British and Irish Lions Tour: Referee Chat

[The Jones Boy]

I agree he should have played advantage, but he is a pro-whistle kind of referee, maybe he will change as he gets more experience but the opportunity for advantage has long gone now so, a draw is ok in my book.
The AB's only have themselves to blame for not converting a variety of first half opportunities.

The decision was very unusual.
If an original penalty decision shows no dangerous play, then it normally reverts to the original position, in this case that didn't happen... but in rugby terms the French are very unusual so it kinda fits.
Ben Te'o got away with running interference on Kieran Read and I've seen that pinged before, but rugby is full of those situations and it's not worth getting upset about, not even remotely.
The AB's should have put this game to bed long before the last 2 minutes.
All good experience for the babies in the backline.

 

[Nubiwan]

Well, first of all, he refers to the TMO for fould play - tackling a man in the air is foul play, and a perfectly acceptable use of the TMO.
http://rugbyreferee.net/2017/07/09/...that-incident-and-why-the-law-needs-changing/


As you say - he then has a chat with the touch judge - about something he can't refer to the TMO (though he is allowed to see on the big screen during replays); and changes his mind to accidental offside.
That Smarty Cooky's opinion is that the offside wasn't accidental is irrelevant to this - it's an opinion, and one that can viably go either way. Romain and Jerome, between them, disagree with SC. They are notonly entitled, but actively encouraged to consult and come to a decision, and they are most certainly not bound by Romain's initial penalty, or his first view of the replays.

Personally, I don't think there's grounds for complaint over the decision reached here - nor would I if it were a penalty againt the Lions, or a penalty against the ABs; all are fair decisions based on the available evidence. Ref could have communicated better with the captains, but his decision is fair, and the protocols were followed - which is the bit I called you on. That SC disagrees on the latter just means that SC is wrong; presumably he didn't hear the words "We're checking the challenge in the air" - or thinks that Romain is outright lying.

ETA: Oh, and players acting like chavs really, really needs to stop, from all teams.

Debating with some people on here is worthless, so I would not put too much shrift in those you are trying to convince. In all the rugby I have seen, in the past 5 years or so, if there is deemed to be a knock on, and a player from the same team plays the ball, then it has been called a pen. That was Poites first instinct, and that would have been correct. I think it is a terrible penalty in the first place, and lean towards accidental offside and either a scrum or free-kick, unless the player is deemed cynically playing the ball. What Poite did was very odd at best, even if I ultimately agree with his on field decision.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

The ref and TMO should not be able to consider the offence other than what is being reviewed, particularly when it is an infringement that is not allowed to be referred to the TMO (such as was the case for Joubert with a near identical incident at the RWC). The TMO should pause the tape at the end of the offence under review. I think it is entirely reasonable as a fan to insist on consistentcy in matters like these. And consistency is sorely lacking and refs should not be able to pick and choose when something is reviewable based on a whim. That is far, far worse than the occasional wrong decision.

I quite like French refs personally. They are so popular in the SH that three of them will be officiating the Rugby Championship, including Poite!

 

[Which Tyler]

The decision was very unusual.
If an original penalty decision shows no dangerous play, then it normally reverts to the original position, in this case that didn't happen... but in rugby terms the French are very unusual so it kinda fits.

The situation was very unusual; oh, and no, you only revert to the original decision if the original decision is still considered correct - see my example above when this happened against the club team I support.

If a ref blows the whistle for a penalty, and in looking at the replays, and consulting the TJs he realises that no penalty offence was committed - you restart with a scrum, not a penalty anyway.

The ref and TMO should not be able to consider the offence other than what is being reviewed, particularly when it is an infringement that is not allowed to be referred to the TMO (such as was the case for Joubert with a near identical incident at the RWC). I think it is entirely reasonable as a fan to insist on consistentcy in matters like these. And consistency is sorely lacking.

I quite like French refs personally. They are so popular in the SH that three of them will be officiating the Rugby Championship, including Poite!

With the TMO? then yes, you're right - fortunately, that's also exactly what happened in this example. However the Ref IS ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED to discuss these things with the TJs; and absolutely IS allowed to have a look at other things happening on the screen whilst replaying the potential foul play.

Remember, Romain changin his mind had absolutely nothing to do with the TMO - that was all on Romain and Jerome having a discussion AFTER the TMO had been consulted and butted out.

 

[Ospervat]

I quite like French refs personally. They are so popular in the SH that three of them will be officiating the Rugby Championship, including Poite!

Oh mercy! I hope not!
Hopefully after his latest brain fart they might reconsider and send him for retraining at schools level in Tajikistan.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Oh mercy! I hope not!
Hopefully after his latest brain fart they might reconsider and send him for retraining at schools level in Tajikistan.

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/07/10/frenchmen-dominate-rugby-championship-referees/

 

[Ospervat]

http://www.americasrugbynews.com/2017/07/10/frenchmen-dominate-rugby-championship-referees/

......and with that we now know that Argentina beat SA by 1 point (19-18) due to a penalty try in the 81st minute because of a SA knock on the Arg 22 when Poite asks for a replay and refers to Miguel Jimenez of Buenos Aires in the 78th row of the South stand who points out by sign language that there was an earlier penalty infringement in the 23rd minute of the first half that nobody else saw.

 

[Five Meters Out]

Remember, Romain changin his mind had absolutely nothing to do with the TMO - that was all on Romain and Jerome having a discussion AFTER the TMO had been consulted and butted out.

The TMO hadn't "butted out". He'd confirmed Poite's impression that it was a penalty offence and was likely waiting quietly for Poite to signal that decision.

 

[The Jones Boy]

The TMO hadn't "butted out". He'd confirmed Poite's impression that it was a penalty offence and was likely waiting quietly for Poite to signal that decision.

Thats exactly right and this is the root of the displeasure coming out of New Zealand.
Poite messed up.
The vast majority of referee reversals of a penalty occur when a player has taken the law into his own hands and exacted some kind of retribution and the ref will reverse the penalty.

I'm ok with the messing up, ref's are human and rugby is a tough game to administer, but I'm not ok with the break in protocol.

Rugby has enough stoppages, if we regard the TMO as available for all and sundry decisions then we have an American football menu on our hands and we will be going for commercial breaks everytime the TMO gets consulted over something straight forward once again.
Please, no.

 

[Which Tyler]

The TMO hadn't "butted out". He'd confirmed Poite's impression that it was a penalty offence and was likely waiting quietly for Poite to signal that decision.

You mean he agreed that it was back to the original penalty Poite had blown the whistle for? yeah, one hell of an intervention there!

RP: "Are you happy for the knock on. The challenge in the air was fair. Penalty kick against 16 red in front?"

TMO: Yes I am.

So - basically the same as every other TMO intervention when no foul play has been spotted byt the TMO. Confirms the TMO's opinion that the ball was knowcked on (within TMO remit) and that the challenge in the air was fine (within TMO remit) and confirms that the original decision stands (absolutely correct to confirm, and happens 90%* of the time the TMO is consulted) - if it makes you feel better, insert the words "so I go back to" before "Penalty kick against 16 red in front" rather than the obvious implication.

TMO makes no comment whatsoever on the original penalty that Poite blew for, except in agreement that there's nothing else over-riding it.

@The Jones Yes, the majority of reversals are to penalise a subsequent action; this does not mean that the ref is wrong to reverse a penalty that shouldn't have been given - nor is it the first time this has happened, and nor is it against any protocol laid down.

So again - where is the break in protocol you keep banging on about?

The only way there is a break in protocol here is from people either not knowing what happened, or not knowing what the protocols are.
Had the TMO talked Poite out of giving the penalty and said that playing the ball was accidental not deliberate THEN you'd have cause to complain, otherwise, there is no break in protocol, and no cause for complaint that protocol wasn't followed.


*90% figure plucked out of my arse

 

[The Jones Boy]

So you're saying the material the TMO displayed didn't have any effect on Roman Poite changing his decision oin the penalty he originally gave?

Thats where we disagree and thats the break in protocol. Once the genie's out of the bottle...

Poite didn't have the courage to make the original decision stand because it could have decided the game, just as a ref decision did in the previous test, but that ref had the courage to stand by his original decision, so he bottled out and actively looked for a way out. Going back to Peyper for another discussion for a decision that 99 times out of 100 would be a straight penalty. No questions asked.
The offside was not accidental.

You can argue it as much as you like but this was weird and I would happily support a law change away from a penalty to a free kick and keep the game flowing rather than have another situation where the game is stopped for too long over an apparent technicality.
I can absolutely see why some folk are hot under the collar about it, just as we would be under a deluge of Lions fans complaints on here had the situation been reversed.
Make no bones about that WT.

 

[Which Tyler]

I'm only arguing the protocol point, I have an opinion on the matters of opinion, and that everything from penalty against red to penalty against black are all correct.

On protocol, you still need to show me a protocol that was broken.
TMO showed play that was directly connected with the play the TMO was rightly asked to look at, footage just continued for a fraction of a second and gave more information.
TMO was not asked to show Owens collecting the ball, and did not comment on Owens collecting the ball.
Polite and Garces absolutely ARE allowed, and encouraged to look at all that pictures and their own initial view, and decide in accordance. No ref is required to ignore evidence seen when deciding what any decision should be.

Again, no protocol was broken here, which is the be all and end all of my involvement here.

You seem to think that a ref isn't allowed to change his mind after consulting with his TJ or seeing replays on the big screen. If so, them you are outright wrong.


Yes, I'm sure that were the teams swapped then there's would be some lions fans making the same arguments the AB fans are making - they'd be wrong too!


Initially the claimed break with protocol was that Poite referred to the TMO for accidental or deliberate offside. This didn't happen.
Then the break in protocol was that TMO commented on it anyway. Which also didn't happen.
Then the break in protocol was that Poite changed his mind. Which isn't a break in protocol.
Are you really now claiming that the break in protocol is that the footage shown should have stopped 0.2 seconds earlier than it did? Or that Poite and Garces should only have consulted before the replays were seen? Because neither of those things are against protocol.


At some point you'll have to either find a protocol that was broken, or accept that protocol was followed, and that you don't like the decision (whether you agree with it or not).
I have no problem with having a different opinion on a matter of opinion (was the serial challenge legal? Was Owen's involvement deliberate or accidental etc), but to claim that protocols weren't followed then that needs to be demonstrated.

 

[The Jones Boy]

Poite used the TMO footage to change his mind on a matter that did not involve dangerous play.
That IS a break in protocol.

It's a break in protocol that creates a precedent for it's future use in the same way.
I'm passed caring about the incident.
I don't want to see American football kind of disconnects with the flow of the game.

He also ignored Ben Te'o running interference on Read. Sums his performance up.

 

[Which Tyler]

Please show me the protocol that says that Poite isn't allowed to change his mind based on evidence.
Please show me evidence that he changed his mind based on that, not the information/opinion that Garces provided.

You can't because there is no such protocol.
You can't, but I can provide evidence to the contrary (at the end of his conversation with the TMO he's still going with the penalty, at the end of his conversation with Garces he goes with a scrum)

 

[TRF_heineken]

I'm only arguing the protocol point, I have an opinion on the matters of opinion, and that everything from penalty against red to penalty against black are all correct.

On protocol, you still need to show me a protocol that was broken.
TMO showed play that was directly connected with the play the TMO was rightly asked to look at, footage just continued for a fraction of a second and gave more information.
TMO was not asked to show Owens collecting the ball, and did not comment on Owens collecting the ball.
Polite and Garces absolutely ARE allowed, and encouraged to look at all that pictures and their own initial view, and decide in accordance. No ref is required to ignore evidence seen when deciding what any decision should be.

Again, no protocol was broken here, which is the be all and end all of my involvement here.

You seem to think that a ref isn't allowed to change his mind after consulting with his TJ or seeing replays on the big screen. If so, them you are outright wrong.


Yes, I'm sure that were the teams swapped then there's would be some lions fans making the same arguments the AB fans are making - they'd be wrong too!


Initially the claimed break with protocol was that Poite referred to the TMO for accidental or deliberate offside. This didn't happen.
Then the break in protocol was that TMO commented on it anyway. Which also didn't happen.
Then the break in protocol was that Poite changed his mind. Which isn't a break in protocol.
Are you really now claiming that the break in protocol is that the footage shown should have stopped 0.2 seconds earlier than it did? Or that Poite and Garces should only have consulted before the replays were seen? Because neither of those things are against protocol.


At some point you'll have to either find a protocol that was broken, or accept that protocol was followed, and that you don't like the decision (whether you agree with it or not).
I have no problem with having a different opinion on a matter of opinion (was the serial challenge legal? Was Owen's involvement deliberate or accidental etc), but to claim that protocols weren't followed then that needs to be demonstrated.

The issue here is that had Poite not gone upstairs for foul play, the penalty would have stand. Neither Poite nor his AR's would have had remarks on the penalty he originally given. The question is that had the TMO footage not been shown, would Garces have asked Poite to change his decision? This is probably the argument that Jones Boy is making, and if so, I tend to agree with him. If this was a court case, and they had to present this to a judge, the TMO footage would be seen as a novus actus interveniens (new intervening act), which changed the final outcome.

And don't say that the TV footage didn't have an effect on the final outcome, because it did.

 

[Which Tyler]

Almost certainly the case, though we can't be 100% sure that Garces wouldn't have intervened anyway, I agree that it's highly unlikely.
However, the TMO referral did happen, and it is absolutely within the protocols to happen.

Rugby isn't a court of law, and the ref isn't required to pretend he hasn't seen something that he has seen.

I've never claimed that the video footage didn't affect the decision; I've only claimed that no protocols were broken.
I can't prove a negative, so I need someone to produce a protocol that was broken before I will accept that the protocols were broken.
Without that, we're down to personal opinions about what the decision should have been, which I'm not particularly interested in as there are too many valid options.

 

[ncurd]

Here's the simple question,

If the referee refers potential foul play to the TMO and the big screen shows their original interprtation of a different incident to be wrong, can someone point to the protocol that says they are not allowed to reverse their decision?

We know the TMO isn't allowed to say anything (which is just flat out stupid IMO). Infact the entire thing is bloody stupid NZ are litreally complaining that the ref got the wrong decision and he should of stuck to that wrong decision so they could of won the match.....seriously you wonder why they reputation as bad losers when it comes to rugby....

 

[TRF_heineken]

Here's the simple question,

If the referee refers potential foul play to the TMO and the big screen shows their original interprtation of a different incident to be wrong, can someone point to the protocol that says they are not allowed to reverse their decision?

We know the TMO isn't allowed to say anything (which is just flat out stupid IMO). Infact the entire thing is bloody stupid NZ are litreally complaining that the ref got the wrong decision and he should of stuck to that wrong decision so they could of won the match.....seriously you wonder why they reputation as bad losers when it comes to rugby....

Well, that's what I think everybody wants to know... As far as I know, the TMO protocol was simplified this year to revert back to the old protocol system, and that the TMO can only be involved with acts of foul play, or in the process of a try being scored.

But now, along with the TMO's assistance, the referee has the benefit of viewing the big screen and making the call even before the TMO gives him feedback. And this has been seen a lot in Super Rugby where something is shown on the big screen, and then the ref would stop play and review the incident. But again, it's for foul play.

Are there any other examples or footage to show that a similar thing has happened in another match?

If we look at the footage, when Poite gave the original penalty. You can see Garces walking on as if he's going to stand in the corner or behind the posts. Now this to me shows that he didn't have a problem with the immediate on field decision by his counterpart. But only after the footage was shown, the decision was changed. And here is where I have a problem with the system. footage was shown which had an effect on the outcome that didn't result in foul play nor in a try being scored. So why was this footage then used to change an original decision?? Surely if it's not a TMO protocol that has been broken, then it has to be the AR's or even the Referee's protocols that has been broken.

 

[ncurd]

footage was shown which had an effect on the outcome that didn't result in foul play nor in a try being scored. So why was this footage then used to change an original decision?? Surely if it's not a TMO protocol that has been broken, then it has to be the AR's or even the Referee's protocols that has been broken.

Again we need to know if protocol was broken are refs and AR allowed to use television footage to correct a decision before the incorrect decision has adversely affected the game (ie the penalty kick was taken).

However this isn't a case of foul play occurring but proof foul play did not occur.

I belive most penalty offences and certainly this come under 10.2(a) of Foul Play as well as the specific law they'd broken.
10.2 Unfair play
(a)
Intentionally Offending. A player must not intentionally infringe any Law of the Game, or play unfairly. The player who intentionally offends must be either admonished, or cautioned that a send off will result if the offence or a similar offence is committed, or sent off.

Sanction: Penalty kick

 

[The Jones Boy]

NZ are litreally complaining that the ref got the wrong decision and he should of stuck to that wrong decision so they could of won the match.....seriously you wonder why they reputation as bad losers when it comes to rugby....

If there was ever a reason not to take your posts, this is it.
What are you hoping to achieve by making these kind of slanderous venal invective?
Really?
I've seen you make worthwhile posts in the past but this, this is definitely not your finest hour.

I'm happy with the result.
I'm good with the Lions having their stock increased by getting a positive draw in the Kiwi series. They deserved it.
We were diminished and we learned a lot from the series, about our own team and what happens to our midfield when SBW and Crotty are not at home.

However, if you can stick to the topic we might get somewhere... if the ref is going to break protocol and start to use the TMO for whatever he feels like, and in this case it was clearly for more than foul play, then he is setting an ugly precedent for allowing the TMO to start to make much more invasive, time consuming, interventions that will slow the game down and reduce the action.
No thanks.
I don't want to see that.
I don't like American grid iron with its three teams for each franchise and commercial breaks constantly throughout proceedings, if you like that, cool, but not in rugby union please.