Pro12 Officiating

awec

Adbrowne wrote: »

For the first try I think ISA was fine. He grounded the ball before his foot touched the line.

ROM didnt touch the ball when the ball was in touch with the ground. Have only seen the one angle on the pro12 youtube channel and slowed it down. I think ROM pushed the ball away from himself but he never touched the ball when it was on the ground

I think the alleged complaint is when Zebo tackled Nacewa into touch in the previous phase of play.

Bogwoppit

Bogwoppit wrote: »

Old rules

http://www.lerugbynistere.fr/news/l-irb-repond-question-ffr-concernant-passe-avant-0602141338.php

NiallBoo

sydthebeat wrote: »

are there new ones?

They changed a few years ago from something like "the ball is allowed to travel forward due the throwers momentum while passing" to it's forward if " the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line"

Same thing, putting the focus on the act of throwing just trying to make it easier for the ref to work it out - judging momentum is very difficult if the thrower gets tackled/stopped after passing.

Adbrowne

awec wrote: »

I think the alleged complaint is when Zebo tackled Nacewa into touch in the previous phase of play.

that wasnt in the build up to the try though. Zebo was under Isa when he threw the ball back. Leinster won a penalty after the lineout which Sexton kicked for 3 points

awec

Adbrowne wrote: »

that wasnt in the build up to the try though. Zebo was under Isa when he threw the ball back. Leinster won a penalty after the lineout which Sexton kicked for 3 points

Oh you could be right.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Nacewa foot in touch. ROM touching the ball down in goal (I think they got it right but based on one angle some posters on MFans maintain otherwise).

Nacewas foot was not in touch. Bloody hell. Here's the moment the ball was grounded.



EDIT: This is exactly the kind of forensic examination that I was trying to say isn't fair on referees. Maybe, maybe, Kearneys pass was forward. But as I pointed out with the pics previously it was far from definitive so it was an easy mistake to make. The level of minute detail people want to go into here to knock a referee is ridiculous. The guy is human, not some sort of machine wirelessly linked to the camera truck with the ability to instantly see all angles of all things in slo-motion and real time.

sydthebeat

NiallBoo wrote: »

They changed a few years ago from something like "the ball is allowed to travel forward due the throwers momentum while passing" to it's forward if " the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead ball line"

Same thing, it's really just trying to make it easier for the ref to work it out.

the wording of the laws themselves havent change since 2014

law 12:
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward, i.e, if
the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead
ball line.

so not sure what bogwoppit was referring to

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Nacewas foot was not in touch. Bloody hell. Here's the moment the ball was grounded.



EDIT: This is exactly the kind of forensic examination that I was trying to say isn't fair on referees. Maybe, maybe, Kearneys pass was forward. But as I pointed out with the pics previously it was far from definitive so it was an easy mistake to make. The level of minute detail people want to go into here to knock a referee is ridiculous. The guy is human, not some sort of machine wirelessly linked to the camera truck with the ability to instantly see all angles of all things.

If you look very very closely you can see the touch judge has Leinster boxers on #insidejob

errlloyd

For the record, there is also some bull**** new interpretation of "control" when grounding the ball. I think Argentina got denied a try in a rugby championship game because of it. It now requires more control than it previously had to, and that would work against ROM.

Adbrowne

Only two angles of this available on the player. TJ has a great view.

molloyjh

sydthebeat wrote: »

the wording of the laws themselves havent change since 2014

law 12:
A throw forward occurs when a player throws or passes the ball forward, i.e, if
the arms of the player passing the ball move towards the opposing team’s dead
ball line.

so not sure what bogwoppit was referring to

Well here's a crap pic of Kearneys arms so. Are they moving towards the Munster line? It doesn't look like it to me. I haven't seen anything at all that would definitively indicate a forward pass to me. Maybe that's my blue goggles, but if I'm struggling to find anything on multiple replays and angles with freeze frames and the whole lot then surely we can forgive the officials the possibility of a mistake there.

leakyboots

awec wrote: »

I think the alleged complaint is when Zebo tackled Nacewa into touch in the previous phase of play.

That's what I'm referring to

leakyboots

Ah jeez I'm blue in the face... for the last time - the point we're trying to get across is that it should have gone upstairs for further examination

edit: in reference to molloy

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

That's what I'm referring to

No angle to show he was in touch. AR had a clear line of sight. More reaching here I'm afraid.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Ah jeez I'm blue in the face... for the last time - the point we're trying to get across is that it should have gone upstairs for further examination

edit: in reference to molloy

Are you saying that if it had and the try had been awarded then you'd have no issue? If the ref and the AR both think the pass was fine should they go upstairs anyway? Should every try go to the TMO from now on too just in case?

I think they made the right call. They obviously did too. Why exactly should the score have gone to the TMO?

NiallBoo

sydthebeat wrote: »

so not sure what bogwoppit was referring to

that the video was made in 2011 when the old rules were in place.

It works just as well for the newer wording though.

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

Are you saying that if it had and the try had been awarded then you'd have no issue? If the ref and the AR both think the pass was fine should they go upstairs anyway? Should every try go to the TMO from now on too just in case?

I think they made the right call. They obviously did too. Why exactly should the score have gone to the TMO?

Now you're just being childish.

It was contentious at best and worthy of a review.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

Now you're just being childish.

It was contentious at best and worthy of a review.

You feel it was contentious. The officials didn't. On multiple reviews I'd agree with them. Just because you don't agree that doesn't mean that the try should be going to the TMO. The laws are pretty clear, if Kearneys arms move towards the Munster line it is a forward pass. I've seen absolutely no evidence that this happened. And the AR was in a far better place than any camera to judge it. You don't agree so you feel it was contentious so you feel it should go to the TMO. I'm sorry if I put more stock in 2 professional officials and my own reading of the situation than yours.

At worst it was an understandable mistake anyway, which isn't what this thread is about.

sydthebeat

NiallBoo wrote: »

that the video was made in 2011 when the old rules were in place.

It works just as well for the newer wording though.

emmett posted the video to show how a pass can appear forward from the place of passing, but still be considered legal due to the momentum of the passer

that hasnt changed, so referring them to as "old rules" isnt correct.

the new wording just means referees can use the hands of the players as an extra deliberation point... the "momentum" aspect is still as valid as ever.

but i think we both are agreeing on the same thing anyway

molloyjh

jacothelad wrote: »

The pass would only have been fine if in the act of passing RK's hands moved backwards and forward momentum took the ball forward. None of those pics shows that. It was a forward pass, not a pass that went forward due to the laws of physics.

None of the pics show Robs hands going backwards, but none of them showing them going forwards either in fairness Jaco.

penybont exile

Saw a bit of this game ...... was pretty even from the 15 mins I witnessed which culminated in the second Leinster try,

From my neutral perspective it was a definite forward pass. It was obvious in real time .... how it wasn't called / checked by the officials is questionable to say the least.

These types of mistakes are negatively impacting matches (if not results) on a regular basis it seems ..... the ridiculous Ref/TMO call on the second NZ try later in the afternoon being another example.

There was a lot more clarity when I was playing ..... if the ball travelled forward it was a forward pass ..... no downward pressure - no try ....... I could go on .......

One more to ponder ..... I would say that about 50% of inside passes (from midfield ... typically 10 & 12) are forward - hardly any are picked up by the officials.

Another one ....... These guys should spend time policing the offside line which is a blight on the modern game. How the touch judges can't call blatant offsides is beyond me ...... this denial of space to the team in possession goes a long way to reducing the spectacle. How often do wingers catch a pass these days?

leakyboots

molloyjh wrote: »

You feel it was contentious. The officials didn't. On multiple reviews I'd agree with them. Just because you don't agree that doesn't mean that the try should be going to the TMO. The laws are pretty clear, if Kearneys arms move towards the Munster line it is a forward pass. I've seen absolutely no evidence that this happened. And the AR was in a far better place than any camera to judge it. You don't agree so you feel it was contentious so you feel it should go to the TMO. I'm sorry if I put more stock in 2 professional officials and my own reading of the situation than yours.

At worst it was an understandable mistake anyway, which isn't what this thread is about.

The very fact that multiple people have chimed in on here with contrasting opinions (although mostly landing on the 'forward' side, even the commentary team seemed to think it was) make it contentious by nature.

No need to apologise.

molloyjh

leakyboots wrote: »

The very fact that multiple people have chimed in on here with contrasting opinions (although mostly landing on the 'forward' side, even the commentary team seemed to think it was) make it contentious by nature.

No need to apologise.

Given that anyone has yet to provide any evidence that it actually was forward I'm happy enough tbh.