwis and we all started laughing when we saw the pass to cowan. It cant get anymore forward then that mate.
But you have to admit. If it was the other way round do you think the saffa tmo would've said anything about the pass? I dont think so.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 11:52 am
Ok, well lateral might be a bit kind. But a pass is fine if it ends up forward due to momentum! So again this is bullshit, once again a conspiracy against the AB's just like against France in 2007 so wtf, this is ridiculous!
Boks suck anyway though, so we are still number 1 and are still the best team in the world!
Boks suck anyway though, so we are still number 1 and are still the best team in the world!
vinniechan August 21, 2011 11:55 am
How was that not pointed out by the assistant referee?
Anonymous August 21, 2011 11:58 am
nothing new going on,,,, only makes the head lines as its NZ
Anonymous August 21, 2011 12:02 pm
momentum? He had no momentum as he was just tackled and was lying on the ground... the ball clearly left his hands forwards..
Anonymous August 21, 2011 12:20 pm
Anonymous said...
This is bullshit, the try was a clear try as the pass was lateral!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
August 21, 2011 1:29 PM
-------------------------------
I think you will find that your best win streak was matched by SA under Nick Mallett....
Just saying. Idiot.
This is bullshit, the try was a clear try as the pass was lateral!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
August 21, 2011 1:29 PM
-------------------------------
I think you will find that your best win streak was matched by SA under Nick Mallett....
Just saying. Idiot.
zacaria August 21, 2011 12:34 pm
the tmo is there for trying scoring the field of play is seperate,
there is enough stop starts for a game that is supposed to be free flowing, every player should know just to play the whistle anyway, its not soccer thankyou Du Preez you bloody sook.
there is enough stop starts for a game that is supposed to be free flowing, every player should know just to play the whistle anyway, its not soccer thankyou Du Preez you bloody sook.
zacaria August 21, 2011 12:39 pm
haha safa had one player mildly representing a 'playmaker' (lambie) and he got injured, for the sake of rugby please, south africa do not participate at the international level you are literally killing the game (and england too)
Cheesekiwi August 21, 2011 12:41 pm
Anonymous said...
Anonymous said...
This is bullshit, the try was a clear try as the pass was lateral!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
August 21, 2011 1:29 PM
-------------------------------
I think you will find that your best win streak was matched by SA under Nick Mallett....
Just saying. Idiot.
____________________________
Actually Lithuania has the best international winstreak.
However, the TMO should not have had to make that call, where was the assistant referee? The pass clearly was forward, and therefore the try should not have stood. I have been hoping TMO;s would get more say in the game anyway. Time for a law change?
Btw, go Dagg and Cruden for the RWC! (Im a kiwi)
Anonymous said...
This is bullshit, the try was a clear try as the pass was lateral!
We still have the best win streak of all time and the world cup is ours!
August 21, 2011 1:29 PM
-------------------------------
I think you will find that your best win streak was matched by SA under Nick Mallett....
Just saying. Idiot.
____________________________
Actually Lithuania has the best international winstreak.
However, the TMO should not have had to make that call, where was the assistant referee? The pass clearly was forward, and therefore the try should not have stood. I have been hoping TMO;s would get more say in the game anyway. Time for a law change?
Btw, go Dagg and Cruden for the RWC! (Im a kiwi)
Steve Mallett August 21, 2011 1:12 pm
I am a kiwi all the way and bleed black but the boks won fair and square, those who wrote off the boks need to get there head read they have two world cups to our one they are a class act
It's good believe it or not for that loss, it will bring us back down to earth and really i don't care about the tri nations this year i want our boys to truly be number one and take the cup
Go the blacks it's our time
It's good believe it or not for that loss, it will bring us back down to earth and really i don't care about the tri nations this year i want our boys to truly be number one and take the cup
Go the blacks it's our time
Digger August 21, 2011 1:17 pm
The main point is should the try be awarded following the grounding of the ball. The TMO is to be used for in-goal consultation according to the current IRB guidelines. Let's hope video refereeing does not go the way of American football with a stoppage every play. The ref was wrong and missed the forward pass, but that is part of the game.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 2:12 pm
Anyone remember Englands foot in touch "no" try v SA If we have TMO's then we must use them. TJ's have mikes to talk to Ref why can't the TMO who has the best view in the house. Its then up to Ref to use the info or not and with the Ref review system (does it in fact exist) inconstent refs get moved on and we as rugby lovers go back to respecting the refs. There's gonna come a time when a ref is going to be held accountable for a lost game that costs a WC title (million dollars) or worse a playing career because of a missed tip tackle not being penalised.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 2:41 pm
Good to see the referees using common sense and the spirit of the law, not purely the letter of the law. This is what we should hope to see from quality officials. Well done.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 2:44 pm
"There's gonna come a time when a ref is going to be held accountable for a lost game that costs a WC title (million dollars) or worse a playing career because of a missed tip tackle not being penalised."
Think 6 Nations: Wales V Ireland
Think 6 Nations: Wales V Ireland
Luxi August 21, 2011 3:02 pm
no need to extend the TMO to other areas of the game other than scoring (checking kicks and tries), the assistant referees should get more involved and help the ref (in this case, the ass. ref was quite close to the action and should have told the ref about the incident)
also, slade had a bad game, and aaron cruden had a cracker for manuwatu, so he's back in it for thr replacement n.10 shirt
also, slade had a bad game, and aaron cruden had a cracker for manuwatu, so he's back in it for thr replacement n.10 shirt
katman August 21, 2011 3:10 pm
Moan moan, bitch bitch. The forward passes were flowing thick and fast on the AB side all game long. On the two occasions that they were called up (Slade and Sonny Bill) the guilty parties couldn't believe that someone dare stop an AB move. EVERYONE apart from Graham Henry, the touch judge and the 15 AB's on the field spotted the forward pass. TMO did the right thing - enough is enough.
bruce August 21, 2011 3:13 pm
it's pretty much in the Spirit of the Game, imho both the ref and the tmo behaved as genuine sportsmen, stretching the rule, not breaking it.
An inconvenient trut August 21, 2011 4:45 pm
Hahaha this is becoming comical I cant believe we actually get views from the ranging across the whole spectrum!
Like what is actually going on in your heads when you say " it was lateral!!" "boks are boring" "its a conspiracy" "if it was the boks it would have been a try"
Do you have an objective bone in your body?
Some of you are on your time of the month I swear!
Great game by Brussow and fourie total world class, bring on the WC and lets see the AB's choke and get beat by France YET again and quade whatshisname bottle it ubder pressure like he did last week!!
And put a name to your posts if your gonna make outrageous unfounded statements you gutless swines.
rant over.
Like what is actually going on in your heads when you say " it was lateral!!" "boks are boring" "its a conspiracy" "if it was the boks it would have been a try"
Do you have an objective bone in your body?
Some of you are on your time of the month I swear!
Great game by Brussow and fourie total world class, bring on the WC and lets see the AB's choke and get beat by France YET again and quade whatshisname bottle it ubder pressure like he did last week!!
And put a name to your posts if your gonna make outrageous unfounded statements you gutless swines.
rant over.
SpencaH August 21, 2011 4:49 pm
Apologies to all who are being good about this and taking the morale high ground, good on you!
And lets get some perspective, it could be worse! At least we all have odd shaped balls ;)
And lets get some perspective, it could be worse! At least we all have odd shaped balls ;)
Savage August 21, 2011 4:59 pm
I've often heard the ref ask the TMO,
"is there any reason I can not award the try", this question gives the TMO a chance to pick up on something the ref/touch may have missed.
It would be a sad day if a team won a match from a try like this, when TV coverage proves otherwise.
Who wants to win like that?
"is there any reason I can not award the try", this question gives the TMO a chance to pick up on something the ref/touch may have missed.
It would be a sad day if a team won a match from a try like this, when TV coverage proves otherwise.
Who wants to win like that?
Flinto August 21, 2011 5:00 pm
Haters be trolling.
It was a New Zealand assistant ref by the way, and a South African TMO. Assistant ref should have seen that. He didn't, so the South African TMO offered the Irish ref an option. The Irish ref took it, and the correct rugby decision was made.
How that's a conspiracy is beyond me. If Meuwesen gets sacked for the cause however, you'd understand it.
It's about time the IRB do something sensible about the TMO's powers, like maybe say it can be used within the 5m line or something like that.
It was a New Zealand assistant ref by the way, and a South African TMO. Assistant ref should have seen that. He didn't, so the South African TMO offered the Irish ref an option. The Irish ref took it, and the correct rugby decision was made.
How that's a conspiracy is beyond me. If Meuwesen gets sacked for the cause however, you'd understand it.
It's about time the IRB do something sensible about the TMO's powers, like maybe say it can be used within the 5m line or something like that.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 5:35 pm
This is bullshit!!! The pass was not lateral, (like the other guy said) it was only a little bit forward and probably due to momentum, but that is by the by! The TMO should NOT have been brought into this and basically we get screwed again for being the best team in the world! I am actually sick of the shit that goes against us, all our players are always cited for rubbish that doesnt even happen! and then we have shit like this going on...
If the TMO had not ILLEGALLY intervened in the game then it would have been 15-12 and we would have had a great chance of a come back, but instead it ends 18-5 because the TMO didn't do his job!
I think its fucking pathetic!
If the TMO had not ILLEGALLY intervened in the game then it would have been 15-12 and we would have had a great chance of a come back, but instead it ends 18-5 because the TMO didn't do his job!
I think its fucking pathetic!
miguel August 21, 2011 5:46 pm
touch judge is completely to blame.
Normally I think its absurd when players whine to the refs (usually because that spilt second does end up impacting the game) but in this instance I can't think of a clearer infraction.
There was no lateral pass, no forward momentum. Dagg threw the ball forward. Maybe from the ground he believed he was positioned appropriately. Lots of players throw/pop the ball in a forward motion when their backs are facing the opposition goalline and thats fine, but Dagg wasnt and theres no question his pass went towards and was directed at the Bok goal line.
As for the TMO rules, I've seen the relevant text, but I guess that would largely be decided by the IRB or whoever makes these official rulings. If you go through the lawbooks there will be ambigous language in any language and that will lead to conflicting interpretations. A player getting knocked into touch concerns the in goal area since the grounding occurs while he is in touch. but what about the 2007 final?
Lets not start a new argument- Cueto was in touch. But His foot grazes the touch line- he is in touch- and then he lifts it. As he grounds the ball he is- from his body position at that moment- not in touch. But the original action still occured and the ball would have always been in touch. Should the TMO have not considered it since the action occured outside the in goal area and before cueto touched down?
The same thing happened in 2008 with the springboks v NZ. Habanna slipped into touch and continued to touch down into the ALL blacks in goal. The TMO was called to ask about the sideline and habanna was ruled out. That I dont feel so good about, but if that is how the intepretation can be stretched then it is how the game will be played.
Normally I think its absurd when players whine to the refs (usually because that spilt second does end up impacting the game) but in this instance I can't think of a clearer infraction.
There was no lateral pass, no forward momentum. Dagg threw the ball forward. Maybe from the ground he believed he was positioned appropriately. Lots of players throw/pop the ball in a forward motion when their backs are facing the opposition goalline and thats fine, but Dagg wasnt and theres no question his pass went towards and was directed at the Bok goal line.
As for the TMO rules, I've seen the relevant text, but I guess that would largely be decided by the IRB or whoever makes these official rulings. If you go through the lawbooks there will be ambigous language in any language and that will lead to conflicting interpretations. A player getting knocked into touch concerns the in goal area since the grounding occurs while he is in touch. but what about the 2007 final?
Lets not start a new argument- Cueto was in touch. But His foot grazes the touch line- he is in touch- and then he lifts it. As he grounds the ball he is- from his body position at that moment- not in touch. But the original action still occured and the ball would have always been in touch. Should the TMO have not considered it since the action occured outside the in goal area and before cueto touched down?
The same thing happened in 2008 with the springboks v NZ. Habanna slipped into touch and continued to touch down into the ALL blacks in goal. The TMO was called to ask about the sideline and habanna was ruled out. That I dont feel so good about, but if that is how the intepretation can be stretched then it is how the game will be played.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 6:20 pm
It happened in the game between the Scarlets and Ulster a few months ago. The refereeing was absolutely atrocious, truly, the worst I've ever seen, professional or amateur, and this was compounded by the TMO abusing his powers. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqP-W55tq1w
Morgan Stoddart knocked the ball on about 7 yards out after kicking through, kicked it on again, and grounded perfectly. The TMO just said 'knock on, scrum 5', as if the knock on had occurred in goal, which it hadn't, it had been more than five yards out.
The TMO abused his power and, if he had refereed the lead up to the try correctly, as a ref would have, he should have given a penalty to the Scarlets for the obstructing run across Stoddart which made him knock the ball on.
The laws needs to be looked at. Just as the TMO should have been consulted for the quick lineout mistake between Ireland and Wales earlier this year, if the laws are he can only rule in the in goal area, those two tries should have stood. It's difficult, because, especially in the NZ game, it's a case of 'right result, wrong method'. But we just have to hope the touch judges do a better job of seeing the game if the laws remain, and are enforced properly, that the TMO can only look at incidents in the in goal area.
View Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqP-W55tq1w
Morgan Stoddart knocked the ball on about 7 yards out after kicking through, kicked it on again, and grounded perfectly. The TMO just said 'knock on, scrum 5', as if the knock on had occurred in goal, which it hadn't, it had been more than five yards out.
The TMO abused his power and, if he had refereed the lead up to the try correctly, as a ref would have, he should have given a penalty to the Scarlets for the obstructing run across Stoddart which made him knock the ball on.
The laws needs to be looked at. Just as the TMO should have been consulted for the quick lineout mistake between Ireland and Wales earlier this year, if the laws are he can only rule in the in goal area, those two tries should have stood. It's difficult, because, especially in the NZ game, it's a case of 'right result, wrong method'. But we just have to hope the touch judges do a better job of seeing the game if the laws remain, and are enforced properly, that the TMO can only look at incidents in the in goal area.
View Video
Savage August 21, 2011 6:28 pm
@ anon - so would you prefer to have gone to 15-10 (not 12 you may not have got the conversion) off this try which clearly was not a try?
Anonymous August 21, 2011 7:41 pm
Hah, this is typical the saffas have to bring up England, they can never get over the fact that a fair try was scored against them JUST LIKE THIS! there is no way the TMO should have been brought into this!
Oh and Savage, the kick would have been fine and therefore we'd have a 15-12 score (as i said originally!) and therefore we would have had a comeback!
So honestly this is bullshit, but it doesn't matter anyway, we will win the rwc AND the tri nations, and SA will be the losers!
Oh and Savage, the kick would have been fine and therefore we'd have a 15-12 score (as i said originally!) and therefore we would have had a comeback!
So honestly this is bullshit, but it doesn't matter anyway, we will win the rwc AND the tri nations, and SA will be the losers!
SpencaH August 21, 2011 8:12 pm
like you have in the last 5 world cups? Law of averages maybe.......
But naaaah to be honest I feel bad they haven't won when they are always the fav's heading into the WC. Good luck to them!
But naaaah to be honest I feel bad they haven't won when they are always the fav's heading into the WC. Good luck to them!
Anonymous August 21, 2011 9:42 pm
Why are there so many asshole kiwi fans?!?
Without trying to start a NH SH war (im from the NH) I thought that out of the big three down south that NZ was the least big headed, inflated ego bunch of the lot of you, but now I see their fans having a massive "down on me" gripe about this decision?!
Geez, how about getting some "justice for cowans try" arm bands out for the next game...
Without trying to start a NH SH war (im from the NH) I thought that out of the big three down south that NZ was the least big headed, inflated ego bunch of the lot of you, but now I see their fans having a massive "down on me" gripe about this decision?!
Geez, how about getting some "justice for cowans try" arm bands out for the next game...
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:03 pm
Next time i read on here about the english being arrogant I'll point tthem to the kiwi comments on here.
It wasn't a try full stop, if you think it was yur deluding yourself.
You have no idea if that conversion would have gone over.
And to say that from 18-12 your would have come back is bollocks - and the sort of arrogance that leads you to loose the wc year after year.
i read you all bad mouthing SA but they are the most successful rugby nation, and they out played you tactically.
Your scrummage was school girl stuff. And you think you can should be allowed to pass forward! Nobody else is allowed to wear black! You twats give kiwi's a bad name.
Did england moan when france ran out in white on sat? No. Did we bitch at wales when they beat us fair and square, no. The bokka's took the last couple of losses on the chin to.
Man the fuck up. Your not on the pitch anyway, so stop whinning and let the guys who are good enough do there job.
And stop bitching at RD, if it wasn't for these guys all those of us who dont want to pay for sky and get fisted by ruppert murdoc are greatful for this site, who give us great footage, and usually some good chat.
It wasn't a try full stop, if you think it was yur deluding yourself.
You have no idea if that conversion would have gone over.
And to say that from 18-12 your would have come back is bollocks - and the sort of arrogance that leads you to loose the wc year after year.
i read you all bad mouthing SA but they are the most successful rugby nation, and they out played you tactically.
Your scrummage was school girl stuff. And you think you can should be allowed to pass forward! Nobody else is allowed to wear black! You twats give kiwi's a bad name.
Did england moan when france ran out in white on sat? No. Did we bitch at wales when they beat us fair and square, no. The bokka's took the last couple of losses on the chin to.
Man the fuck up. Your not on the pitch anyway, so stop whinning and let the guys who are good enough do there job.
And stop bitching at RD, if it wasn't for these guys all those of us who dont want to pay for sky and get fisted by ruppert murdoc are greatful for this site, who give us great footage, and usually some good chat.
Anonymous August 21, 2011 10:12 pm
^^^ It's "grateful" you pom twat! Fuck off, we are the best in the world and you guys have a pathetic team so good luck not making it out of the pool stages! We'll wave to you from the winners stand!
Leon August 22, 2011 12:21 am
Lol at the people saying kiwis or saffas etc are arrogant.. its just the idiots on the internet,
You need to get out in the REAL world and actually talk to some REAL fans not some loser trolls on the net.
You need to get out in the REAL world and actually talk to some REAL fans not some loser trolls on the net.
N August 22, 2011 12:43 am
There are very good reasons they don't rule on anything in the field of play.
How far back do you go? If you look hard enough, and go back far enough a TMO could easily over rule almost any try. Do you go back one pass? Five? Five rucks? How far? Can he rule on ruck infrignemnts leading up to the try? Passes five minutes before the try that were part of the play that lead to the score? What if it comes off a scrum or line out? Can he go back and say there was a scrum infringment or the line out throw wasn't straight?
The reason forward passes aren't ruled on is that camera angles change what looks forward. Depending on the camera angle a pass can look abckwards or forwards (this is one of the primary reasons they don't rule on forward passes).
It sets a precedent too, a dangerous one.
If at the World Cup a try gets scored off a forward pass (like the one France scored to knock out NZ in 2007 that came off a blatant forward pass), can the team that's scored against now say the TMO should not award the try?
If the try is awarded, do they have the right to complain?
Have the rules changed or not?
Please note that my objections are not based on this try being scored or not. I'm not a kiwi, and am a nuetral in respect to this game.
It's not about this try being scored. It's all the questions ruling on that pass raise.
There's a good reason TMO's are restricted in what they rule on. They can't go changing that arbitrarily. The rule is either set in stone, or it doesn't exist, it can't just be applied sometimes and not others.
How far back do you go? If you look hard enough, and go back far enough a TMO could easily over rule almost any try. Do you go back one pass? Five? Five rucks? How far? Can he rule on ruck infrignemnts leading up to the try? Passes five minutes before the try that were part of the play that lead to the score? What if it comes off a scrum or line out? Can he go back and say there was a scrum infringment or the line out throw wasn't straight?
The reason forward passes aren't ruled on is that camera angles change what looks forward. Depending on the camera angle a pass can look abckwards or forwards (this is one of the primary reasons they don't rule on forward passes).
It sets a precedent too, a dangerous one.
If at the World Cup a try gets scored off a forward pass (like the one France scored to knock out NZ in 2007 that came off a blatant forward pass), can the team that's scored against now say the TMO should not award the try?
If the try is awarded, do they have the right to complain?
Have the rules changed or not?
Please note that my objections are not based on this try being scored or not. I'm not a kiwi, and am a nuetral in respect to this game.
It's not about this try being scored. It's all the questions ruling on that pass raise.
There's a good reason TMO's are restricted in what they rule on. They can't go changing that arbitrarily. The rule is either set in stone, or it doesn't exist, it can't just be applied sometimes and not others.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 1:11 am
im calling that it was a make up call. there was a pass at about the half way line that was incredibly forward that started the whole play.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 1:21 am
What if a try is scored off a non-forward pass, but the pass before that was forward? Do you over turn the try?
What if South Africa hadf knocked ont he ball, NZ had picked it up and scored, but the knock on occured because of a high tackle? What does the TMO rule?
What if it was scored off a knock on that was missed three rucks before? What if it's scored off a double knock on three rucks before?
What if the try was scored after a ten ruck possesion by NZ, but in one of those ten rucks, there was a ruck infringment that was missed?
What if it was a forward pass by NZ, but the play before the Saffers had committed a head high that was missed?
It's ridiculous when you allow the TMO to rule on play outside of the in goal.
What if South Africa hadf knocked ont he ball, NZ had picked it up and scored, but the knock on occured because of a high tackle? What does the TMO rule?
What if it was scored off a knock on that was missed three rucks before? What if it's scored off a double knock on three rucks before?
What if the try was scored after a ten ruck possesion by NZ, but in one of those ten rucks, there was a ruck infringment that was missed?
What if it was a forward pass by NZ, but the play before the Saffers had committed a head high that was missed?
It's ridiculous when you allow the TMO to rule on play outside of the in goal.
ned2or3 August 22, 2011 2:29 am
As i always say...
remove the TMO and just take what the ref gives you.
Referees are a special breed of guys who have such enormous respect for the game that we should be leaving the decisions to them. I have no doubt that without the TMO the Touchie would have told the ref about the forward pass.
If he hadn't victor and the boys would have lost their minds and played out of their skins to win.
Of course just my opinion..
remove the TMO and just take what the ref gives you.
Referees are a special breed of guys who have such enormous respect for the game that we should be leaving the decisions to them. I have no doubt that without the TMO the Touchie would have told the ref about the forward pass.
If he hadn't victor and the boys would have lost their minds and played out of their skins to win.
Of course just my opinion..
Anonymous August 22, 2011 5:08 am
I can't see the problem in what the officials did. I understand the limitations of the law, but the right decision was made in the end. Clancy's question was "Is it a try, yes or no" and the answer is no, forward pass, simple as that!
Anonymous August 22, 2011 5:15 am
Answer the questions then. So where do you draw the line? How far back can the TMO go. It's not ok to say "right decision" made. That's simple minded. There are implications.
Can this be done every time?
Can this be done every time?
Anonymous August 22, 2011 5:20 am
Illegal by the TMO, who happened to be South African by the way i found something really suspicious about it. Got nothing wrong with the call but instead the way it was done
japanmannz August 22, 2011 5:32 am
This was one of the worst things I have seen in a test match. I understand that it WAS a forward pass and should not have been a try BUT, the law is clear! the TMO went too far and this had a huge impact on the game. I'm not saying the TMO lost it for NZ but this try would have brought the scores alot closer and the momentum would have been in NZ's hands. If you have played any sports, getting a goal or try disallowed can change the whole momentum of your attack.
the TMO should be punished and the ref as well for breaking the rules. so many people on this site rip apart the all blacks for saying they have the ref in their hands. This was the complete opposite.
the TMO should be punished and the ref as well for breaking the rules. so many people on this site rip apart the all blacks for saying they have the ref in their hands. This was the complete opposite.
Joost August 22, 2011 5:45 am
Look at all the angry Japies, even after a win.
Maybe some discomfort at a win coming from ABs who had not played together before fumbling all their chances after ripping the SA defense apart?
Maybe some discomfort at a win coming from ABs who had not played together before fumbling all their chances after ripping the SA defense apart?
miguel August 22, 2011 6:15 am
Very few rules are ever truly set in stone. Besides the fact that nearly every lawbook concerning anything has subsections to its rules allowing exceptions and modifications. We see that in every game especially concerning issues like the breakdown.
I would like to hear an official IRB position. The issue in question was a pass that put cowan into the ingoal area. He grounded the ball sucessfully but the problem remained- that ball was no longer alive. Had Cowan been taken down by the springbok defense similar to what happened in the opening minutes, and the resulting attack resulted in a try then their would be no claim for the TMO to look back to that issue. This however was a question of whether or a not a try was scored. No, Cowan can't touch that ball down because it was a forward ball. Springbok advantage or play on.
Back to 2007. O'Gara's controversial try against Italy in the warm-ups. Lets assume it was good (complicated but theres an argument for it), but in this scenario, O'Gara definatively knocks on. He drops the ball as he hits the ground, recovers it, slides into the in-goal and grounds its. Refs are too far away to make a ruling and ask for the TMO. As O'gara enters the in-goal area he has possession and control of the ball and grounds it. But as I stated earlier he clearly loses the ball on the ground, but regathers before the try-line. I don't believe there is anything in the lawbooks which would forbide the TMO from ruling on this. No try was scored, because the ball is dead. Imagine the same scenario with a winger chasing a kick or a pick and drive. as they reach the try line the player fumbles the ball to the ground (textbox knockon) recovers before reaching the ingoal and ground its. The player has not scored a try. I'm not appealing to logic and reason here. That is how a TMO would rule the issue if he was called, how they have, how they have been allowed and how they should.
I would like to hear an official IRB position. The issue in question was a pass that put cowan into the ingoal area. He grounded the ball sucessfully but the problem remained- that ball was no longer alive. Had Cowan been taken down by the springbok defense similar to what happened in the opening minutes, and the resulting attack resulted in a try then their would be no claim for the TMO to look back to that issue. This however was a question of whether or a not a try was scored. No, Cowan can't touch that ball down because it was a forward ball. Springbok advantage or play on.
Back to 2007. O'Gara's controversial try against Italy in the warm-ups. Lets assume it was good (complicated but theres an argument for it), but in this scenario, O'Gara definatively knocks on. He drops the ball as he hits the ground, recovers it, slides into the in-goal and grounds its. Refs are too far away to make a ruling and ask for the TMO. As O'gara enters the in-goal area he has possession and control of the ball and grounds it. But as I stated earlier he clearly loses the ball on the ground, but regathers before the try-line. I don't believe there is anything in the lawbooks which would forbide the TMO from ruling on this. No try was scored, because the ball is dead. Imagine the same scenario with a winger chasing a kick or a pick and drive. as they reach the try line the player fumbles the ball to the ground (textbox knockon) recovers before reaching the ingoal and ground its. The player has not scored a try. I'm not appealing to logic and reason here. That is how a TMO would rule the issue if he was called, how they have, how they have been allowed and how they should.
miguel August 22, 2011 6:25 am
also, if Paddy and the IRB have released anykind of statement regarding this issue I havent seen it. Even when they do, and its still a mistake, its a mistake in game, like the forward pass in the 2007 1/4 final. Done and over, despite what de villers may say, the scorebaord is typically the most definitive part of history.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 6:34 am
Miguel, respecfully, you are wrong.
The rule states that a TMO cannot rule on forward passes. They connot rule on action before the action in goal.
It is clearly not allowed.
This is why the TMO actually asked Clacny if he wanted further info. Because he knew he wasn't supposed to offer that information, and Clancy isn't supposed to ask for it. Both of them violated the rule, knowingly.
Ultimatly Clancy and the touch judge screwed up by not calling the forward apss in the first place, then Clany and the TMO screwed up again by violating the rule and disallowing the try based on a forward pass outside the in goal.
It's explixitly against the rules.
There are lots of very good reasons for it not being something the TMO can rule on.
Answer these questions adequatley or agree that there are good reasons not to allow the TMo this kind of power :
"What if a try is scored off a non-forward pass, but the pass before that was forward? Do you over turn the try?
What if South Africa hadf knocked ont he ball, NZ had picked it up and scored, but the knock on occured because of a high tackle? What does the TMO rule?
What if it was scored off a knock on that was missed three rucks before? What if it's scored off a double knock on three rucks before?
What if the try was scored after a ten ruck possesion by NZ, but in one of those ten rucks, there was a ruck infringment that was missed?
What if it was a forward pass by NZ, but the play before the Saffers had committed a head high that was missed?"
The rule states that a TMO cannot rule on forward passes. They connot rule on action before the action in goal.
It is clearly not allowed.
This is why the TMO actually asked Clacny if he wanted further info. Because he knew he wasn't supposed to offer that information, and Clancy isn't supposed to ask for it. Both of them violated the rule, knowingly.
Ultimatly Clancy and the touch judge screwed up by not calling the forward apss in the first place, then Clany and the TMO screwed up again by violating the rule and disallowing the try based on a forward pass outside the in goal.
It's explixitly against the rules.
There are lots of very good reasons for it not being something the TMO can rule on.
Answer these questions adequatley or agree that there are good reasons not to allow the TMo this kind of power :
"What if a try is scored off a non-forward pass, but the pass before that was forward? Do you over turn the try?
What if South Africa hadf knocked ont he ball, NZ had picked it up and scored, but the knock on occured because of a high tackle? What does the TMO rule?
What if it was scored off a knock on that was missed three rucks before? What if it's scored off a double knock on three rucks before?
What if the try was scored after a ten ruck possesion by NZ, but in one of those ten rucks, there was a ruck infringment that was missed?
What if it was a forward pass by NZ, but the play before the Saffers had committed a head high that was missed?"
Valiullin August 22, 2011 6:55 am
It's forward so it's not good. Ok, the video referee went beyond his rights but the AB didn't deserve to score 5 or 7 points out of that particular phase and they eventually don't. Seems to me that it's perfect the way it is
Anonymous August 22, 2011 7:23 am
All this nonsense that the Boks were 'hardly dominant because the All Blacks were ripping them to shreds' is making me sick.
Bottom line is, the Boks beat the Blacks by wearing them down and the scoreline was a true reflection of what happened on the field. You can run around like a headless chicken all day but if you don't put the points on the board then you can't win
Bottom line is, the Boks beat the Blacks by wearing them down and the scoreline was a true reflection of what happened on the field. You can run around like a headless chicken all day but if you don't put the points on the board then you can't win
Anonymous August 22, 2011 8:57 am
^^ Boks wont get past the quarter finals! You heard it here first!!Cmon englaaaaaand!!!!
Anonymous August 22, 2011 9:02 am
"in-goal" rule should clearly be removed, there are so many instances when the final pass or play before the touchdown in-goal could be a forward pass,knock-on,double movement,obstruction,offside before a chip or grubber?theres just so many things that could go wrong before that final play!the ref is human and obviously he is going to miss things like that so why the TMO then!?to see if the ball is grounded?is that really what TMO is used for only?
Anonymous August 22, 2011 9:12 am
So then how far back can the TMO go?
What iof this pass was fine but the one before it was forward?
What iof this pass was fine but the one before it was forward?
Anonymous August 22, 2011 9:30 am
...it was try !!!
mr. judge, it was often painful, a real "football referee".
colin slade is too emotional.
after all,it was a good test for AB`s.
of course, ist my opinion.
mr. judge, it was often painful, a real "football referee".
colin slade is too emotional.
after all,it was a good test for AB`s.
of course, ist my opinion.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 10:02 am
Clearly should have been awarded! Typical cheating boks have their OWN TMO to cheat them a win because they can't do it themselves!
Anonymous August 22, 2011 10:51 am
miguel
The TMO can rule on the act of scoring a try, so if a player dives for the line they are in the act of scoring a try so if they loose the ball before the line and regather then that can be ruled on as they are in the act of scoring a try. Similarly if they dive for the line and in doing so brush the touchline then that can be ruled on by the TMO. Which is why O'Gara was ruled against, him losing the ball was in the act of attempting to score a try
However if they run down the touchline and in the process, 4 steps out touch the line bu otherwise run in unopposed adn dot the ball down that can't be ruled on by the TMO as it is not in the act of scoring a try. Similarly the forward pass in question can't be ruled on by the TMO
The TMO can rule on the act of scoring a try, so if a player dives for the line they are in the act of scoring a try so if they loose the ball before the line and regather then that can be ruled on as they are in the act of scoring a try. Similarly if they dive for the line and in doing so brush the touchline then that can be ruled on by the TMO. Which is why O'Gara was ruled against, him losing the ball was in the act of attempting to score a try
However if they run down the touchline and in the process, 4 steps out touch the line bu otherwise run in unopposed adn dot the ball down that can't be ruled on by the TMO as it is not in the act of scoring a try. Similarly the forward pass in question can't be ruled on by the TMO
katman August 22, 2011 12:44 pm
What a bunch of wet blouses some of you are. The ref clearly suspected the pass was forward. He wasnt checking anything else with the TMO. He suspected the touch judge had missed it and had to be sure. Hence the open-ended question to the TMO. And the TMO told him what happened, which was exactly what he had suspected. I fail to see what the problem is here. If this was on the touchline, and he thought the ball carrier had put a foot in touch without the touch judge seeing it, he would have done the same. He would have asked is there any reason not to award the try? And the TMO would have said black player foot in touch regardless whether it happened as he crossed the line or moments before. So if that is permissible, then surely this is too? Bitching about this is really not dignified.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 2:45 pm
katman
How far back do you want to let the TMO rule on?
How far back do you want to let the TMO rule on?
katman August 22, 2011 3:03 pm
As far back as they currently do with the foot in touch rulings. Not sure what their protocol is, but it certainly stretches back to at least 5 or 10m from the line, or alternatively the final movement before the score. Otherwise you must ban all TMO decisions other than grounding of the ball.
Anonymous August 22, 2011 5:51 pm
This is bullshit! was never within that dirty saffa's rights to intervene!
Let's play "screw the kiwi's" EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
Let's play "screw the kiwi's" EVERYONE ELSE DOES!
Anonymous August 23, 2011 12:02 am
See katman, there's no such ruling.
So you say ten metres, or five. What if there's ten phases camped on the five metre line?
Can you go back ten phases?
What if this pass was fine and the pass before was forward? Do you rule on that?
What if it's eleven metres out and the pass is forward? Does the TMO rule on that.
If you can't answer these questions, your point doesn't stand. It's not as simple as you are trying to make it. Answer the qeustions or accept that you are wrong.
So you say ten metres, or five. What if there's ten phases camped on the five metre line?
Can you go back ten phases?
What if this pass was fine and the pass before was forward? Do you rule on that?
What if it's eleven metres out and the pass is forward? Does the TMO rule on that.
If you can't answer these questions, your point doesn't stand. It's not as simple as you are trying to make it. Answer the qeustions or accept that you are wrong.
Anonymous August 23, 2011 1:42 am
Clancy called the game as if his family had been kidnapped by the Boks prior to the match. He appeared to be intimidated by the SA crowd and team. He allowed high tackles one after the other and called marginal penalties against the All Blacks. One post referred to 'the dominant bok performance' What? A bit hallucinatory I think.
Bottom line is the TMO overstepped his authority & should be sanctioned. Anyone who has played knows things like that go uncalled & the match iks no worse for it. If the touch judge & ref couldn't see the pass in real time then so be it. Poor poor job by the officials on the pitch & upstairs
Mick
Bottom line is the TMO overstepped his authority & should be sanctioned. Anyone who has played knows things like that go uncalled & the match iks no worse for it. If the touch judge & ref couldn't see the pass in real time then so be it. Poor poor job by the officials on the pitch & upstairs
Mick
Anonymous August 23, 2011 9:28 am
katman
It most certainly doesn't stretch back 5 to 10 meters for foot in touch rulings at present. Only when the player is in the act of scoring the try are they ruled on. No TMO ruled on try has been ruled out because a player was in touch 10 meters from the line while running the ball in. Only when a player was diving to put the ball down, or in the act of placing the ball down, has it been ruled on.
It most certainly doesn't stretch back 5 to 10 meters for foot in touch rulings at present. Only when the player is in the act of scoring the try are they ruled on. No TMO ruled on try has been ruled out because a player was in touch 10 meters from the line while running the ball in. Only when a player was diving to put the ball down, or in the act of placing the ball down, has it been ruled on.
Tomsta August 23, 2011 11:31 am
Paddy O'Brien and the IRB should go suck eggs. Clancy and the TMO demonstrated what rugby means to real rugby people. Fair play. The men, realised they were breaking protocol, but they also realised that the integrity of rugby would be in question if that forward pass was ignored. If Clancy and TMO get reprimanded for their honourable actions, I hope rugby players the world over make a stand to back the refs.
Anonymous August 23, 2011 12:50 pm
why he f$%k didn`t the touch judge/asst ref have the balls just to rule it as forward? I remember days gone by when the touchie would get involved as often as he could for any number of infractions. Surely the guy saw this one! Anyway, good on the TMO for making the call. I am an AB supporter but this one would would stunk bad (a bit like France in 2007 he he).
Anonymous August 23, 2011 1:16 pm
The real screw up is Clancy and even more so the touch judge for not seeing and calling the forward pass in the first place.
Shit reffing, which Clancy then had to fix by breaking the TMO rules.
Shit reffing, which Clancy then had to fix by breaking the TMO rules.
Anonymous August 23, 2011 1:33 pm
^ Yeh exactly it should NEVER have been a "no try" it was definitely no within the rule book to disallow that try! We would have had a decent comeback chance if that had actually been called if the LAWS had been OBEYED! rather than just broken willy nilly!
Anonymous August 23, 2011 6:21 pm
It was Ethical to Disallow the try therefore right call made
Anonymous August 23, 2011 6:40 pm
no no not seldom u see incompetence Steve Walsh Johnathan Kaplin Christoph Berdos and Stewart Dickinson epitomize incompetence on the pitch with bad scrum rulings and bogus penalty's for once a ref made a good call and a fair one
Anonymous August 23, 2011 6:54 pm
.......so because its "ethical" it automatically makes it right?!
Nick August 23, 2011 10:29 pm
With everybody going on about obeying the rules of the game... since when is a forward pass in the rules?
Anonymous August 23, 2011 11:19 pm
It's not, but it wasn't picked up by the referee or the touch judge, therefore the only way it could be legally judged would be BY the ref or touchie, therefore it SHOULD NOT have been mentioned by the TMO!
IT WAS A TRY!
IT WAS A TRY!
Anonymous August 24, 2011 12:00 am
why was there a South african TMO when fucking south africa were playin. he made de right call but im not sure he would have done the same if it was the other way around
Anonymous August 24, 2011 12:24 am
The ref made a good call???
He missed the forward pass! He fucked up hugely, the touch judges as well!
Then to cover his incompitence, he violated the TMO rules, so his fuck up on not spotting the forward pass could be corrected. So he fucked up by not seeing an obvious forward pass, then he fucked up and volated the TMO rules.
The guy is a fuck up.
He missed the forward pass! He fucked up hugely, the touch judges as well!
Then to cover his incompitence, he violated the TMO rules, so his fuck up on not spotting the forward pass could be corrected. So he fucked up by not seeing an obvious forward pass, then he fucked up and volated the TMO rules.
The guy is a fuck up.
themull August 24, 2011 1:46 pm
Good to see officials using common sense for once..
Justice was done, let's move on
Justice was done, let's move on
eurojimmy August 24, 2011 3:52 pm
There's no argument it's a forward pass.
The calling of the forward pass was illegal however. Both referees should be reprimanded, especially the TMO who asked the leading question.
You can *only* ask for assistance involving the in-goal area. The law is quite clear on that.
The calling of the forward pass was illegal however. Both referees should be reprimanded, especially the TMO who asked the leading question.
You can *only* ask for assistance involving the in-goal area. The law is quite clear on that.
boemelaar August 24, 2011 5:56 pm
Is it just me or wasn't Cowan tackled and held and therefore only allowed to place the ball? Passing while lying on the ground isn't technically allowed. I know it happens a lot but shouldn't really. So it was a double infringement - can't really justify awarding a try!
wolonel August 25, 2011 12:17 am
last world cup italy had a ridiculous decision go against them v all blacks.. does anyone remember.. double obstruction on the way to try
so did ireland get away with a definite georgian try..
big up clancy
referees will have to be strong in this world cup as it will go to the wire with big teams..england probably won last world cup,lions probably didn't lose 2nd test...boing! here we gooooo!!
so did ireland get away with a definite georgian try..
big up clancy
referees will have to be strong in this world cup as it will go to the wire with big teams..england probably won last world cup,lions probably didn't lose 2nd test...boing! here we gooooo!!
Anonymous August 25, 2011 3:35 am
If Clancy's so great how did he miss the obvious forward pass in the first place?
he had to break the rules so he wasn't embaressed.
he had to break the rules so he wasn't embaressed.
Anonymous August 25, 2011 10:32 am
boemelaar
A tackled player may play, place or release the ball so passing from the ground is fine.
A tackled player may play, place or release the ball so passing from the ground is fine.
Commenting as Guest | Register or Login