@gv27 you'll be ecstatic to see that the referees acknowledge mistakes were made against the Blues and Chiefs in the weekend.

Handle9:

 

Dingbatt:

 

If the on-field decision is “Try”, there has to be clear evidence to overturn it.

 

 

Interestingly there is nothing in the laws that say this.

 

They have been using that for 3 seasons at least, so there is some protocol around it.

networkn:

 

Handle9:

 

Interestingly there is nothing in the laws that say this.

 

 

They have been using that for 3 seasons at least, so there is some protocol around it.

 

How would you explain the Itoje try?

Handle9:

 

How would you explain the Itoje try?

 

I don't know what try you are talking about.

I am not aware what they use in the Northern Hemisphere matches, but in Super Rugby competition, which we are referring to, they have been using that term, and applying those rulings, for a long time.

Different competitions apply different variations of things. The goal line drop, for example,  out is certainly not test rugby protocol yet as far as I am aware.

networkn:

 

I don't know what try you are talking about.

 

I am not aware what they use in the Northern Hemisphere matches, but in Super Rugby competition, which we are referring to, they have been using that term, and applying those rulings, for a long time.

 

Different competitions apply different variations of things. The goal line drop, for example,  out is certainly not test rugby protocol yet as far as I am aware.

 

They try on the weekend against France. 

Nigel Owens explains here what the actual rule is around the TMO, not what has been described above.

He talks about the Faingaanuku try later on where he says it was the correct ruling as there wasn't clear evidence his foot was in touch. That isn't the same as clear evidence being required to overturn a decision.

Handle9:

 

They try on the weekend against France. 

 

Nigel Owens explains here what the actual rule is around the TMO, not what has been described above.

 

He talks about the Faingaanuku try later on where he says it was the correct ruling as there wasn't clear evidence his foot was in touch. That isn't the same as clear evidence being required to overturn a decision.

 

Not really sure what point you are trying to make? Ultimately, if the evidence was conclusive his foot was in touch, the TMO would have advised overturning the original ruling. I mean, that's the purpose of the TMO.

networkn:

 

Handle9:

 

They try on the weekend against France. 

 

Nigel Owens explains here what the actual rule is around the TMO, not what has been described above.

 

He talks about the Faingaanuku try later on where he says it was the correct ruling as there wasn't clear evidence his foot was in touch. That isn't the same as clear evidence being required to overturn a decision.

 

 

Not really sure what point you are trying to make? Ultimately, if the evidence was conclusive his foot was in touch, the TMO would have advised overturning the original ruling. I mean, that's the purpose of the TMO.

 

The statement was made that there must be clear evidence to change an on field call. That isn't the case.

Handle9:

 

The statement was made that there must be clear evidence to change an on field call. That isn't the case.

 

What? Yes it is. If there had been no clear evidence then the onfield decision would have stood, if there had been clear evidence to show foot in touch, the on field ruling would have been overturned.

I'm afraid I don't see the point you are trying to make sorry.

networkn:

 

Handle9:

 

The statement was made that there must be clear evidence to change an on field call. That isn't the case.

 

 

What? Yes it is. If there had been no clear evidence then the onfield decision would have stood, if there had been clear evidence to show foot in touch, the on field ruling would have been overturned.

 

I'm afraid I don't see the point you are trying to make sorry.

 

The point is that there must be clear evidence that the ball is forced or the foot is in touch. The on field decision is largely irrelevant.

Handle9:

 

The point is that there must be clear evidence that the ball is forced or the foot is in touch. The on field decision is largely irrelevant.

 

The protocol, as mentioned by Owens, is that when referring to the TMO, the on field referee must give a ruling (try or no try). It's not irrelevant because if the TMO is unable to spot something that overturns it, the onfield decision stands. Presumbly, logic stands that anything that the TMO advises would need to be clear and obvious, if they can't, onfield decision would stand.

Without the decision on field, the TMO being unable to conclusively rule would give zero result.

networkn:

 

Handle9:

 

The point is that there must be clear evidence that the ball is forced or the foot is in touch. The on field decision is largely irrelevant.

 

 

The protocol, as mentioned by Owens, is that when referring to the TMO, the on field referee must give a ruling (try or no try). It's not irrelevant because if the TMO is unable to spot something that overturns it, the onfield decision stands. Presumbly, logic stands that anything that the TMO advises would need to be clear and obvious, if they can't, onfield decision would stand.

 

Without the decision on field, the TMO being unable to conclusively rule would give zero result.

 

There is nothing in law that says it has to be clear and obvious to change the decision. That is the point. The Itoje try awarded on the weekend wasn't clear and obvious but in the TMOs opinion the try was scored so they changed the ruling.

Clear and obvious has absolutely nothing to do with the laws.

Handle9:

 

There is nothing in law that says it has to be clear and obvious to change the decision. That is the point. The Itoje try awarded on the weekend wasn't clear and obvious but in the TMOs opinion the try was scored so they changed the ruling.

 

Clear and obvious has absolutely nothing to do with the laws.

 

Just because they didn't use the term clear and obvious doesn't mean it wasn't clear and obvious, or at least that the TMO felt it was clear and obvious. If they had been unable to see a grounding, the original on field decision would have stood. (assuming the TMO is doing their job properly)

Beyond that, I am not really sure I see the point of further debate on that, it's how it's done here, it's been done that way for a long time, and I guess if it bothers you enough, you could bring it to someones attention, but it works fine as far as I can see.

The right result was achieved and in the majority of cases, it works well. (I guess it wasn't a pants tmo decision after all :) )

The Faingaanuku was clearly no try - there's plenty of evidence of that (including his own admission) so yes it's still a pants decision.

Handle9:

 

The Faingaanuku was clearly no try - there's plenty of evidence of that (including his own admission) so yes it's still a pants decision.

 

Handle9

 

He talks about the Faingaanuku try later on where he says it was the correct ruling as there wasn't clear evidence his foot was in touch.

 

So which is it?

When did Faingaanuku make this admission?

networkn:

 

When did Faingaanuku make this admission?

 

The TMO didn't look at all the angles so yeah it was a bad decision. There have been photographs since that show it was not a try. 

His comments around being lucky to have had green boots were similar.