• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

The Laws of the Game/Referee - Discussion Thread

I think the problem is that the debate is televised. The referee and the TMO should not have a debate on live television because it just causes controversy when they disagree. They should come together in private. It is an example of TV companies being over intrusive. However, I think in this case both referee and TMO should have to give an explanation of what they saw after the game.

I definitely agree with that. There are occasions where the TMO and referee disagree, and in these cases it often comes down to how the assertive the referee is! Personally I don't see any need for the referee to be involved in the decision making process - we often see 'specialist' TMO's these days, who should be more than capable of doing the job on their own!
 
I definitely agree with that. There are occasions where the TMO and referee disagree, and in these cases it often comes down to how the assertive the referee is! Personally I don't see any need for the referee to be involved in the decision making process - we often see 'specialist' TMO's these days, who should be more than capable of doing the job on their own!

There was a referees forum last year (I think), where TMO protocol was discussed and where the refs agreed they would take ownership of these decisions if it was on the big screen.
 
Thank you for addressing my point :) I see where you are coming from (and to be fair I never claimed the TMO doesn't know the laws), but I still think there was obviously a problem with the TMO's communication. The ref stated "I do feel there is a hand between the ball and the grounding". Rather than contradict him (or suggest it wasn't completely clear) he stated "It’s the English players arm holding the ball. It’s not the black players arm it is the English players arm." This completely irrelevant point clearly confused the referee (and me). The referee then appeared a bit flustered, then agreed to go with the TMO decision.

I do feel part of the problem lies with the way the TMO and referee now seem to debate these decisions. Previously it went straight up to the TMO who made the final decision. It was simple, and in my opinion the best way to do it. These days there seems to be a debate between the TMO and referee every time a decision is made. Sometimes the referee accepts the TMO's decision, other times they will completely over-rule the TMO. If we are going to continue with this system the role of the TMO and referee in these decisions need to be more clearly defined in my opinion, and importantly the discussion between the two needs to be clear and concise.



The referees initial statement was "I do feel there is a hand between the ball and the grounding". He doesn't mention whose hand it was because it was completely irrelevant. Perhaps the TMO was trying to be helpful in some way by stating it was an English arm, but all it did was completely confuse the situation.

I will state again I really don't have a massive issue with the TMO actual decision. I (and the referee) thought the ball was clearly held-up, but the TMO obviously didn't think it was 100% clear. The interaction between the TMO and referee was the biggest issue, along with the fact the wrong question was probably asked initially!



It was pretty easy to prove it wasn't a try by watching the video :) Again, that's not the point I've been trying to make, so I should probably give up!

Again if it's pretty easy why can't you show it and why wasn't TMO given the angle. What exact point is it your making that proves so easily the refs were wrong.
My understanding is when they initially go to ground there's no conclusive evidence that it was held up. Yes there's a case when camera does show but fact is that's after they go to ground so if it's not 100% conclusive then it's a try. So again Darwin can you please just produce evidence of how ref/TMO were wrong. Also when they said about hand under ball it was based on camera which was after they went to ground so look forward to proof you have.
 
Last edited:
There was a referees forum last year (I think), where TMO protocol was discussed and where the refs agreed they would take ownership of these decisions if it was on the big screen.

Ah that explains why the ref suddenly has become a big part of TMO decisions. Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I preferred it when the TMO was the sole judge, but would be interested to see what others think.

Again if it's pretty easy why can't you show it and why wasn't TMO given the angle. What exact point is it your making that proves so easily the refs were wrong.
My understanding is when they initially go to ground there's no conclusive evidence that it was held up. Yes there's a case when camera does show but fact is that's after they go to ground so if it's not 100% conclusive then it's a try. So again Darwin can you please just produce evidence of how ref/TMO were wrong. Also when they said about hand under ball it was based on camera which was after they went to ground so look forward to proof you have.

Clearly I'm not explaining myself well enough, or you are not reading what I am writing. I have outlined numerous times what I think was the major issue here (the communication between the TMO and the ref), and provided the required 'evidence' (the transcript between the TMO and the ref). Obviously there is no point continuing though, as I can't think of any way to explain my point more clearly :)
 
Last edited:
Ah that explains why the ref suddenly has become a big part of TMO decisions. Thanks for pointing that out. Personally I preferred it when the TMO was the sole judge, but would be interested to see what others think.



Clearly I'm not explaining myself well enough, or you are not reading what I am writing. I have outlined numerous times what I think was the major issue here (the communication between the TMO and the ref), and provided the required 'evidence' (the transcript between the TMO and the ref). Obviously there is no point continuing though, as I can't think of any way to explain my point more clearly :)

No that's clear but that was with regard angle AFTER they hit ground but I'm asking how/why they were wrong? Your issue with their communication was with the angle a few seconds after but again if your going to slate ref or TMO I just like to hear why they were wrong and why it wasn't a try? Your mentioning their communication which was about angle after so didn't make much difference but again I'm very interested to know what was wrong?
 
No that's clear but that was with regard angle AFTER they hit ground but I'm asking how/why they were wrong? Your issue with their communication was with the angle a few seconds after but again if your going to slate ref or TMO I just like to hear why they were wrong and why it wasn't a try? Your mentioning their communication which was about angle after so didn't make much difference but again I'm very interested to know what was wrong?

When the TMO and the ref were discussing the decision there was no indication they were referring to any particular camera angle. When discussing the fact there was an English arm under the ball they weren't referring to 'a few seconds after', they were directly referring to when moment Brown hit the ground (with his own arm under the ball) - it was the only time the ball was even close to being grounded.

I think you will find (like me) many people don't think it should have been a try. Why you ask? Because there was no evidence that the ball was grounded over the try-line. If there is feel free to post it :) Indeed there was plenty of evidence that the ball was held-up. As has been pointed out the biggest issue was perhaps the fact the wrong question was asked initially, but even then I feel there was enough evidence for Ayoub to rule the try out (though obviously people have different threshholds for proof), and I think there was a clear issue with the communication between the ref and the TMO.
 
Last edited:
So, the question i want answered is if the Englands players are is under th abll, and means it can't be grounded on what grounds did they award the try.

they can't have just made the rules up - these are top class referees. so there must be something we are missing - for two top flight ref's to say it was ok.
 
When the TMO and the ref were discussing the decision there was no indication they were referring to any particular camera angle. When discussing the fact there was an English arm under the ball they weren't referring to 'a few seconds after', they were directly referring to when moment Brown hit the ground (with his own arm under the ball) - it was the only time the ball was even close to being grounded.

I think you will find (like me) many people don't think it should have been a try. Why you ask? Because there was no evidence that the ball was grounded over the try-line. If there is feel free to post it :) Indeed there was plenty of evidence that the ball was held-up. As has been pointed out the biggest issue was perhaps the fact the wrong question was asked initially, but even then I feel there was enough evidence for Ayoub to rule the try out (though obviously people have different threshholds for proof), and I think there was a clear issue with the communication between the ref and the TMO.

But how were these refs so stupid or deserving of slating?
The TMO wasn't given 100% evidence to reverse decision so as is advised by IRB unless it's 100% you give benefit of doubt. He saw no reason to not give try. Again maybe the wrong question was asked but maybe TJ saw ball grounded so ref was right to trust his assistant. But I'm not slamming ref either way. And it's obvious they had to be talking about after as there was no conclusive angle of Brown immediately hitting ground. You are slamming ref so to put it clearer and back of your hammering of a ref. Can you produce evidence based on the question - "Is there Any reason I can't award try?" Now I don't want a "you think" or anything like that just simple 100% proof on why refs are wrong. Your well able to slam TMO so let's show your evidence. No BS or 2nd guessing. 100% evidence. You and a lot others think it wasn't a try. Equal amounts think it was. So as I said no IFs or possibly's just proof. You want to slam refs then back it up. For TMO to have clear evidence he must've been given angle when it hit ground which wasn't given so again I'm looking forward to your evidence which won't have been seen here. Question may have been wrong but ref trusted his TJ so no issue there.
 
Last edited:
So, the question i want answered is if the Englands players are is under th abll, and means it can't be grounded on what grounds did they award the try.

they can't have just made the rules up - these are top class referees. so there must be something we are missing - for two top flight ref's to say it was ok.

I think William18 addresses this particular question. As he points out perhaps the meaning of Ayoub's statements have been misconstrued. His comments about whose arm it was under the ball clearly confused the referee (and me!), but perhaps he was just trying to expand on what the referee had seen. Why he thought it was necessary to do this I'm not quite sure, as it completely confused the situation. He seemed to be agreeing that there was an arm under the ball, but still recommended a try be awarded (and I'm sure he's not that stupid). If he had simply said something alone the lines of "I'm not 100% convinced it didn't touch the ground at some stage" (which I assume was his reasoning for awarding a try) there would have been less of an issue. I wouldn't have agreed with him, but at least it would have made some sort of sense!
 
I think William18 addresses this particular question. As he points out perhaps the meaning of Ayoub's statements have been misconstrued. His comments about whose arm it was under the ball clearly confused the referee (and me!), but perhaps he was just trying to expand on what the referee had seen. Why he thought it was necessary to do this I'm not quite sure, as it completely confused the situation. He seemed to be agreeing that there was an arm under the ball, but still recommended a try be awarded (and I'm sure he's not that stupid). If he had simply said something alone the lines of "I'm not 100% convinced it didn't touch the ground at some stage" (which I assume was his reasoning for awarding a try) there would have been less of an issue. I wouldn't have agreed with him, but at least it would have made some sort of sense!

Again he wasn't given angle so as I said I'd love to know why he's been slated. Where's the 100% clear evidence?
 
Again he wasn't given angle so as I said I'd love to know why he's been slated. Where's the 100% clear evidence?

What have angles / "100% clear evidence" got to do with this? goodnumber10's (and my) point have nothing to do with angles or 100% evidence - they are based on the communication between the referee and the TMO..

But how were these refs so stupid or deserving of slating?
The TMO wasn't given 100% evidence to reverse decision so as is advised by IRB unless it's 100% you give benefit of doubt. He saw no reason to not give try. Again maybe the wrong question was asked but maybe TJ saw ball grounded so ref was right to trust his assistant. But I'm not slamming ref either way. And it's obvious they had to be talking about after as there was no conclusive angle of Brown immediately hitting ground. You are slamming ref so to put it clearer and back of your hammering of a ref. Can you produce evidence based on the question - "Is there Any reason I can't award try?" Now I don't want a "you think" or anything like that just simple 100% proof on why refs are wrong. Your well able to slam TMO so let's show your evidence. No BS or 2nd guessing. 100% evidence. You and a lot others think it wasn't a try. Equal amounts think it was. So as I said no IFs or possibly's just proof. You want to slam refs then back it up. For TMO to have clear evidence he must've been given angle when it hit ground which wasn't given so again I'm looking forward to your evidence which won't have been seen here. Question may have been wrong but ref trusted his TJ so no issue there.

Are you related to the ref / TMO by any chance? You seem overly protective of them ;)

In what way have I ever slammed the referee? The only one I have criticized has been Ayoub, and I think he clearly deserves criticism for his communication. Do you honestly not see any issue with the way he communicated with the referee? Not only did he make himself seem a little thick (though as William18 mentioned it was probably more of a communication error), he thoroughly confused the referee. Continually ask for '100% evidence' still suggests you are still not understanding the point I have been making.....
 
Last edited:
No not related to any ref but your saying it clearly wasn't a try so in that case TMO must've been shown 100% clear angle or proof it wasn't. So I'm asking can you show that?
I don't think he deserves criticism he's getting no.
 
No not related to any ref but your saying it clearly wasn't a try so in that case TMO must've been shown 100% clear angle or proof it wasn't. So I'm asking can you show that?
I don't think he deserves criticism he's getting no.

Watch the replay ;)

For me it is pretty clear that it was held up. By the sounds of it the ref thought similarly, but backed his TMO. Obviously you think differently, and I'm assuming George Ayoub thought differently (though it was difficult to tell exactly what he thought!). There is not a major problem with either view-point in my opinion - it depends entirely on what threshold you have for proof. I never once criticized Ayoub specifically for the actual decision he made - I disagree with it but can see why he made it - I have simply pointed out his communication with the referee was not up to standard, and made him (and the referee) look like a bit of an idiot (and I'm far from the only one to point this out!).
 
Watch the replay ;)

For me it is pretty clear that it was held up. By the sounds of it the ref thought similarly, but backed his TMO. Obviously you think differently, and I'm assuming George Ayoub thought differently (though it was difficult to tell exactly what he thought!). There is not a major problem with either view-point in my opinion - it depends entirely on what threshold you have for proof. I never once criticized Ayoub specifically for the actual decision he made - I disagree with it but can see why he made it - I have simply pointed out his communication with the referee was not up to standard, and made him (and the referee) look like a bit of an idiot (and I'm far from the only one to point this out!).

Again I will ask as I have watched replay but didn't get angle when they went straight down. Can you produce the 100% evidence or clear angle? Not what you think or and opinion. It's a simple yes you can or no you can't. My view of proof is being 100% clear there is a reason not to award try. Is there a suspicion it's held up? Yes. Is it 100% clear? No. So therefor it a try. If TMO communicates in Chinese Arabic and French in once it doesn't matter. If ref wanted to overrule he's well within his rights so why didn't he?
Again I will ask can you produce the evidence and dignify your criticism of TMO?
And again not what you think but with simple images and laws of game it's put up or shut up like?
 
Again I will ask as I have watched replay but didn't get angle when they went straight down. Can you produce the 100% evidence or clear angle? Not what you think or and opinion. It's a simple yes you can or no you can't. My view of proof is being 100% clear there is a reason not to award try. Is there a suspicion it's held up? Yes. Is it 100% clear? No. So therefor it a try. If TMO communicates in Chinese Arabic and French in once it doesn't matter. If ref wanted to overrule he's well within his rights so why didn't he?
Again I will ask can you produce the evidence and dignify your criticism of TMO?
And again not what you think but with simple images and laws of game it's put up or shut up like?

Nowhere in the TMO protocols (as far as I'm aware) does it state anything about "100% evidence" being required. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it is something along the lines of 'clear and obvious'. Based on the video (and my limited understanding of physics) I think it was clear and obvious that the ball was held up. Obviously you don't, which is fine. As I've mentioned before how people interpret 'clear and obvious' varies. Surely you can accept that?

For about the 10th time (and I will put it in bold to make sure you understand) - whether the ball was actually grounded or not is not the point I'm debating! The only 'evidence' that is relevant to my point is the communication between the ref and TMO. That's all. If I had 100 different angle each which showed the ball wasn't grounded it wouldn't make the point I'm making any more (or less) valid. If you think there was no issue with the communication between the ref and TMO that's fine. I, and numerous other do. The debate between the TMO and referee has been described as comical, and former test referee and IRB referees selector Bob Francis was 'baffled' by the communication. No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting the officials should be lynched. I just think there was obviously issues with the communication between the officials, which was a very bad look for the game....
 
Last edited:
We still don't have a definitive answer on the law though do we? Grounding by holding in his arm or hand is open for interpretation (as are a lot of the laws).

It's interesting that all the websites that do law discussions seem to have gone with the Farrell call and not this (everyone goes with Farrell BTW).. Which to me points to people not being confused/bothered by the refs call.

Is it just us?
 
We still don't have a definitive answer on the law though do we? Grounding by holding in his arm or hand is open for interpretation (as are a lot of the laws).

It's interesting that all the websites that do law discussions seem to have gone with the Farrell call and not this (everyone goes with Farrell BTW).. Which to me points to people not being confused/bothered by the refs call.

Is it just us?

The ball has to be grounded, I'm not going to get the exact law for you but it's pretty simple, not really open to interpretation.
 
We still don't have a definitive answer on the law though do we? Grounding by holding in his arm or hand is open for interpretation (as are a lot of the laws).

It's interesting that all the websites that do law discussions seem to have gone with the Farrell call and not this (everyone goes with Farrell BTW).. Which to me points to people not being confused/bothered by the refs call.

Is it just us?

Here are the relevant laws (I have bolded the relevant parts)

Law 9.A Scoring points

Try. When an attacking player is first to ground the ball in the opponents' in-goal, a try is scored.



Law 22.1 Grounding the ball
grounding-the-ball.jpg

Grounding the ball


There are two ways a player can ground the ball:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. 'Holding' means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.12

(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player's body from waist to neck inclusive.


Personally I agree the Farrell incident is more interesting. To me it was a clear maul (and Farrell did a great job of holding the ball up!), but I suppose the only judge of what is or isn't a maul these days is the referee. I don't agree with the yellow card as I don't believe it was a deliberate infringement by Farrell - IMO Farrell thought he was legally holding the ball up.....


 
Last edited:
not really open to interpretation.

Well clearly it is.

This thread is proof of that as is the fact two international Refs have interpreted it differently to us.

Here are the relevant laws (I have bolded the relevant parts)

yes mate i have my own copy of the laws. :)

But what i'm asking is, i guess, in the same way the Pads are seen as an extension of the try line is the hand seen as an extension of the ball when the attacking player is holding it?

I dunno, that's not worded very well but you get what i'm getting at - there are lots of exceptions to the laws int he games, and lots of different ways of interpreting them.

I just can't believe two international refs would rule it ok.

I mean Peyper questions the hand under the ball, when he gets the English hand reply he doesn't question it. Nor say "so held" up he just says "so no reason to not award the try?" (i'm paraphrasing there)
 
Last edited:
Nowhere in the TMO protocols (as far as I'm aware) does it state anything about "100% evidence" being required. I'm not sure of the exact wording, but it is something along the lines of 'clear and obvious'. Based on the video (and my limited understanding of physics) I think it was clear and obvious that the ball was held up. Obviously you don't, which is fine. As I've mentioned before how people interpret 'clear and obvious' varies. Surely you can accept that?

For about the 10th time (and I will put it in bold to make sure you understand) - whether the ball was actually grounded or not is not the point I'm debating! The only 'evidence' that is relevant to my point is the communication between the ref and TMO. That's all. If I had 100 different angle each which showed the ball wasn't grounded it wouldn't make the point I'm making any more (or less) valid. If you think there was no issue with the communication between the ref and TMO that's fine. I, and numerous other do. The debate between the TMO and referee has been described as comical, and former test referee and IRB referees selector Bob Francis was 'baffled' by the communication. No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting the officials should be lynched. I just think there was obviously issues with the communication between the officials, which was a very bad look for the game....

We'll it does say clear and distinctive evidence which the TMO. And you slated the TMO so again for 10th time can you produce evidence of where TMO was wrong in awarding try. As I said communication is pointless issue as it was obviously on angle after. Which I admit looks held up but still TMO can't be slated as being wrong. It doesn't matter how TMO communicates he got his decision across
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top