Odd rule

[RobinAtkinson]

The ruling in the Scotland vFrance match yesterday appears ridiculous in my opinion ,it gives the referee the ability to make a decision that the ball was not grounded when says he can't see the ball . It's tough job sometimes made impossible with this particular rule. Any comments?

 

[Which Tyler]

Well, for one thing, he saw the ball held up - it then disappears from his sight, so the only call he can make from what he has seen, which is that it was held up.

I've seen a lot of people say that the ref should have asked a different question; but I don't see how he can. He actively saw the ball held-up; if that's the last sighting of the ball, then it's held-up, and he'd be castigated for asking anything else.

 

[TommiG88]

There's been many decisions like this over the years, don't ask me when as my memory is generally poor. But I've seen it also go the other way where the ref says it's grounded, it goes to the TMO who can't prove otherwise and you could debate that the ball wasn't grounded. I like that it keeps the decision with the ref unless there is conclusive evidence

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I agree that I think the wrong decision was made following the rules correctly.

I think in overruling an infield decision you should be able to use multiple angles to come to a decision. Like here there was an angle showing the ball grounded* and angles showing it was over the line, officials should be free to put 2 and 2 together which they currently can't.

*This is my only issue, immaterial here as it's game over anyway but had this happened in the 79th minute we'd incorrectly come to a goal line drop out with evidence the ball was on the ground.

 

[Crash Hamster]

Well, for one thing, he saw the ball held up - it then disappears from his sight, so the only call he can make from what he has seen, which is that it was held up.

I've seen a lot of people say that the ref should have asked a different question; but I don't see how he can. He actively saw the ball held-up; if that's the last sighting of the ball, then it's held-up, and he'd be castigated for asking anything else.

I'm entirely in agreement.

There are far more egregious examples of referees making mistakes than 'asking a question when some people would rather he asked the other question.'

The TMO is there to overturn absolute howlers, not make sure every decision is absolutely correct. How many times is there debate on these boards about the colour of a card for a high shot? We've all seen the same replays, but TV cameras will always distort and foreshorten angles. Nasser Hussain did a great piece on the cricket where he put a cricket ball in his hands (hands were on the ground, ball wasn't) and the camera from the boundary showed that the ball was apparently touching the grass.

I've no objection to people going 'we wuz robbed, the noo' (as a quarter Scot myself) which is part of sport, but the decision was made and it stands. SRFU aren't doing the sport any favours by whinging and carping about it. Just because they have a lot of McSaffas doesn't mean they can go full Rassie.

Also, if you decide to drive over from point blank range, you're putting yourself in a position where:
a) you might score
b) you might not score but be given a score
c) you might score but not be given a score
d) you might not score

Any professional player would know this and it's certainly high risk to take that situation on with the clock in the red.

 

[Kiwiwomble]

......it gives the referee the ability to make a decision that the ball was not grounded when says he can't see the ball .

that has always been the case, its actually the rules, they cant give the try if they dont see the gounding