Blues v Canes

hydro11

On the second Perenara try, Crucial posted to the rugbyrefs forums:
 
Here's my take on the two controversial TMO calls in this match. I'll deal with the easy one first The no-try forward pass (unfortunately, the video doesn't cover this) 
This was the correct call and watching it live, I called it in real time at the time. The ball was so obviously thrown forward out of the passer's hands, that I have trouble understanding what all the bitching is about. The passer's hands went forward and the ball went directly forward from his hands. This was about as clear and obvious as a forward pass can get. The no knock-on try 
This one is a bit harder to judge. Both in real time, and in slo-motion, I could not decide if it was a knock-on or not, so IMO, the TMO made the right call, This doesn't mean that ball was not knocked on, only that it was too difficult to tell. The Law says... 

<div style="background-color:rgb(255,236,139);color:rgb(0,0,0);">A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.</div>
 
... and the clear implication here is that once the player's hand touches the ball, there must be separation between that player's hand/arm and the ball, and then ball next touches the ground (or another player) before it can be ruled a knock-on.... think of a player gathering while running, a stationary ball on the ground. He may well drag the ball forward along the ground for a moment, but so long as there is no separation, this is not a knock-on. 
At no point in the video replay sequence is there a frame or frames that clearly show separation between Gold 7's hand and the ball, and in the absence of that, the TMO has to rule play on. As a referee, you can only rule on what you actually see; you cannot rule on what you don't see or what you think you see, or to put it another way, the TMO has only three possible observations..

He definitely sees that it IS a knock-on
He definitely sees that it is NOT a knock-on
He is either unsighted or is unable to say for sure whether or not it is a knock-on. 
Both 2 and 3 must result in a call of no knock-on
 
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19606-TMO-call-made-in-realtime'>http://www.rugbyrefs.com/showthread.php?19606-TMO-call-made-in-realtime</a>

taniwharugby

IMO the ground has assisted him in not losing contact, and as such control of the ball, it is clear to me the ball has moved forward on the ground in slow-mo.
 
As to the pass, as I said, real-time it looked 51-49 to me, on replay, clear that it was forward, but like others, plenty of worse ones let go - commented on both as I saw them in 'real-time' in this thread.

Crucial

I'm pretty sure that it was the aspect of not being clear and obvious that led to the call and that is fair enough. The TMO has to make a decision. I see an obvious KO, he doesn't. I agree that there isn't absolute proof but then there isn't absolute proof in many calls.
 
It was his language that raised controversy. He was specifically asked if he was OK with the pick up by 7 and replied that it was fine in real time without mentioning what he saw (or didn't see) in slo mo. This made it sound to all listeners that in this case real time outweighed slo mo. That is usually only the case in judging things like potentially dangerous tackles where they can look far worse on slo mo than they are.

Crucial

By the way (as TR alludes to) my reading of the law does not say that there must be separation. 
 
Would you allow a player to roll the ball toward the tryline for 10 metres with their hand behind it and no clear and obvious separation?

gt12

Thanks for posting that Hydro & Crucial.
 
As a non-ref, I'm still lost as to how that call was made. I'm watching now (HD via J-sports) and I can't see how that isn't a knock-on. He rolls it along the ground and then into his other hand. It looks nothing like a player scooping up the ball. It looks like one of the little knock-ons that happen at scrum time when 8s or HBs push the ball ball forward while trying to pick it up.
 
The law says:
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">
 
<div style="margin:0px;font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:rgb(255,236,139);">A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward, or when a player hits the (a) ball forward with the hand or arm, or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and (b) the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.</div>
<div> </div>
 
</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div>The key part there is that it doesn't state that the ball has to be separated (i.e., 'or').</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Both 'a' and 'b' are pretty clear to me - I'm watching in 'real' time and it looks forward (using the side view, not the one from the front that was shown after the try was given).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I still think the Hurricanes were the better team, but I'd be pissed if I were a Blues supporter.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>On the other hand, at least this decision deserves being talked about. I can't see how anyone couldn't see Li's pass as forward at the time or argue about it after seeing the replay. It's a mile forward out of his hands.</div>

nzzp

Am I on my own being cheesed off with Tevita Li being taken out as the blindside defender before TJP's try? 
 
From 48 seconds, slo-mo at 1:04 in the video below:
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues</a>

taniwharugby

was cool in real time! ;)

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="nzzp" data-cid="564711" data-time="1458021243">
<div>
Am I on my own being cheesed off with Tevita Li being taken out as the blindside defender before TJP's try? 
 
From 48 seconds, slo-mo at 1:04 in the video below:
<a data-ipb='nomediaparse' href='http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues'>http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/super-rugby/77810925/hurricanes-snap-losing-streak-with-hardfought-victory-over-blues</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Don't think he was ever really a defender he hadn't even seen Savea had the ball. He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely? But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.
I don't think there was any material effect from the action.

nzzp

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
I don't think there was any material effect from the action.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
What the hell are you doing to my blood pressure? No materiality - only a bloody try scored down the defenders channel.

taniwharugby

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564714" data-time="1458021889">
<div>
He was bound to the ruck as was therefore liable to a cleanout anyway. The possible offence was the cleaning out player coming in the side surely? But then you could argue that the ruck was over at that point as well.
 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Bound to a ruck that was over... :think:

Crucial

Yep all very messy but I really can't see how he was in any way looking to defend the channel scored in. He had decided to join the melee and was committed there. If anything the clean out actually made him look up and see TJP and make a belated attempt. 
If he was standing beside the ruck watching I would agree.

pukunui

Canes player coming in the side: Yes
Canes player taking out a defender: No
He was clearly a part of the ruck by leaning a shoulder into it.
 
Edit: However you could also argue that Li came in the side of the ruck also.

Nepia

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="564729" data-time="1458030284">
<div>
Canes player coming in the side: Yes
Canes player taking out a defender: No
He was clearly a part of the ruck by leaning a shoulder into it.
 
Edit: However you could also argue that Li came in the side of the ruck also.
</div>
</blockquote>
Li came in to make a tackle (with other players) which formed the ruck, the previous ruck had ended when Savea had a snipe.
 
The Canes player came in the side of the ruck.

Winger

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crucial" data-cid="564700" data-time="1458010806">
<div>
I'm pretty sure that it was the aspect of not being clear and obvious that led to the call and that is fair enough. The TMO has to make a decision. I see an obvious KO, he doesn't. I agree that there isn't absolute proof but then there isn't absolute proof in many calls.
 
It was his language that raised controversy. He was specifically asked if he was OK with the pick up by 7 and replied that it was fine in real time without mentioning what he saw (or didn't see) in slo mo. This made it sound to all listeners that in this case real time outweighed slo mo. That is usually only the case in judging things like potentially dangerous tackles where they can look far worse on slo mo than they are.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above. Criticize a video ref when he gets it wrong. But for once two obvious calls were called right
 
Savea never lost possession. Not even close
 
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="564750" data-time="1458041392">
<div>
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Holy fuck. Clear English and yet again you've got your own weird fucking alternate universe interpretation.
 
Is this all an elaborate cry for attention?

Crucial

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Winger" data-cid="564750" data-time="1458041392">
<div>
It clearly wasn't a knock on based on the rules above. Criticize a video ref when he gets it wrong. But for once two obvious calls were called right
 
Savea never lost possession. Not even close
 
A knock-on occurs when a player loses possession of the ball and it goes forward,
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I can see why you cop so much grief at times Winger. You stop reading at the point it suits your argument.
 
The rest of the law reads..
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"> or when the ball hits the hand or arm and goes forward, and (B ) the ball touches the ground or another player before the original player can catch it.
 
</blockquote>
 
 
At no time (until he picked the ball up) was Savea 'in possession' so the first part (the bit you point to) doesn't apply.
 
As I have said, I have no problem with the TMO deciding that if there was a KO it wasn't clear and obvious to him and therefore he wasn't going to call it. If that is what he meant though, he should have said it that way not confuse matters with talk of 'real time'.
 
I gave an extreme example earlier of how it may be possible that separation isn't required but here is a slightly more possible one to think over.
 
The ball has been kicked down field and has pulled up a metre or so short of the line. An attacking player reaches down to the ball and while still moving forward reaches down and rolls the ball forward along the ground with one hand, over the try line and drops on it to score. On replay there is no clear and obvious separation between hand and ball, yet he never picked it up either.
Would you be OK with the try being awarded or would that all look wrong to you?

The Silver Fern

Blues v Canes