tmo /video ref today

handsomecake

did any one else think his english/communication skills/knowledge of the rules was pants. he sounded like a drunk french man on the other end of the radio

daveyrovers

Normally the TMO is on site in the grounds with a few different camera angles. For the lions test they decided to make it fairer they would randomly ring in to a french pub and ask someone who was sitting at the bar what he thought?/:D

B0X

"But WHY is it a red scrum five?!"

ScrubsfanChris

B0X wrote: »

"But WHY is it a red scrum five?!"

It was actually a penalty to the Lions because after Monye had the ball stripped from his grasp, the SA player threw the ball over the dead ball line.
It should have been a penalty to the Lions five metres from the try line.

OldJay

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

It was actually a penalty to the Lions because after Monye had the ball stripped from his grasp, the SA player threw the ball over the dead ball line.
It should have been a penalty to the Lions five metres from the try line.

Incorrect.
The ball was stripped and went touch-in goal. Should have been scrum five to Lions as TMO originally called. Referee overruled/misheard and went his own way with a 22 dropout.

ScrubsfanChris

Justind wrote: »

Incorrect.
The ball was stripped and went touch-in goal. Should have been scrum five to Lions as TMO originally called. Referee overruled/misheard and went his own way with a 22 dropout.

But the player threw the ball out of play = penalty

GymJim

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

But the player threw the ball out of play = penalty

As there was clearly no intention to throw it over dead ball line then scrum 5 would have been correct application of rules. I presume you're thinking back to Tommy Bowe's sinbinning v NZ in autumn...he pushed the ball out on purpose with no attempt to ground ball or try keep in play. If this were the case today then a penalty try would have been the correct call.

Major lack of communication between ref and tmo meant ref didn't understand de Villiers ripped the ball away and thought it was just a case that Monye touched down outside line. Tmo wasn't able to explain well enough in English what actually happened.

To be fair this was a bad call. I wouldn't blame the ref as French guy clearly didn't have good enough English to explain to him what actually happened. Surely this should be addressed in future...if officials can't communicate effectively then they should not be operating together.

razorblunt

I'm of the opinion it should have been a penalty as well, the ball was stripped then thrown out of the pitch. At no point did the ball touch the ground whilst in De Villiers control, thereby meaning a penalty.

OldJay

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

But the player threw the ball out of play = penalty

He stripped the ball. Didn't throw it away.
You'd be hard very pressed indeed to prove there was a throw. Berdos was bang on.

randomname2005

Justind wrote: »

Incorrect.
The ball was stripped and went touch-in goal. Should have been scrum five to Lions as TMO originally called. Referee overruled/misheard and went his own way with a 22 dropout.

The ball was carried over the try line by the Lions, then it went dead, so a 22 drop out was the right call. If it had been stripped before the line and then it went dead, or, if it had just been held up and not stripped, it would have been a scrum 5.

OldJay

randomname2005 wrote: »

The ball was carried over the try line by the Lions, then it went dead, so a 22 drop out was the right call. If it had been stripped before the line and then it went dead, or, if it had just been held up and not stripped, it would have been a scrum 5.

Went dead off a Bok hand => 5m scrum to Lions.

It should have been a 5 m attacking scrum to the Lions.The ref made a balls of it as he did multiple other decisions.

The fact he ignored the request of his video ref and made his own decision says alot about his reffing capablilities.
If your touch judge says its a scrum 5,its a bloody scrum 5.
You dont question it and embaress him.

I hope and presume it will be a huge blight on his cv.

Tomtom364

if ball was brought into goal area by lions, stripped and then touch in goal by boks its a 22.

however, i feel that monye was held up before he had the ball stripped from his posession thus 5m attacking scrum would be the right call.

ref was awful thoughout the match and i though his condensending tone to Berdos (spelling) was disgraceful!

themont85

Tomtom364 wrote: »

if ball was brought into goal area by lions, stripped and then touch in goal by boks its a 22.

however, i feel that monye was held up before he had the ball stripped from his posession thus 5m attacking scrum would be the right call.

ref was awful thoughout the match and i though his condensending tone to Berdos (spelling) was disgraceful!

He couldn't afford to waste time whilst the tmo fumbled around for his dictionary, the ref did had a job to do and get on with it, even if he did do it very poorly.

suppafly

themont85 wrote: »

He couldn't afford to waste time whilst the tmo fumbled around for his dictionary, the ref did had a job to do and get on with it, even if he did do it very poorly.

ya i reckon thats why he made that call, cuz he was getting pissed off with the tmo for not telling him what it was properly. still sucks though and that shouldn't happen. that was a fairly major call like

Sandwich

suppafly wrote: »

that was a fairly major call like

"A fairly major call like WHAT? Can you tell me what the call is similar to?"

seeing_ie

daveyrovers wrote: »

Normally the TMO is on site in the grounds with a few different camera angles. For the lions test they decided to make it fairer they would randomly ring in to a french pub and ask someone who was sitting at the bar what he thought?/:D

lolling cornflakes out my nose

Crash

And the most terrifying thing is - Berdos is reffing the next match isn't he? Communication definitely not a strong point (even though he was right)

funky penguin

Yep, the next test alright.

sock puppet

Sarai Rough Boar wrote: »

It should have been a 5 m attacking scrum to the Lions.The ref made a balls of it as he did multiple other decisions.

The fact he ignored the request of his video ref and made his own decision says alot about his reffing capablilities.
If your touch judge says its a scrum 5,its a bloody scrum 5.
You dont question it and embaress him.

I hope and presume it will be a huge blight on his cv.

But Monye carried it over the line. The ref had seen that and wanted to know if it was grounded. It should have been a 22. And if the tmo doesn't know his laws then the ref is right to question him.

Stealdo

Crash wrote: »

And the most terrifying thing is - Berdos is reffing the next match isn't he? Communication definitely not a strong point (even though he was right)

He wasn't right though Crash - he was very wrong on two fronts.

Firstly (and what I reckon irritated the referee) the TMO is asked by the referee for facts not a ruling. Was the ball touched down, was there a knock on etc, I know they ask these days try or no try, which is fair enough but the TMO is not asked to make the call on behalf of the referee. He asked him to check the grounding, the touch and everything, the response was ball was not grounded, scrum five red. The only way that a scrum 5 red could have been the correct decision was if SA had knocked on in goal, which clearly didn't happen. So the ref was absolutely correct to ask him to explain what happened again, Berdos continued to give an explanation without a ruling. The referee is the one standing in front of 60,000 people having to make a decision, while his tone wasn't great, I can fully understand him getting annoyed when the TMO not only breaks protocol but also gives a clearly incorrect decision. In my opinion he was brave enough not to just accept what the TMO said which would have been the easy way out of the situation.

Having said all of that, his one eyed refereeing of the scrum was ridiculous.

Crash

Apologies Stealdo, you are in fact correct. Thought there was some distinction made for putting it across the dead ball line, was completely wrong.

IRB rules wrote:

22.11 BALL DEAD IN IN-GOAL
(a) When the ball touches the corner post, the touch-in-goal line or
the dead ball line, or touches anything or anyone beyond those
lines, the ball becomes dead. If the ball was played into in-goal by
the attacking team, a drop out shall be awarded to the defending
team. If the ball was played into in-goal by the defending team, a
5-metre scrum shall be awarded and the attacking team throws in
the ball.

OldJay

Stealdo wrote: »

The only way that a scrum 5 red could have been the correct decision was if SA had knocked on in goal, which clearly didn't happen

Wrong.
The South African defender was the last player to touch the ball going touch-in-goal. It wasn't deliberate but technically it was he who 'put' it out of play through that area. Knocking on in-goal and putting it out deliberately or otherwise are two wholly different instances.

Result: Scrum 5, attacking ball.

curts82

Stealdo wrote: »

He wasn't right though Crash - he was very wrong on two fronts.

Firstly (and what I reckon irritated the referee) . He asked him to check the grounding, the touch and everything, the response was ball was not grounded, scrum five red. The only way that a scrum 5 red could have been the correct decision was if SA had knocked on in goal, which clearly didn't happen.
.

A scrum five can result from also from the ball being held up. So only shouldn't of being in bold really!

Stealdo

Justind wrote: »

Wrong.
The South African defender was the last player to touch the ball going touch-in-goal. It wasn't deliberate but technically it was he who 'put' it out of play through that area. Knocking on in-goal and putting it out deliberately or otherwise are two wholly different instances.

Result: Scrum 5, attacking ball.

This is just wrong, plain and simple....look at Crash's quote of the rule above - the player who plays the ball into touch in goal or over the dead ball line is irrelevant, it's who plays or carries it over the goal line that matters, in this case the Lions.

Stealdo

curts82 wrote: »

A scrum five can result from also from the ball being held up. So only shouldn't of being in bold really!

We're talking about a specific instance where the ball is sitting in row E of the crowd, held up is not really a possibility. But whatever.

Twin-go

Ok, so Monye carried over, ball was held up and the ripped by De Villiers. In the act of ripping ball goes dead. Is that not deliberite killing of the ball.

If the ball was kicked into the goal area by the Lions and picked up by SA and thrown dead would that not have been a pelenty?

I believe a scum 5 red should have been the call.

Stealdo

Twin-go wrote: »

Ok, so Monye carried over, ball was held up and the ripped by De Villiers. In the act of ripping ball goes dead. Is that not deliberite killing of the ball.

If the ball was kicked into the goal area by the Lions and picked up by SA and thrown dead would that not have been a pelenty?

I believe a scum 5 red should have been the call.

Ok - first he wasn't held up, the ball was ripped from him in the act of trying to ground it.

Second, if in the act of ripping the ball goes dead it is of course not deliberate killing the ball, it's ripping the ball.

Thirdly yes if they picked the ball up and threw it out it would be a penalty but they didn't.

Lastly - how on earth given the rest of your post do you get to a scrum? You think it was deliberately thrown out? Then fair enough you think it's a penalty try, how do you get to a scrum 5?

Paddy Irishman

It's interesting that this incident has sparked so much debate on here. I've watched the replay a few times (from 2:09) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cr_Z6qoHEXQ and just to give another point of view, I think Monyes upper body from the left shoulder area appears to be in touch-in-goal whilst he is still in possession and before the ball is stripped (2:56) so a 22m dropout was eventually the right call.

nosco

Exactly paddy. Was just about to come on post the same thing. It was the right call result in the end, even if it came about the wrong way. Although, I must say I was very impressed with how the ref handled the crap that the tmo was giving him!! As someone else suggested, he could easily have bottled it and given a scrum but he kept probing for the correct reasoing. fair dues. wasn't his fault the tmo never mentioned he was in touch in goal.