Article: TMOs & Close Calls

[Dickie E]

That's it.

For the record, from the camera angles I have seen, I do think England probably DID score a try, but the question requires proof and the evidence isn't good enough to be certain.

Why does it require proof? Isn't beyond reasonable doubt enough? 22.15 only applies if there is doubt about WHO grounds the ball, not WHETHER the ball was grounded. Or is this being chopperesque?

[Robert Burns]

For the TMO to answer a question of "Try or No try" in RU they must see grounding, If they cannot see who grounded it, but the attacking team were carrying the ball into it, I would say that's acceptable to assume the attacking player was the player to ground it, and can award the try.

But if you cannot positively see that there was a grounding, you cannot assume there was. and cannot give the try. If they did, the whole process of the TMO would be a shambles.

You have done the TMO role in games have you not Dickie? What was the advice given to you?

Bryan, is what I stated above how you understand it to be?

[crammond1964]

i believe "benefit of doubt !" should go to attacking team as it is in league . As majority of refs we do not have cameras or TMO to aid us !