Scotland vs France

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121759949#Comment_121759949

https://twitter.com/robinmckelvie/status/1756371492047093907

You can't see the line in the above photo, but it's obvious from this shot that it was grounded and there was a separate shot that showed this was beyond the try line. Not sure if both criteria have to be satisfied in the same image, but that's a stupid law if that's the case. One showing the position and one showing the grounding should be enough.

The big issue is the ref bottled it and sent it to the TMO, who in turn bottled it right back and left it up to the ref. You can listen back to their conversation from around the end of the 82nd minute mark.

Ref: "there is the ball on the ground"

TMO: "I'm just going to rock and roll it for you, stand by"

Ref: "So you're saying the ball was initially on the foot and then it was grounded in goal. So I need to change my original decision?

TMO: Yes........

Ref: ...............pause.......

TMO: Let me just check if I can clearly see the ball on the ground.....

If we'd been denied like this against NZ in the World Cup, we'd still be talking about it months later. Same will happen if we're denied a grand slam over something similar.

Burkie1203

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761610#Comment_121761610

But was the ball under control ?

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761838#Comment_121761838

Agreed, but that never stopped former Referees like Doyle casually giving their opinion. It was an extremely difficult situation for the officials - they must adjudicate as if it's the first minute of the game and only on the facts as they see it. That this incident meant a win or a loss is, in refereeing terms, neither here nor there.

Who'd be a ref, eh ?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761639#Comment_121761639

But he clearly didnt see it held up if on review he was happy to award the try?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761945#Comment_121761945

Can you show me an image of the ball not under control?

Billy_the_Kid

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/68282213

Embarrassing stuff from the Scots now

ednwireland

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762701#Comment_121762701

ref called it held up in real time. at that point it's no try.

the the tmo has to definitely see the ball grounded which he can't.

so on pitch decision stands.

it's really quite simple.

whether it under control or not, held up or not is immaterial it might be, but it can't be proved definitively.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762688#Comment_121762688

He saw it held up. On review it looked like it was grounded so he would have changed his mind, but since it cant be confirmed where it is grounded he cant award the try.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762777#Comment_121762777

You keep saying its simple as if I dont understand what happened.

I understand what happened perfectly well, the point I am raising is that its wrong and makes the game look bad/stupid when a try like that isnt awarded.

It also shows a lack of consistency when sometimes the ref will award a try even though he clearly cant see a grounding and other times he wont.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762838#Comment_121762838

Yeah so it looked like it was grounded, just like all the other tries looked like they were grounded. So why cany he change his mind himself? Sure the TMO cant overrule him without 100% proof, but surely the ref can change his mind based on additional information he gets from watching a replay?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762960#Comment_121762960

To be honest I'm not sure that there'll ever be a solution everyone is happy with.

Had the ref over-ruled the TMO and said "Well I think it's a try" then the French would rightly claim that the process wasn't followed and they'd be the ones up in arms.

If we remove the definitive "On field decision" bit for TMO referrals then every one complains that the refs are abdicating responsibility and complaining about interminable delays for every try that gets reviewed.

This decision is a tough one and any team on the receiving end would be aggrieved , but it's hard to see how it gets changed without introducing a new things for people to get angry/upset about in a future game.

conncussed

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762960#Comment_121762960

Under the TMO Protocol that option is currently only available if the referee is unable to provide a "try" or "no try" decision during their referral. The referee is mandated to make an on field decision if possible so those situations are not as common.

It's a no win argument. If the referee makes a definitive on field decision based on what they see we get faster decisions and will often get the correct decision where there are no suitable camera angles exist. If the referee doesn't make a definitive on field decision we'll spend hours staring at screens looking for camera angles that may not exist. Exactly the same amount of Internet discussion ensues.

Exits thread... :-)

Augme

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121761586#Comment_121761586

I'm not sure how or why you have come to the conclusion he thought he was wrong. The TMO seemed to instruct him to award the try because he felt the ball was grounded but then realised that there wasn't clear evidence the ball was grounded legally on or beyond the try line. I don't understand how people can argue a try should be award when there isn't clear evidence a try has been scored. It seems a strange logic to me.

I can't think of any examples where a ref awards a try even though he doesn't think he should be awarding one. What examples given where that has happened?

Because the referees job is to make decisions and implement the laws of the game. The ref is responsible for this and this happens at every level of rugby. I don't know why the role of the referee would suddenly be diminished at the most important level. It also complete undermines the judgement of the referee and i would consider it somewhat disrespectful if I was a referee.

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762958#Comment_121762958

It is worth keeping one factor in mind that has been absent from this discussion thus far.

Evidence that the ball is on the ground is not evidence that the ball has been grounded. See LAW 17.

In this incident the Ref has seen the ball 'held up'.

The TMO, using angles not available to the Ref or his ARs, can see the ball on the ground.

But nobody can see a grounding. No evidence of grounding = no Try.

irelandrover

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121762960#Comment_121762960

I don't think we're ever going to agree on this.

Its really simple for me. The ref saw the ball held up in the in goal area. He never saw the ball grounded in the in goal area. Hence he didn't award the try.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763015#Comment_121763015

I know I would be much more aggrieved as Scotland being denied the try than France conceding the try in this specific scenario...would you feel differently or think many others would?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763065#Comment_121763065

Again, I don't disagree that the protocols were not followed, my argument is that they are wrong and let the game down in these scenarios. I'm not saying anyone did anything "wrong".

I believe then in situations of doubt, the on field decision should be "try" and let the TMO overrule, if he has definitive evidence to do so.

I think most people would agree that in all likelihood the try was scored?

Dave_The_Sheep

So, as a result, Scotland are seeking admission of the officials' error from World Rugby.

Be very surprised if it goes anywhere, given the laws as written seem to have been upheld and the 'correct' process followed.

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763561#Comment_121763561

Isn't Law 17 about the Mark? 21.1 is grounding?

In my opinion we have (albeit separately) evidence of:

1) the ball on the ground

2) the ball over the line

3) the ball in the hands/arms of a Scottish player

Using the timestamps its simple enough to get all three at the same time, which is a grounding, right?

vetinari

Exactly, if you stitch the frames together, it's conclusive evidence of a grounding. The assistant ref bottled it though.

Burkie1203

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121764089#Comment_121764089

How can the ref award a Try if he can see the ball being held up?

Ben Bailey

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121764138#Comment_121764138

Law 21.17

Apologies

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121764078#Comment_121764078

In this scenario perhaps, but again the law of unintended consequence comes into play.

As I said , change the rules and then you introduce a new set of problems that people will spend weeks ranting about.

It's NEVER going to be perfect and there will always be a risk of a scenario where a team feel aggrieved (and possibly rightly so) when the process goes against them.

But we can't change the process as a result of a single incident , the collective has to be taken into account when making those changes.

In this instance both the referee and the TMO followed the process correctly and on balance the process may have resulted in an incorrect decision in this specific instance , but that process works in the overwhelming majority of cases.

So , changing the process to "fix" this very specific scenario that may or may not ever arise again runs the very large risk that it introduces a new problem that occurs more frequently.

What's the saying "Hard cases make bad law" ?

fitz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121763015#Comment_121763015

This is pretty much it.

@GreeBo , what you're suggesting is pretty much a return to what we had before the onfield decision requirement was introduced. The problem is where do you draw the line? While in this case most people would agree that on the balance of probability, the try was scored, but you can't definitely prove it with the camera angles available. But what about the next case, where it's even less clear cut? Then you're relying on 1 person's interpretation of how much benefit of the doubt should be granted... That's impossible to define.

While the current laws throw up occasional instances like this, I think they provide the best support for officials to make evidence based decisions, not solely judgement based ones. I think the onfield decision requirement has been an improvement, and I think we've had far less controversial calls since it was introduced.

Is it perfect? No. There's always going to be edge cases that seem unfair, but I think the current process has been much fairer, on balance, that what was in place before.

GreeBo

I think any scenario where you can 100% correctly follow the process but have pretty much everyone agree that we ended up with the "wrong" result means something needs to be looked at.

There was no one to blame for what happened here, everyone 100% did their job correctly, but, again IMO, the referee should be free to change his mind himself, based on additional evidence. It should be the case that only the TMO with 100% certainty can overrule him.

Is it written anywhere that the referee cannot change his mind? As I'm sure I have seen them do it multiple times, before the TMO even brings it up?

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766068#Comment_121766068

all sorts of decisions are already 1 persons interpretation right, the referee?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766760#Comment_121766760

It all comes down to "clear and obvious".

Some people referenced the JGP try that was overturned by the ref.

He did so because the second he saw the video and there was immediately "clear and obvious" evidence that JGP had dropped the ball - Quick decision , move on.

That was not the case in the Scotland match..

GreeBo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121766946#Comment_121766946

Can you link to where it states that the referee can only change his mind on something if its "clear and obvious"?

My point is that he should be able to change his mind without any TMO involvement (such as the JGP try)

from here

https://passport.world.rugby/officiating/match-observation-programme/why-the-whistle-was-blown-or-not/

It also becomes quite evident when a referee calls upon a Television Match Official (TMO) when the referee’s decision simply cannot be based upon a clear and obvious interpretation of what he (or she) had just observed from their one, and only one, angle of view. There are even times when the TMO with multiple angle replays and slow motion replays cannot interpret a situation to make an absolutely certain “clear and obvious” decision.

Despite these circumstances, it is important for referees to make decisions upon their observation of the “clear and obvious”. At other times, when “clear and obvious” is not evident, they must call upon their understanding of the game and their application of the Laws of the Game to make decisions to support their decision-making.

Emphasis mine. This would seem to imply that they cannot change their mind without the TMO being involved, due to the big screen replay not being part of their "one and only one angle of view"?

Quin_Dub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121767274#Comment_121767274

The TMO did get involved in the JGP try though..

They spoke to the ref and said "you might want to look at that" or whatever , the ref looked up and saw the screen and changed his decision - Based on the intervention of the TMO.

He didn't just look at the screen on his own.

The TMO speaking to the ref happens throughout the game - It's not just when he stops the game and indicates a review.

All 4 members of the refs team are constantly talking throughout the game.

TheRona

Imagine if there was this much discussion about SA winning the RWC on the back of 3 1-point wins via questionable reffing decisions and TMO interventions (or lack thereof).

It's rugby, there's always going to be stuff like this. It's always going to be best to go with the ref's decision unless it is clearly, unquestionably wrong.