Try yes or no?

Cill Dara Abu

No IMO well done to Mr. Clancy for having the balls to breach protocal, he obviously knew it was forward but got no help whatsoever from his touch judge standing 5 yards away.

Samich

No try.

Pocaide

right call, forward pass, no try.

MungBean

Right call no try. How was it a breach of protocol ? Is the video ref limited to answering the refs questions only and breached it by asking if the ref wanted any other info ?

Cill Dara Abu

Skunkle wrote: »

Right call no try. How was it a breach of protocol ? Is the video ref limited to answering the refs questions only and breached it by asking if the ref wanted any other info ?

AFAIK the TMO can only confirm if the ball was grounded correctly or knocked on in the try scoring area.

JustinDee

Cill Dara Abu wrote: »

No IMO well done to Mr. Clancy for having the balls to breach protocal, he obviously knew it was forward but got no help whatsoever from his touch judge standing 5 yards away

He didn't break any "protocol". He called it as he saw it and as it happens, correctly.

Malmedicine

JustinDee wrote: »

He didn't break any "protocol". He called it as he saw it and as it happens, correctly.

Did you actually watch this ? Seriously?

Firstly he didn't see it.
Secondly it was the TMO who called it. He asked did Clancy want any more information. Clancy didn't see it, otherwise he would have called it. Although it was Clancy
Thirdly TMO's can only comment on the grounding of the ball. Clancy asked try or no try.


Now things I'm not sure of the different phrasing of the question ton the TMO.

Such as any reason I can't award the try? Is inherently different to try or no try and does give the TMO some more scope. Is there a protocol in regards questions that can be asked of the TMO?

JustinDee

Malmedicine wrote: »

Did you actually watch this ? Seriously?

Firstly he didn't see it.
Secondly it was the TMO who called it. He asked did Clancy want any more information. Clancy didn't see it, otherwise he would have called it. Although it was Clancy
Thirdly TMO's can only comment on the grounding of the ball. Clancy asked try or no try.

Now things I'm not sure of the different phrasing of the question ton the TMO.

Such as any reason I can't award the try? Is inherently different to try or no try and does give the TMO some more scope. Is there a protocol in regards questions that can be asked of the TMO?

A TMO answers whatever the referee asks them concerning in-goal and approaching in-goal with the scoring of a try.

The actual correct call should have been penalty to South Africa. NZ player was off-feet, held in a tackle (yes, even a shirt pull is a hold/tackle) and did not release ball.

Podge_irl

The TMO isn't technically allowed adjudicate on forward passes prior to the act of scoring though.

CatFromHue

Who'd be a ref?

I think we're nearing the point that the rules/laws written by the IRB are becomming unrefable! That's not just based on this situation but has been building for awhile!

Can anyone remember when Lanelli Scarlets played Ulster towards the end of last season was there a similar situation where a try wasn't given for a knock on?

Tomtom364

CatFromHue wrote: »

Who'd be a ref?

I think we're nearing the point that the rules/laws written by the IRB are becomming unrefable! That's not just based on this situation but has been building for awhile!

Can anyone remember when Lanelli Scarlets played Ulster towards the end of last season was there a similar situation where a try wasn't given for a knock on?

Or TOL's high tackle on cian healy.
Nigel owens clearly made his own mind up - the tackle as fine, no try, knock on. scrum to munster
Leinster players complained so owens decided to go upstairs as it was "in the act of scoring a try" and the TMO called a high tackle.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a57MjiKM8r0

Similar to this Forward pass call... I think the rules reguarding the TMO need to be updated and the TMO needs to be utilised better/more efficiently

totallegend

JustinDee wrote: »

A TMO answers whatever the referee asks them concerning in-goal and approaching in-goal with the scoring of a try.

The actual correct call should have been penalty to South Africa. NZ player was off-feet, held in a tackle (yes, even a shirt pull is a hold/tackle) and did not release ball.

Podge_irl is right though, technically the ref can only consult the video on the grounding, foul play in the in-goal area, player in-touch etc. Obviously, the video ref isn't going to refuse to answer a question but he shouldn't be consulted on possible forward passes.

danthefan

Owens said after that game on his Twitter or Facebook or something that the correct call would have been a penalty try.

JustinDee wrote: »

A TMO answers whatever the referee asks them concerning in-goal and approaching in-goal with the scoring of a try.

Eh, no. You're wrong. The ref can only go to the TMO when he's unsure about the scoring of a try, in-goal. The pass was forward but the officiating was botched.

A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties,
the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other
aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudica tion of offside.
(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 in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
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.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a
decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have
occurred.
(c) A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.

the general12

Discussion from the SA Referees website:

The advice of the television match official at the Tri-Nations match between South Africa and New Zealand on Saturday has evoked some questioning.

Israel Dagg of New Zealand broke in spectacular fashion near the half-way line and headed for the South African line. About two metres from the goal-line François Hougaard of South Africa brought Dagg to ground. Brought to ground, Dagg passed to Jimmy Cowan who went over in Bryan Habana's tackle.

The referee then consulted the television match official, saying: "Johan, is this a try - yes or no?"
The TMO looked at the incident in slow motion and reported to the referee: "There is no problem with the grounding. Do you require any information before the goal-line?"
The referee said: "Yes."
The TMO said: "It was a forward pass."
The referee signalled that a try had not been scored and awarded a five-metre scrum to South Africa.

Later, unofficially, there were queries about all of this. Was such a decision within the TMO's jurisdiction.

The International Rugby Board has a protocol for how the TMO may or may not be used. The protocol states:

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:
Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.
This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
Touch down by a defender
In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal
Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball). The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

It is clear from the protocol that in this case the TMO was acting out of protocol - and yet the just result was obtained.

The pass was forward and for a forward pass a scrum is awarded, which is what happened.

If you watch the action, the referee and his assistant are left about 20 metres behind Dagg as he raced for the line. In fact all the players were left well behind Dagg except for Hougaard. That they were left behind is not surprising, for Dagg sped away.

From their position it was not possible for the referee or his assistant to judge the validity of a short pass. But the TMO could do so. It seems eminently sensible and fair to consult the TMO. It is not taking matters way back but is close to the line and part of the act of scoring - as a foot in touch would be.

Interestingly, the New Zealand coach, Graham Henry had no problem with the decision, saying in his dry way: "If it was a forward pass, it shouldn't have been a try. If the officials can make good decisions on the evidence they have got, why not? I know it's outside the laws of the game - they should only adjudicate over the goal line. But I haven't got a problem with it.

"That was the reality - it wasn't awarded. I don't know if it was a forward pass or not. I asked Israel Dagg after the game and he reckoned it was 50-50. If we were on the receiving end and South Africa were disallowed a try because it was a forward pass, we would be happy about that."

André Watson, South Africa's refereeing boss, supported the decision. He said: "What we want is the right decision. It was clear that the pass was forward and if the try had been allowed we [referees] would have looked a bunch of fools.

"Protocols are important and we should try to stick to them but they are essentially guidelines and I'd rather apologise for what happened than get the wrong answer."

The protocol is not a part of the Laws of the Game, just a regulation of a process of applying the laws.

JustinDee

danthefan wrote: »

Owens said after that game on his Twitter or Facebook or something that the correct call would have been a penalty try

The correct call was penalty to South Africa.

danthefan wrote: »

Eh, no. You're wrong. The ref can only go to the TMO when he's unsure about the scoring of a try, in-goal. The pass was forward but the officiating was botched.

Its actually quite grey, the area of TMO referral.
The TMO, asked "Try or No Try?", can say 'no' due to an occurrence in the act of scoring the try.
Having asked at referees dept here, thats the answer I got. Shall ask another contact elsewhere later on what they think, if you like.

the general12

JustinDee wrote: »

The actual correct call should have been penalty to South Africa. NZ player was off-feet, held in a tackle (yes, even a shirt pull is a hold/tackle) and did not release ball.

That was not a penalty. The tackled player is required to release or pass the ball immediately. He played the ball immediately, there is no requirement that he be instantaneous.

PhatPiggins

I thought George Clancey was picked for the World Cup because he's such a milk sop and the All Blacks could do what ever they wanted with him in charge.

No doubt Paddy O Brien is issuing a public apology to Graham Henry as we speak.

danthefan

JustinDee wrote: »

The correct call was penalty to South Africa.


Its actually quite grey, the area of TMO referral.
The TMO, asked "Try or No Try?", can say 'no' due to an occurrence in the act of scoring the try.
Having asked at referees dept here, thats the answer I got. Shall ask another contact elsewhere later on what they think, if you like.

First part, I was talking about the Healy/TOL clip up above, Owens said after that game he should have awarded Leinster a penalty try.


Second part, the law looks pretty clear. It states the ref can go to the TMO when he's unsure about the grounding of a ball/scoring of a try in goal. A forward pass is nothing to do with the grounding of a ball in goal. I have never seen a TMO deny a try before due to a forward pass.

d'Oracle

Why do we have to gave threads complaining about officials making the correct decision?

justsomebloke

d'Oracle wrote: »

Why do we have to gave threads complaining about officials making the correct decision?

The purpose of the thread is the show the limitations of the laws. Technically it should of been a try, the ref broke the laws of the game by allowing the TMO to influence his decision in an area he is not allowed comment on.

So hopefully discussion can lead to the laws being modified to allow for calls like this to be made as a lot of refs may have ignored the TMO comments

Mothman

In the protocol stated above, it mentions The TMO must not be requested/The TMO must not be asked
I don't think this happened. The TMO offered the info. He wasn't asked...
So perhaps the forward pass was conveyed within the limitations of the protocol

d'Oracle

Joe the Santa wrote: »

The purpose of the thread is the show the limitations of the laws. Technically it should of been a try, the ref broke the laws of the game by allowing the TMO to influence his decision in an area he is not allowed comment on.

So hopefully discussion can lead to the laws being modified to allow for calls like this to be made as a lot of refs may have ignored the TMO comments

OK I see the point.

Although I don't like your choice of words in saying "Technically it should have been a try" because technically it shouldn't.
The forward pass rule precedes television.

Stev_o

Not even League TMO's can rule no try if there's a forward pass. The TMO in question will get a slap on the wrist for exerting more influence they had a right to. Clancy (who is a terrible ref imo) should of had the balls to say to the ref no when asked did he want to hear what happened before the grounding.

Imhof Tank

Mothman wrote: »

In the protocol stated above, it mentions The TMO must not be requested/The TMO must not be asked
I don't think this happened. The TMO offered the info. He wasn't asked...
So perhaps the forward pass was conveyed within the limitations of the protocol

Is this not potentially the thin end of the wedge though?

If the TMO can "offer information" on the forward pass in this case, then whats to stop him "offering information" on crossing, high tackles, off sides, knock ons -anything in fact, any where on the pitch in the build up to a score?

(Not that i would be against that system however - but it would surely be against the spirit of the protocol)

skregs

d'Oracle wrote: »

Why do we have to gave threads complaining about officials making the correct decision?

Wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't a Kiwi who was scoring it

What's wrong with this btw?

It's like people arguing that they should get off a speeding ticket because the Garda didn't have his hat on that day.

The pass was forward, the try wasn't really a try, and the game resumed as it should have thanks to the TMO/Clancey.

Rugby has always been a game about the game, not the result so much. That's why you see people putting others into the recovery position, Danny Care asking the referee to stop the game for Stoddart etc. Whatever help can be given to the referee that is currently easily available, then that's fine imo.

MungBean

I think the rules governing video refs need changing. The ref asks "try, yes or no?" Your then asking a video ref to ignore an infringement and deem an illegal try to be granted because he can only adjudicate once the ball is behind the try line. This rules out forward passes, illegal tackles, double movements, knock ons prior to try line, crossing, and any one of a hundred other things that can influence a try. There's not much point in having a video ref analyse a replay to determine whether a try was legal and then tie his hands on making the right decision. Its pointless.

Video ref was entirely right in breaking the protocol so as not to lie and give a try that wasnt a try. Perhaps a knock on effect might be a change in the laws in future.

No reason why a ref cant ask "try, yes or no" and have the TMO decide based on all evidence he can see related to the scoring of the try.

Stev_o

Deleted User wrote: »

What's wrong with this btw?

It's like people arguing that they should get off a speeding ticket because the Garda didn't have his hat on that day.

The pass was forward, the try wasn't really a try, and the game resumed as it should have thanks to the TMO/Clancey.

Rugby has always been a game about the game, not the result so much. That's why you see people putting others into the recovery position, Danny Care asking the referee to stop the game for Stoddart etc. Whatever help can be given to the referee that is currently easily available, then that's fine imo.

It's like anything though, doing this in theory buts the game into disrepute. If the RWC comes down to a TMO decision where they award a try that was the result of a forward pass they'll go back and saw "Well they didn't have any trouble doing it in this game".

Rugby already has one of the worst reputations for consistency in it's implementation of the rules, having another area where the rule is put up in the air is just a bad idea.

Stev_o

Stev_o wrote: »

It's like anything though, doing this in theory buts the game into disrepute. If the RWC comes down to a TMO decision where they award a try that was the result of a forward pass they'll go back and saw "Well they didn't have any trouble doing it in this game".

Rugby already has one of the worst reputations for consistency in it's implementation of the rules, having another area where the rule is put up in the air is just a bad idea.

Skunkle's post above is pretty much spot on. The TMO is an additional official, whatever he can see, he adjudactes on. Referees have often overruled initial decisions because of what a Touch Judge has said to them, why not let the TMO make some of the calls too?

I guarantee that it would come up very few times.

CatFromHue

Deleted User wrote: »

What's wrong with this btw?

It's like people arguing that they should get off a speeding ticket because the Garda didn't have his hat on that day.

The rules of the game should be clear, concise and not open to as much interpretation as they are now.

Without getting into an argument about Gardai and their hats this should not have been a try as deemed by the rules of the game. The rules need to be changed so.

I really do think there is far too much expected of a ref at the moment and the game is becomming unrefable!

andrewdcs

Is this not very similar to the foot in touch situation, (as pointed out in the SA referees forum), one of the major reasons for bringing in video referees was the pace of the game, the number of times wings etc. got into the corner where there's no chance a linesman / ref can get close enough.

Sounds like the application of the protocol needs tweaking to include actions immediately leading up to scoring, including crossing (Heaslip vs England)

Perhaps teams should be given 2 "queries" per game like tennis where the Ref gives an obvious try but players know they were held back / etc.
Though that kind of skulduggery and cunning (or "cheating" as it can be quaintly called) are some of the most memorable and talked about points of the game, I think I'd miss it for one.

Stev_o

Deleted User wrote: »

Skunkle's post above is pretty much spot on. The TMO is an additional official, whatever he can see, he adjudactes on. Referees have often overruled initial decisions because of what a Touch Judge has said to them, why not let the TMO make some of the calls too?

I guarantee that it would come up very few times.

Honestly I just don't like the TMO. I feel it detracts from the game completely and you end up getting into a horrible situation like Rugby League and the NFL where EVERY score is referred to the TMO. It's such a cop out. Trust me it'll piss everyone off if the TMO has power to review any infringement leading up to a try.

Shelflife

I thought that the tmo had offered information beyond his remit. as was said earlier the correct decision was reached but by an improper procedure.

now does this open the door to the tmo going back furthur ie if there was a knock on at a ruck two phases prior to that should the tmo check that out? what about 5 phases prior?

technically in each instance the correct/just result will be made if the ball was knocked on 2 or 5 phases earlier but it would ruin the game.

i think thats the reason that they limit the tmo to the ingoal/ act of tryscoring area.

a fair result but technically wrong.

JustinDee

the general12 wrote: »

That was not a penalty. The tackled player is required to release or pass the ball immediately. He played the ball immediately, there is no requirement that he be instantaneous.

It was a penalty.
Played the ball while off his feet in a tackle situation.
There is a requirement to play the ball immediately. He didn't. He held it up then released it to supporting player.

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

a fair result but technically wrong.

I'd agree with that having looked it over since yesterday.
A case for larger TMO remit, I'd say. Its a tad silly that they can't call on certain aspects in the act of scoring a try.

the general12

JustinDee wrote: »

It was a penalty.
Played the ball while off his feet in a tackle situation.
There is a requirement to play the ball immediately. He didn't. He held it up then released it to supporting player.

Seriously!

In real time, he played the ball quickly enough.

I would question any referee who sanctioned him for being slow to play. Strange that with all the surrounding comments on the incident, not one person has made a comment on the potential for the penalty.

JustinDee

the general12 wrote: »

Seriously!

In real time, he played the ball quickly enough.

I would question any referee who sanctioned him for being slow to play. Strange that with all the surrounding comments on the incident, not one person has made a comment on the potential for the penalty.

Its not strange at all. Its just an opinion and I'm not the only person that I know of who has voiced it.

And yes..."seriously" lol

GerM

Gavin Cummiskey wrote:

RUGBY: THE IRB referees’ chief Paddy O’Brien has publicly criticised Ireland’s George Clancy for his handling of Jimmy Cowan’s disallowed try in last Saturday’s Test match between New Zealand and South Africa in Port Elisabeth.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/sport/2011/0823/1224302859196.html

Ridiculous that he makes these comments in public. Referees should be accountable but to criticise an official in public like this is the height of unprofessional behaviour.

Podge_irl

He has form in this as well.

A case for larger TMO remit, I'd say. Its a tad silly that they can't call on certain aspects in the act of scoring a try.

It's a tricky one though. You have to have a cut off point somewhere, unless you introduce challenges like in AF or tennis. On top of that video can be a bit iffy on judging a forward pass (obviously not in this case, that top down view was excellent).

mikedragon32

Stev_o wrote: »

Honestly I just don't like the TMO. I feel it detracts from the game completely and you end up getting into a horrible situation like Rugby League and the NFL where EVERY score is referred to the TMO. It's such a cop out. Trust me it'll piss everyone off if the TMO has power to review any infringement leading up to a try.

Just wanted to correct something here. There is NO TMO in NFL.

A coach may challenge a decision and is allowed three per game. The coaches challenge is then reviewed by the "White Cap" (the head ref) on the sideline. If the challenge fails, the ref will announce that the decision on the field stands and charge the challenging team one time out. If the challenge is successful, then no timeout is charged and the ref will amend the ruling on the field as appropriate.

Off-topic, but worthy of correction as a gross exaggeration.

Stev_o

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Just wanted to correct something here. There is NO TMO in NFL.

A coach may challenge a decision and is allowed three per game. The coaches challenge is then reviewed by the "White Cap" (the head ref) on the sideline. If the challenge fails, the ref will announce that the decision on the field stands and charge the challenging team one time out. If the challenge is successful, then no timeout is charged and the ref will amend the ruling on the field as appropriate.

Off-topic, but worthy of correction as a gross exaggeration.

Oh noooo you didn't !!!

There is a coaches challenge and then their are booth reviews.

Booth reviews = TMO's.

For the 2011 season EVERY touchdown is refereed to the Booth for verification.

Ill let you away with this one

GerM

Podge_irl wrote: »

He has form in this as well.

Too right. He physically travelled to the NZ team's hotel in London to apologise to them for Dickinson's performance in their match against Italy before criticising Dickinson publicly. He gave his appraisal of Dickinson to the media following which he had to issue an apology to Dickinson. I simply do not understand how a someone who behaves so unprofessionally can hold the position he does.

mikedragon32

Stev_o wrote: »

Oh noooo you didn't !!!

There is a coaches challenge and then their are booth reviews.

Booth reviews = TMO's.

For the 2011 season EVERY touchdown is refereed to the Booth for verification.

Ill let you away with this one

Really?

Oh dear. If it's a clear-cut TD, then it will be a fairly quick process I guess, but if not....

Stev_o

mikedragon32 wrote: »

Really?

Oh dear. If it's a clear-cut TD, then it will be a fairly quick process I guess, but if not....

Trust me it's been a annoying as hell. Even straight run ins have to be checked over. Sometimes you ll get a quick verdict other times you ll be left waiting for 3 or so minutes for a ruling to be confirmed.

laugh

How long have we had him as head Ref? And when can we get rid of him?

andrewdcs

It's actually unbelievable: NZ head referee publicly humiliates a ref who will be officiating the first match, just happens to be NZ v Tonga.
Talk about executives putting pressure on pitch decisions. This is a disgrace.

What was the end outcome of the Ireland v Wales "quickthrowgate"