Was this a try or was TMO right?

Digifriendly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQHLMWQafZA

TMO disallowed this try - it would have given Ulster a BP last night. Must say it looks like a good try to me. But I am an Ulster supporter with 'rose tinted spectacles' as they say. So what are your unbiased views?

copacetic

looked like a perfect try to me. crazy decision.

thomond2006

Wow, Ulster were robbed there.

"Knocked on", christ almighty.

martinn123

Digifriendly wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQHLMWQafZA

TMO disallowed this try - it would have given Ulster a BP last night. Must say it looks like a good try to me. But I am an Ulster supporter with 'rose tinted spectacles' as they say. So what are your unbiased views?

Try, definate downward pressure,

from a Leinster Supporter.

chris_c

try all day long watch it last nite and couldnt believe the try wasnt given

stephen_n

Try no question about it!

conf101

Where was the TMO from? That should definitely have been given!

CatFromHue

very surprised that wasnt given

the only thing i can think of as to why not is that when the ulster guy is pushing it down it hits the treviso guy.the ulster guy still has control of it though and im not sure if this is even against the rules.

the only other reason i can think of is the tmo has some sight problems

[Jackass]

That was a try, no doubt.

I thought the TMO might have been questioning whether he had control over the ball, as the grounding was unquestionable, but he got downward pressure, so try is good.

danthefan

Don't understand how that wasn't given, awful decision.

kensutz

Definite try. Downward pressure on the ball is all that's needed.

Chucky the tree

Not to sure on the rules, but after the Ulster player first touches it, it moves away from his hands and then he gets downward pressure before the ball hits the ground.

Blair

100% try no doubt, I’d say the TMO is sick after having a longer look at it.

kensutz

Law 22.1 (b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive

tolosenc

Try.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Not to sure on the rules, but after the Ulster player first touches it, it moves away from his hands and then he gets downward pressure before the ball hits the ground.

I believe the issue last night was that it moves away from his hands in a forward motion ie a knock on

tolosenc

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I believe the issue last night was that it moves away from his hands in a forward motion ie a knock on

Not a knock on until it hits someone/the ground. He had the ball back under control before touching it down.

TheSpecialOne

Try time...Harsh on Ulster as it would have meant BP

mikedragon32

Was watching last night and rarely shout at the telly when viewing as a neutral, but that decision made me howl. Unbelievable.

Without a doubt that was a try.

Redsock

TMO was from Italy. The Magners league needs to ensure all officials are neutral.

amacachi

Was also watching last night, couldn't believe it wasn't given.

phog

Looking at it on the net it looks like a try but I've heard before that the TMO has a better quality viewer (more frames per second) than normal Tv so maybe he can see the knock-on but to me it looks like the palyers had his hands on the ball before it hitting the ground.

Number 10 Shirt

It looked like a try to me.

conf101

phog wrote: »

Looking at it on the net it looks like a try but I've heard before that the TMO has a better quality viewer (more frames per second) than normal Tv so maybe he can see the knock-on but to me it looks like the palyers had his hands on the ball before it hitting the ground.

I don't know for definite but I've heard before from a few places, including on match commentary, that the views we see on screen are the exact same as the ones the TMO is viewing. I've never heard it from a 100% reliable source so it could be wrong but I'd be fairly sure it's right! There are only a certain number of cameras at a match after all.

[Jackass]

I believe the feed that shows the play super slo-mo, and sometimes revereses and plays repeatedly over a half second of footage is the actual view the TMO is looking at. I'm not certain of this, but it's the impression I've been given from commentary over the years "TMO seems to be checking the grounding here.." etc.

As for neutrality, I very much doubt any official, regardless of nationality, would openly give a wrong decision to aid a team. Reputation and career would be ruined, but I agree same nation officials should not oversee a match for this very reason, just to remove any doubt over neutrality.

LeinsterDub

Seems TMO's are using a different rule book. Both the Ulster and Earls one today where trys

profitius

I thought it was a knock on from Earls. He touched the ball slightly, just before the ball touched the ground and his hand was placed on the ball after it hit the ground. Unlucky from Earls.

Dave Joyce

He grounded the ball, definate try AND there was a blatent infringement on one of the Ulster forwards to the right of the kicker just after the ball was kicked. Crap decision

Jigga

profitius wrote: »

I thought it was a knock on from Earls. He touched the ball slightly, just before the ball touched the ground and his hand was placed on the ball after it hit the ground. Unlucky from Earls.

It was a clear try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb4muWCzUN0

conf101

I dunno about the Earls one. I can see how the TMO didn't award it although I think on another day it would have been given. It was a very VERY marginal call.

Rodin

Just goes to show that even with video replay that people disagree.
I don't agree that the ball and Earl's hand remained in constant contact. He touches it, loses contact, touches it again. IMHO

Ian_K

Rodin wrote: »

Just goes to show that even with video replay that people disagree.
I don't agree that the ball and Earl's hand remained in constant contact. He touches it, loses contact, touches it again. IMHO

The ball is a couple of feet from the ground when he first touches it, for him to touch it down on the ground from there with one hand he wound need some kind of suction cups in his palm!

He gave the ball downward velocity, it moved downward faster then his hand did but imo never left his possession as it would have been physically impossible to maintain constant contact with it, therefore try

If you slow things down that much you will see some seriouslt weird ****, did you know that you are not actually sitting on that chair at that moment and that your fingers never actually touch the keyboard when youre typing? Actually on an atomic level nobody ever touches anything, ever, therefore no try should ever be allowed

Rodin

Doesn't that mean he gave it 'acceleration' and not 'velocity'? If he caused it to move faster

conf101

Having looked at it again I think it stays in constant contact with his fingers but not the palm of his hand. You could argue as to whether he has control and is exerting downward pressure with just his fingers but technically it never left his hand which should mean it's a try. Thankfully in this situation it made no difference but imagine if that had been the difference between winning and losing a match, or if that decided the winner of a world cup quarter final!

Ian_K

Rodin wrote: »

Doesn't that mean he gave it 'acceleration' and not 'velocity'? If he caused it to move faster

Well ya, acceleration being a measure of the rate of change of velocity, i was using downward velocity to distinguish from the forward velocity that the ball had from Bowe's touch

Peter B

Ian_K wrote: »

The ball is a couple of feet from the ground when he first touches it, for him to touch it down on the ground from there with one hand he wound need some kind of suction cups in his palm!

He gave the ball downward velocity, it moved downward faster then his hand did but imo never left his possession as it would have been physically impossible to maintain constant contact with it, therefore try

If he did not maintain constant contact with the ball then it did leave his possession. When the ball hit the ground he did not have contact with the ball and therefore it was not in his possession. I thought it was a knock on and thought it was the right call.

conf101

Peter B wrote: »

If he did not maintain constant contact with the ball then it did leave his possession. When the ball hit the ground he did not have contact with the ball and therefore it was not in his possession. I thought it was a knock on and thought it was the right call.

I'm fairly sure his fingers were stayed touching the ball from when they first made contact right until it touches the ground which means it was in his possession!

stejkenny

Digifriendly wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQHLMWQafZA

TMO disallowed this try - it would have given Ulster a BP last night. Must say it looks like a good try to me. But I am an Ulster supporter with 'rose tinted spectacles' as they say. So what are your unbiased views?

defo try nearly got his head decapitated for it but defo try; pathetic tmo decision; obviously there was a free holiday in the summer in treviso up for grabs somewhere

Ian_K

Peter B wrote: »

If he did not maintain constant contact with the ball then it did leave his possession. When the ball hit the ground he did not have contact with the ball and therefore it was not in his possession. I thought it was a knock on and thought it was the right call.

It depends on what you define possesion as i suppose,
the way i see it you are still in possesion until the ball hits the ground or another player?

LeinsterDub

Peter B wrote: »

If he did not maintain constant contact with the ball then it did leave his possession. When the ball hit the ground he did not have contact with the ball and therefore it was not in his possession. I thought it was a knock on and thought it was the right call.

No it's only out of his possession if the ball touches someone else or the ground

LeinsterDub

Ian_K wrote: »

It depends on what you define possesion as i suppose,
the way i see it you are still in possesion until the ball hits the ground or another player?

Yes your allowed juggle the ball

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1ey2KlwuBU

tolosenc

Earls definitely lost the ball forward and failed to have it under control before it touched the ground. No try was the correct call.

Zzippy

Both were clearly tries IMO, the TMO in both instances should be told to cop on by whoever assesses referees in the ML...

Peter B

Ian_K wrote: »

It depends on what you define possesion as i suppose,
the way i see it you are still in possesion until the ball hits the ground or another player?

LeinsterDub wrote: »

No it's only out of his possession if the ball touches someone else or the ground

Exactly, like I said I don't think he maintained constant. When the ball touched the ground imo he was not in contact with the ball and therefore a knock on.

conf101 wrote: »

I'm fairly sure his fingers were stayed touching the ball from when they first made contact right until it touches the ground which means it was in his possession!

I thought he lost contact with the ball only because there was one slow-mo shot where it looks like the ball was a bit too far away from his hand for there to be any contact as the ball hit the ground.

Its not very easy to see either way but I could see how different people might have thought there was constant contact and therefore would be a try.

Tough decision for the TMO.

longshank

Peter B wrote: »

Exactly, like I said I don't think he maintained constant. When the ball touched the ground imo he was not in contact with the ball and therefore a knock on.




I thought he lost contact with the ball only because there was one slow-mo shot where it looks like the ball was a bit too far away from his hand for there to be any contact as the ball hit the ground.

Its not very easy to see either way but I could see how different people might have thought there was constant contact and therefore would be a try.

Tough decision for the TMO.

Shocking decisions both of them, definitely tries and if any doubt it should be given to the attacking team.
Why do these faceless TMOs get away without having to explain such wrong decisions, if a player or coach makes a mistake the press are all over them like a rash, they have to face a press conference and give answers.

phog

longshank wrote: »

Shocking decisions both of them, definitely tries and if any doubt it should be given to the attacking team.
Why do these faceless TMOs get away without having to explain such wrong decisions, if a player or coach makes a mistake the press are all over them like a rash, they have to face a press conference and give answers.

Whatever about it being the correct or incorrect decision I dont think a match official should be called to answer in a press conference or publically.

longshank

phog wrote: »

Whatever about it being the correct or incorrect decision I dont think a match official should be called to answer in a press conference or publically.

Why not?

phog

longshank wrote: »

Why not?

Despite suffering at the hands of poor officials I believe their decision is final and I think it's not right to have them attend a post match confernce and could become a media circus or even influence home town decisions during a game.

CatFromHue

because then the ref will be drawn into a debate and have to argue his point of view. as they say the refs decision is final. he will call it as he sees it. from out in the stands or on tv we will see a different view than the ref. i mean this in open play not tmo decisions. look at the differences between judges in boxing and how often they disagree on the amount of punches landed per round. they are sitting righe beside each other and so see pretty much the exact same thing.

refs will make mistakes that is human nature even with the tmo and getting to look at things over and over there will still be errors made.

the only ref who should do a press conference is paddy o brien or who ever is in charge of refs from the irb.

refs should have as little to do with the players/media/coaches as possible, and the coache and captain meeting with the ref before games should be scrapped. they are there to implement the rules and not what certain coaches think should be refereed.

BoarHunter

Jigga wrote: »

It was a clear try.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb4muWCzUN0

Sorry watching this one it looks no try to me. the ball is never in control and knocked on. More like a basket ball move.

just my view

longshank

phog wrote: »

Despite suffering at the hands of poor officials I believe their decision is final and I think it's not right to have them attend a post match confernce and could become a media circus or even influence home town decisions during a game.

you could say the same about players and coaches? having played rugby for many years the best officials and that includes the international standard ones were always the least aloof and would probably enjoy the media circus!!