PDA

View Full Version : TMO: Wilko's Try (England vs. Scotland)



Gareth-Lee Smith
03-02-07, 19:02
Most of us will have seen it by now... the TMO allowed the referee to award a try.

Now, did anybody catch the question that was asked to the TMO? Perhaps that could have been the factor? If "Did he touch the post?" was asked, then the TMO was correct in his awarding of a try. If "Is there any reason why I should not award a try?" was asked, then he got it wrong.

Who's at fault here? Is anybody at fault here? How about the touch judge? He was clearly looking at Wilkinson's leg in-touch.

Gareth-Lee Smith
03-02-07, 19:02
On second thoughts, perhaps this should've gone in 'Was this right...'

craign
03-02-07, 19:02
If that was why the try was allowed then it is the worst sort of pedantry by Donal Courteney and the rules that he has to follow. Surely the answer to that question was that he grounded the ball before touching the post BUT his foot was in touch before he did either.

It's daft decisions like that that reduce the credibility of the whole TMO system.

whistler
03-02-07, 22:02
Sorry guys but what was wrong with the try?
Check Law 19 carefully - the ball would have been in touch had the player carrying it put a foot into touch - at the time his foot touched the ground he was definitely NOT carrying the ball. He had, by then, released the ball and was moving forward through the air with his hand on the ball, pushing it towards the in-goal area. Brian Moore may have been sure that it should have been disallowed and apparently Frank Hadden is livid that it was allowed but I cannot find the law that states that there was anything wrong with it!

Jacko
04-02-07, 01:02
He was still carrying it - if he wasn't, then he lost control of it, and it was a knock on. Definite no try - I think just an oversight. Granted I was an overexcited Englishman, but I thought the try was good on first viewing.

Davet
04-02-07, 11:02
Oh - come on. Not carrying it...? You're on a wind up mission, surely?

We seem to get hugely tied in knots looking for precise definitions of commonly understood words, happens all the time on all refs fora that I have looked at. What is it with refs and dancing angels?

He was carrying the ball in all normal senses of the term, sure he had shifted his grip preparatory to placing it, but so what?

No try. Much as I would wish otherwise.

Robert Burns
04-02-07, 12:02
Yep, no try, not that it made any difference, by that time England were well in control.

But then again if I am honest Scotlands try should never have been either because there was a blatent arm stopping the catch in the preeceeding lineout, that should have been an England Penalty.

I have to admit I thought Jonker had a very good game, so would be pleased to see him ref again.

OB..
04-02-07, 13:02
Agreed, no try. I suspect the TMO simply overlooked the possibility of the trailing foot, having originally noted that he did not step into touch. Almost impossible for the TJ to be looking at foot and ball and corner post to judge the sequence of events, so no blame there. Without a TMO he would have had to "take a view".

(Couldn't hear what the ref said to thye TMO - I was using an old RefLink and it had packed up.)

Glyndwr
04-02-07, 18:02
After the first round of 6N matches, I am coming more firmly to the conclusion that refereeing the top professional games is outwith the competence of a single on-field official.

Robert Burns
04-02-07, 18:02
After the first round of 6N matches, I am coming more firmly to the conclusion that refereeing the top professional games is outwith the competence of a single on-field official.
lol, but you need that human factor just to make it interesting, otherwise we couldn't have these conversations.

Account Deleted
04-02-07, 21:02
Sorry guys but what was wrong with the try?
Check Law 19 carefully - the ball would have been in touch had the player carrying it put a foot into touch - at the time his foot touched the ground he was definitely NOT carrying the ball. He had, by then, released the ball and was moving forward through the air with his hand on the ball, pushing it towards the in-goal area. Brian Moore may have been sure that it should have been disallowed and apparently Frank Hadden is livid that it was allowed but I cannot find the law that states that there was anything wrong with it!

I'm sorry to have to say this but the above is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read! You must be a Welsh selector!

Account Deleted
04-02-07, 22:02
lol, but you need that human factor just to make it interesting, otherwise we couldn't have these conversations.
I assume that the above comment was made in jest. Rugby is professional now and crass officials are as guilty as are crass players.
Without a TMO I would have said "Ok the ref called it as he saw it. But the TMO with the time to get it right? Simply wrong and a waste of time if the wrong issue is being addressed.

craign
04-02-07, 22:02
Kelvin Deaker today was amusing to watch. If I did a level 9 game and allowed that much blatantly obvious ground work, I'd be getting SD assessments and be happy to have even got that! The teams clearly had done their homework on the ref and knew that he would not give many handling on the ground and in-the-side penalties. Too many plays slowed down by inconsistent, and IMHO, weak reffing.

Same with that penalty decision on 8 mins (approx) when a very quick maul was pulled down 2m out, he gave the penalty when I cannot think of any reason why I wouldn't have given a penalty try and a yellow card.

The 2nd half incident where the welsh winger was clearly tackled without the ball was surely a case for seriously considering a penalty try. To not even give a penalty meant that he missed the incident completely, not really good enough at that level, regardless of how fast the play was.

Also, the two scrums were a bit unsure how to handle his engagement calls, sometimes it was the proper 4 stage thing, others it was "crouch & touch", others it was one word "crouchtouch". Then the same as yesterday's England game, the calls were often so slow that I wonder why the teams didn't take water breaks inbetween words at times. I'd put many of the resets purely down to his inconsistent engagement procedure.

Not a good weekend for refereeing. The only good display I saw was one of the Changleng brothers at the England Saxons v Italy A game on Friday night.

Robert Burns
04-02-07, 23:02
I though Jonker had a good day at the office, but as you say, Deaker didn't seem to have a good game at all.

FlipFlop
05-02-07, 01:02
Kelvin Deaker today was amusing to watch.

....

Not a good weekend for refereeing. The only good display I saw was one of the Changleng brothers at the England Saxons v Italy A game on Friday night.

Kelvin - how many times did he warn the players? "You do that once more and I'll YC you. Okay - you did it again, so once more and I'll YC you......"

And you're joking about the only good performance being Changleng? Didn't think he had a particularly good game. Thought Barnesy had a good game, and Jonkers was generally good.

But I think that some "elite" ref's are in trouble for their incompetence as TJ's and TMO's. Would be interesting to know the TJ's call for Wilko's "Try".

Bryan
05-02-07, 01:02
Would be interesting to know the TJ's call for Wilko's "Try".

Suspect it was something along the lines of:

"Marius, you'd better go upstairs with this one."

Jacko
05-02-07, 03:02
I haven't seen it yet, but my assessor who saw the first part of Wayne Barnes' game said that he was having a shocker at scrum time.
I agree that Jonker was good. I thought Deaker was out to manufacture a low penaly count and a lot of slow ball resulted.
I thought Changleng was average and his TJ with the bad 'tache was worse.
Bring on Chris White!!!

Dixie
05-02-07, 08:02
Wayne Barnes was unfortunate in that the ground at Rome was heavily sanded and while seeming apparently solid, the first inch was clearly treacherous underfoot. From his words to the packs, he clearly felt that much of the difficulty was caused by poor footing rather than shennanigans - he could have been better served by his TJ's alerting him to the latter -flankers pushing down the opposition loosehead's arm, for example.

craign
05-02-07, 09:02
And you're joking about the only good performance being Changleng? Didn't think he had a particularly good game. Thought Barnesy had a good game, and Jonkers was generally good.


The reason Changleng had a good game in my mind is that he worked very hard to keep the game flowing despite some (many) of the players being intent on slowing it down. Some inconsistent calls but on the whole he's improved substantially since I last saw him in a Magners League game.

As a Scotsman, I reserve my right to be one-eyed over Jonker's performance :)

Barnes had a reasonable game for his first 6N game. Too squeaky and showed nerves but showed lots of promise; he'll mature into this level very quickly.

Wert Twacky
05-02-07, 10:02
Allthetimeref:
I'm sorry to have to say this but the above is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read! You must be a Welsh selector!

Calm down - one of the points of this forum is for people to get opinions on decisions, and while we may not agree with them (even if they are wrong), there's no need to be aggressive with your reposte.
And no, I'm not sticking up just becasude Whistler is a Somerset referee, but overly-aggressive responses to honest observations does nothing to encourage people to post.

Dixie
05-02-07, 11:02
Allthetimeref:
"I'm sorry to have to say this but the above is the biggest load of rubbish I've ever read! You must be a Welsh selector!"

Calm down - one of the points of this forum is for people to get opinions on decisions, and while we may not agree with them (even if they are wrong), there's no need to be aggressive with your reposte.
And no, I'm not sticking up just because Whistler is a Somerset referee, but overly-aggressive responses to honest observations does nothing to encourage people to post.

I suspect this may have been an example of the dictum that we often don't read what the writer intended to write, and the writer often fails to convey properly what he actually meant.

Whistler may not have been entirely serious with his original post. Davet put it well:
Oh - come on. Not carrying it...? You're on a wind up mission, surely? Doesn't AllTheTimeRef merely expand the theme?

But Twacky's point is well made - we should all try to respect the views of others so that as many of us as possible are encouraged to contribute to the widest understanding. To this end we should all probably read our posts a bit longer before hitting the submit button, with a particular emphasis on softening the tone without losing the message.

Robert Burns
05-02-07, 12:02
Or use emoticons to help convey the tone of the posts, after all, that's exactly what they are for! ;)

OB..
05-02-07, 18:02
A severe case of "sarchasm" [sic].

Sinkers
05-02-07, 20:02
It appears the Irish TMO is down to ref the next scottish game and robertsons spin on it tonight on five live is that perhaps his position is untenible due to Haddens comlete slagging off of the incident,

speedy
05-02-07, 21:02
IMHO I thought Jonkers had a good game.... after I had seen the try replayed 5 or 6 times I decided that I would not have given it :)

After watching the whole shock and horror at the supposed lack of professionalism I had a chuckle on Sunday morning as I looked at my team of officials:
Ref - Me
TMO - Me
Time keeper - Me
TJ's - two duffers from the clubs who either forgot or couldn't keep up with the game.

Lets remember we do this for fun:)

OB..
05-02-07, 21:02
So Hadden is saying that any of his players who make an egregious error will automaticaly be dropped?

Bryan
06-02-07, 00:02
So Hadden is saying that any of his players who make an egregious error will automaticaly be dropped?
Wonder if Sean Lamont will be in the next lineup then eh?

Remember when The 'Boks lost to Australia 49-0, and Jake White blamed the officiating of Paul Honiss? This is just media spin. I'm sure Courtney isn't too phased about it. He might not be appointed as TMO anytime soon after the 6 Nations, but I don't think it's a reason to drop him.

Emmet Murphy
06-02-07, 07:02
I think Jonathon Davies actually said after the match that Courtney should be dropped from any future internationals which I found quite disappointing. At the end of the day it is human error and that is something we'll always have regardless of technology. It's a massive cliche but these things do even themselves out over the course of time - England were on the wrong end of a TMO decision in November and now they've had some fortune from one. Hadden should try to focus more on his team's performance and less on trying to be like Jose Mourinho!!

Robert Burns
06-02-07, 08:02
You can't blame Hadden either, he's just annoyed at things going against him, all teams in every sport are like that, he's made his grumble, onto the next game.

Remember Robinson and Kaplan? (Although Kaplan was not wrong as nothing could show he didn't see what he said)

Jaycee
06-02-07, 08:02
The media are making a mountain out of a mole hill about Hadden calling the try a farce. Lets be honest that is exactly what it is. If an international ref with a slow motion replay cannot get a call right that even a undoubtably biased hooker like Brain Moore can see there is a look of farce about it. Hadden has been remarkabley calm about the whole thing and the words 'farce' and 'hugely irritating' are the only ones that have been credited to him that have been remotely inflamatory, see http://www.planetrugby.com/Story/0,18259,3820_1893208,00.html. No mention of sacking Courtney or we wus robbed, he admits Scotland did not play well and duly lost. If you read the media do it slowly and avoid headlines it's all there to sell news not tell the truth.
Personnally I wouldn't let Courtney near a tv for a while but don't see how it effects his on field abilities where management is the most important thing. He made a mistake on Saturday when his job description was totally different from the on field ref. Who among us could ref a 6 Nations game? Who among us cannot analyse a video replay?

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 09:02
but it isnt Courtney's first 'mistake' .... and v Scotland.
i think it was in the AI's Scotland v Oz match he made an important match deciding 'mistake' - not allowing a try.

These refs should be the best and should be held responsible for their mistakes.
IMHO, Courtney should be dropped ... now.
There are better and younger refs available.

Deeps
06-02-07, 09:02
I think we should do away with the TMO altogether no, keep the action replay and then, when asked, we can all press the red button. One would need to register of course, be a bona fide referee and having signed a statement to the effect that we were being totally objective in any decisions that we made.

How ridiculous. Either we insist that if the BBC/Sky - whoever, are going to impose themselves on the game then they had better improve the technology markedly such that the computer decides whether a try has been scored or, preferably, we revert to the time honoured method of the abilities and vagaries of the referee and his two nominated assistants as being part of the traditional game.

Wert Twacky
06-02-07, 09:02
Anyboady been watching ESPN Classic lately? If not, you've missed some cracking 5 Nations matches for the 1970s.
I have to say it "appears" there's far less backchat to the refs (who look hysterical by the way - especially the wee French chap who must have been 50 and all of 5ft).
They also make v quick decisions that no-one argues with. I can only imagine what would have happened if they were time-transported to Saturdyas match. :D

IF they had kept up with play I reckon they would have awarded it and that was that.

If you do have SKY and haven't seen this channel - you have to watch it!

Account Deleted
06-02-07, 10:02
I apologise if I caused offence but the original post was stunning t osay the least.
re Courtney and the call.The following points are important.
The ref was not in a position to call it. So did the right thing in going to the TMO. However, what was the question? Did he ask the right one?
Assuming the right question was asked then Courtney's call was absurd.
If the use of TMOs and the like is going to come up with such poor justice then we may as well go back to the ref / Tjs and honest mistakes or a good calls.

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 10:02
deeps, i think you are on to something there ... a reality tv show .. whereby Jade and Shilpa and Daniel and Jo and Will (Carling) and Gavin and David Soul and David Sole and other celebrities are on a TMO jury panel vote on the 'try' or 'no try'.
And then we vote for them on the jury panel after every match.
It could work ...

Robert Burns
06-02-07, 10:02
Or have an X Factor style competition to become the Referee for the WRC Final?

Well it's all showbiz isn't it? :rolleyes:

ex-lucy
06-02-07, 11:02
i know what my X factor is !!
"Tonight Matthew ... i shall blow like Honiss"

oxped
06-02-07, 16:02
Anyboady been watching ESPN Classic lately? If not, you've missed some cracking 5 Nations matches for the 1970s.
I have to say it "appears" there's far less backchat to the refs (who look hysterical by the way - especially the wee French chap who must have been 50 and all of 5ft).
They also make v quick decisions that no-one argues with. I can only imagine what would have happened if they were time-transported to Saturdyas match. :D

IF they had kept up with play I reckon they would have awarded it and that was that.

If you do have SKY and haven't seen this channel - you have to watch it!

And watching the scrum engagements like something from another world!!

I watched a game from the late 80's the other day, and at one scrum the front rows were at least a 1.5 metres away from each other! the front rows had to take two steps at engagement- it was a wonder that one didn't collapse!

As far as the TMO goes, I think we are better off with them than without, and as long as humans are involved in the decision making process there will sometimes be mistakes.

whistler
10-02-07, 23:02
My original post, which appears to have caused some disagreements, was merely intended to point out how difficult it is to apply laws correctly when even one that seems crystal clear is open to interpretation.
I too would have disallowed the try but that doesn't alter the fact that the law talks about a player carrying the ball. If you check the dictionary definition of carrying I'm fairly certain that what was being done at the time the foot touched the floor was not actually carrying.
That said we referees have to make our own minds up and I suspect that most of us believe that he was still "holding" the ball with his left hand and would therefore judge this as a continuation of the "carrying" action - hence no try.
There! Said my piece. Yes my original post may well have been stunning but I take exception to it being called the biggest load of rubbish ever read.
P.S. Thanks for the support Twacky (still haven't worked out your real identity yet though) and Robert - this one's just for you: ;)

OB..
11-02-07, 00:02
If you check the dictionary definition of carrying I'm fairly certain that what was being done at the time the foot touched the floor was not actually carrying.
I checked several dictionaries, and found nothing to support your theory. The verb is very imprecise, and has multiple meanings. Surely everybody knows it is possible to carry the ball in one hand? I do not believe the Laws of Rugby distinguish "holding" from "carrying" in such cases eg

Law 7 Any player may tackle, hold or push an opponent holding the ball.
Law 10.4 (f) Except in a scrum, ruck or maul, a player must not hold, or push, or charge into, or obstruct an opponent not carrying the ball.

The definition section of Law 19 seems to cover your concern:

If a player has one foot in the field of play and one foot in touch and holds the ball, the ball is in touch.

I agree there are many ambiguities in the laws, but I do not think this is one of them.

Gareth-Lee Smith
11-02-07, 12:02
So far I've attended one society meeting, and it's these tiny intricacies that did my head in.

The Laws of the game are written for the layperson. They're not going to explain every single word in case somebody misunderstands. Why? Because they're using words that are in common usage and the meaning of said words are absolutely clear. It's only when we start linguistically analysing them that we find problems. What's the solution then? Stop looking so deep beneath the surface and take it at face value

OB..
11-02-07, 14:02
Because they're using words that are in common usage and the meaning of said words are absolutely clear. It's only when we start linguistically analysing them that we find problems. What's the solution then? Stop looking so deep beneath the surface and take it at face value
That would be fine if everybody agreed what "face value" meant. But they don't.

Ambiguities DO exist. There is nothing you can do about it. It is in the nature of language, particularly when it is not written to Parliamentary draftsman standards.

Gareth-Lee Smith
11-02-07, 14:02
Even in words like 'carry'?

I'd love to be able to say it's hard to see where the misinterpretations come in, but that could easily be countered by the simple fact that there are differences in interpretations.

I never get involved in such discussions; they simply frustrate me and achieve nothing.

OB..
11-02-07, 17:02
I argued against the word "carry" being ambiguous in this instance.

Interpretations matter because they affect the way the game is refereed. It is much better to try and come to an agreement in forums and meetings than all go our own way on the pitch.

Robert Burns
11-02-07, 18:02
Are we still talking about the try?

Account Deleted
12-02-07, 17:02
My original post, which appears to have caused some disagreements, was merely intended to point out how difficult it is to apply laws correctly when even one that seems crystal clear is open to interpretation.
I too would have disallowed the try but that doesn't alter the fact that the law talks about a player carrying the ball. If you check the dictionary definition of carrying I'm fairly certain that what was being done at the time the foot touched the floor was not actually carrying.
That said we referees have to make our own minds up and I suspect that most of us believe that he was still "holding" the ball with his left hand and would therefore judge this as a continuation of the "carrying" action - hence no try.
There! Said my piece. Yes my original post may well have been stunning but I take exception to it being called the biggest load of rubbish ever read.
P.S. Thanks for the support Twacky (still haven't worked out your real identity yet though) and Robert - this one's just for you: ;)

I could not believe your position that he was not in possession of the ball ie holding or carrying it when put his foot in touch. The OED defines carry as (among others!) ..convey with one from one place to another... Sorry but there it is and I still fail to see your logic.

Simon747
15-02-07, 13:02
No try - I think that we are all agreed - What was asked of the TMO? Surely the TMO can look at the 'big picture'? Isn't it his job to see if there is 'any' reason why the try cannot be given?

So what happens to Donal Courtnay now?

OB..
15-02-07, 18:02
Formally the TMO can only responds to whatever question the referee asks. The Lensbury Conference last November suggested the referee should ask a general question so as to give the TMO the opportunity to report anything relevant (and within his remit).

As far as I could hear on TV, the referee did ask a general question. Donal Courtney made a mistake. We all do. I see no reason why he should be shot at dawn.

macnan
27-02-07, 10:02
From information passed onto me by those with inside knowledge, the following is what happened:
1) Ref asked to check the grounding
2) DC checked grounding, ruled fine, but didn't wait for the footage of JW's foot before passing on his judgement.
3) While it was wrong to pass on an ok before seeing all angles, DC didn't ignore the foot in touch, he didn't see the camera angle that showed this important piece of information before he told ref to award the try.

It was a grave error, because the crowd had footage replayed to them as well, which showed the foot in touch, but the game wasn't won or lost on the decision, and everybody in the TMO box maybe a little wiser in future.

Dixie
27-02-07, 11:02
Thanks for that, Macnan. Welcome to the forum.

Bryan
27-02-07, 11:02
From information passed onto me by those with inside knowledge, the following is what happened:
1) Ref asked to check the grounding...
What the hell happened to "The referee will only ask if there is any reason NOT to award the try". This seemed to be a short lived experience, and now we're back to "Can you have a look at the grounding please Donal".

If the referee had stuck to the protocol of a general question, maybe Donal Courtney would have looked at all possible angles before going back to the referee so quickly.