Crusaders v Chiefs
-
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
Can't say I like the sound of that. Whose probabilities?
His foot hit the ground, the protocol doesn't need reviewing.
-
TMO didn’t have this photo to go by. I’m happy with the “clear and obvious” way of deciding.
Considering that 3 on field refs couldn’t even see when a player played the ball a whole metre past the dead ball line in another instance this one wasn’t a howler. The Weber one was though. -
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
Can't say I like the sound of that. Whose probabilities?
His foot hit the ground, the protocol doesn't need reviewing.
On my feed the picture was fuzzy.
There seems to be a presumption the TMO has to be certain to overrule ref.
But ref didn’t really make a call on foot in touch.
If ref has said no try, TMO wouldn’t have overruled him.
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
Problem was the ref called it try, the TMO needed to find clear and obvious evidence he didn't score, which IMO was not available.
If ref had said he was out due to being in touch, I'd say the TMO would have ruled with the ref then too.
For me on the evidence last night, I thought he had to have touched grass, but it wasn't a clear contact either (it was an outstanding effort to get the ball down though)
I think the officials had a por night all round last night.
-
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
Can't say I like the sound of that. Whose probabilities?
His foot hit the ground, the protocol doesn't need reviewing.
On my feed the picture was fuzzy.
There seems to be a presumption the TMO has to be certain to overrule ref.
But ref didn’t really make a call on foot in touch.
If ref has said no try, TMO wouldn’t have overruled him.
Unless he was taking a lead from the TMO in the England v France game. Ref says held up. Pictures inconclusive yet TMO decides there was a good chance the try was scored and overrules.
Mind you there were also other big differences in the interpretations. In SRA a jack led can no longer touch the ground beyond the ball. In 6N it appeared that planting your hands to stabilise yourself before attacking the ball is allowed.
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@pakman said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bones said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@mofitzy_ said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Call me crazy as a Chiefs fan but I would give him the benefit of the doubt. If you aren't 100% sure he grazed a blade of grass then give him the try. It didn't bounce of the ground IMO, just possibly touched grass.
I'm 100%
The protocol needs review. Perhaps ref should have said that grounding was good but not sure of touch. Was it on balance of probabilities alright?
NO TRY.
Can't say I like the sound of that. Whose probabilities?
His foot hit the ground, the protocol doesn't need reviewing.
On my feed the picture was fuzzy.
There seems to be a presumption the TMO has to be certain to overrule ref.
But ref didn’t really make a call on foot in touch.
If ref has said no try, TMO wouldn’t have overruled him.
Unless he was taking a lead from the TMO in the England v France game. Ref says held up. Pictures inconclusive yet TMO decides there was a good chance the try was scored and overrules.
Mind you there were also other big differences in the interpretations. In SRA a jack led can no longer touch the ground beyond the ball. In 6N it appeared that planting your hands to stabilise yourself before attacking the ball is allowed.
That said, Earl penalised for exactly that just now against Frogs.
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
TMO didn’t have this photo to go by. I’m happy with the “clear and obvious” way of deciding.
Considering that 3 on field refs couldn’t even see when a player played the ball a whole metre past the dead ball line in another instance this one wasn’t a howler. The Weber one was though.Not clear enough. Needs arrows and a circle around the foot.
Worth remembering that the first chiefs try given by the TMO was pretty dodgy too. Dmac was tackled short and clearly propelled himself forward with his knees.
So not a great night for the TMO’s. -
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
What’s the fucking point of a fucking captains challenge if the fucking TMO is a fucking blind fuck!
Tbe mistake made was having only one captain’s review. It should be like cricket. If you are successful you retain your review.
That is exactly how it works - a successful challenge is retained.
-
@pukunui said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
TMO didn’t have this photo to go by. I’m happy with the “clear and obvious” way of deciding.
Considering that 3 on field refs couldn’t even see when a player played the ball a whole metre past the dead ball line in another instance this one wasn’t a howler. The Weber one was though.Not clear enough. Needs arrows and a circle around the foot.
Worth remembering that the first chiefs try given by the TMO was pretty dodgy too. Dmac was tackled short and clearly propelled himself forward with his knees.
So not a great night for the TMO’s.I was about to mention the first Chiefs try was just as contentious as the 'foot in touch' try. As well as the propelling himself it could be argued he rolled the ball forward too. Is that allowed?
I think one problem the refs and TMO have is that their conversations are there for all to hear on the telly and they are obviously well aware of that. I reckon that hinders the decision making process because they would feel like they can't discuss things to the same extent they would if things weren't being broadcast.
-
@booboo said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nta said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Just saw that Crusaders "try" to the winger.
Wow.
Sure, the Crusaders were probably too good (haven't seen the game), but fuck you understand where the reputation of being favoured comes from.
Is that the first one where Faiunga'anuku might have dragged his foot on the grass? Was ok with that ss it wasn't "clear and obvious,".
Can only watch on my phone screen right now, but the only thing "clear and obvious" was he was wearing a Crusaders jersey 😉
Grounding was suspect, touch was suspect
-
I don't understand how anyone can say that Fainga'anuku's foot clearly touched the ground from the footage that was shown, last night. If it was that clear, then the movement of his leg would have been affected by the friction between his foot and the ground. The movement would have slowed down and/or there would have been a (slight) change in direction. Physicis 101. I think this is one of those cases where you expect that his foot touched the ground and therefore your brain tells you he has. So - at best - his foot rubbed the tips of the grass, but the footage was not clear enough to see that. So the TMO can't reach the standard of "clear and obvious" which the TMO protocol requires to overturn the on-field decision of the ref. "Balance of probabilities" is not the standard used.
IMO, that same standard also wasn't met when they checked RM's forward pass. I don't think it was forward because the ball seemed to leave his hands backward (forward movement alone is irrelevant), but I didn't see any clear evidence that Weber's hand/arm touched the ball either. At least from the footage that was shown on tv. We know the TMO has more angles, but I think the decision was made way too fast. That also applies to the decision about McKenzie's try, which looked well short at first grounding.
Anyway, it's funny how people complained in previous weeks about the ill-discipline of the Crusaders and how they should have received more cards, and not after last night's game when the Chiefs gave away penalty after penalty. If Weber didn't deserve that yellow because of that penalty try, then he or one of his team mates deserved a yellow because of the number of penalties conceded (15, the exact same number as the Crusaders got in round 1, which earned them two yellow cards).
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
I don't understand how anyone can say that Fainga'anuku's foot clearly touched the ground from the footage that was shown, last night. If it was that clear, then the movement of his leg would have been affected by the friction between his foot and the ground. The movement would have slowed down and/or there would have been a (slight) change in direction. Physicis 101. I think this is one of those cases where you expect that his foot touched the ground and therefore your brain tells you he has. So - at best - his foot rubbed the tips of the grass, but the footage was not clear enough to see that. So the TMO can't reach the standard of "clear and obvious" which the TMO protocol requires to overturn the on-field decision of the ref. "Balance of probabilities" is not the standard used.
IMO, that same standard also wasn't met when they checked RM's forward pass. I don't think it was forward because the ball seemed to leave his hands backward (forward movement alone is irrelevant), but I didn't see any clear evidence that Weber's hand/arm touched the ball either. At least from the footage that was shown on tv. We know the TMO has more angles, but I think the decision was made way too fast. That also applies to the decision about McKenzie's try, which looked well short at first grounding.
Anyway, it's funny how people complained in previous weeks about the ill-discipline of the Crusaders and how they should have received more cards, and not after last night's game when the Chiefs gave away penalty after penalty. If Weber didn't deserve that yellow because of that penalty try, then he or one of his team mates deserved a yellow because of the number of penalties conceded (15, the exact same number as the Crusaders got in round 1, which earned them two yellow cards).
What was clear and obvious about the Mo'unga forward pass was the TMO made his decision on the first angle he saw and got it horribly wrong. He should have had the guts to change his mind when the second angle came up.
It was very obvious that RM tried to throw it backwards, but Weber's impact on his arm made him propel it forwards. Weber did not touch it.
Poor decision.
However, I agree about Fainga'anuku. You/we suspect he brushed the grass, but it wasn't irrefutable.
-
@stargazer the second angle was as clear as day for the Weber/Mounga tackle.
Weber hits Mounga's wrist causing the ball to fly forward.
-
@kiwimurph We didn't see that still image during the game though. As I said, they made the decision way too fast and should have checked it better. In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
-
@stargazer we did see that angle during the game. That image is from Sky.
-
@kiwimurph Yeah, but it lasted a split second. They should have looked at it again. It would be the first time if they'd slowed footage down to have a closer look. They may have had different angles, too.
-
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph We didn't see that still image during the game though. As I said, they made the decision way too fast and should have checked it better. In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
What footage were you watching?
Or perhaps I should ask through which eye?
Although you may be right, it was perhaps video showing Weber didn't touch it, not a still. Shown twice, once immediately after the first angle just as the TMO flubbed his lines, and then again just before the restart for the penalty try. Both of which were "during the game".
