Highlanders V Brumbies Super Bang Bang quarter finals

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599139" data-time="1469245266">
<div>
in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I think the tenor of the question in that case is supposed to be that there needs to be good evidence that the ball was held up.

taniwharugby

Yep usually the ref thinks a try has been scored and is asking for a reason not to award it, so not seeing a grounding should be irrelevant, but we know tmos like to look outside thier guidelines and make other calls.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599142" data-time="1469245518">
<div>
I think the tenor of the question in that case is supposed to be that there needs to be good evidence that the ball was held up.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I understand that, but that's absurd. The point is to score a try, therefore the onus is on the attackers.

Stargazer

A ref cannot arbitrarily decide what question to ask the TMO. 
 
If a ref is certain the ball has been grounded on or over the try line and wasn't held up or knocked on, and there were no circumstances that could lead to disallowing the try in the lead-up to the try, the try will be awarded and the ref won't go to the TMO.
 
If a ref thinks there has been a grounding but is unsure (or he is unsure about something that happened in the lead-up to the try being scored), he will ask "is there any reason not to award the try".
 
If a ref thinks the ball was not grounded/held up/knocked on etc but is not entirely certain, he will ask "try or no try".
 
If a ref hasn't seen a grounding, he will and should ask "try or no try".
 
There must be clear evidence of a grounding. Without that, there is no try. If the ref hasn't seen a grounding, the TMO must be able to clearly establish there is a grounding to award the try. 
If the ref thinks there has been a grounding and asks "is there any reason not to award the try", there must be clear evidence that the ball wasn't grounded (held up or knocked on etc) for the TMO to deny the try.
 
So last night, the ref and his assistants didn't see a grounding on or over the try line. He asks "try or no try". The TMO didn't see clear evidence of a grounding (you can't just assume a try is grounded on or over the try line because that's where the player and the ball ended up eventually). The conclusion "no try" was correct.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599148" data-time="1469247428">
<div>
I understand that, but that's absurd. The point is to score a try, therefore the onus is on the attackers.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).
 
At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.
 
I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.

Stargazer

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599153" data-time="1469248959">
<div>
I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).
 
At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.
 
I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
That's like sending someone to prison because it looks like he committed a crime but without actually having seen clear evidence he committed the crime, and then asking a judge afterwards to establish whether he actually did it or not.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599153" data-time="1469248959">
<div>
I'm not sure it's that absurd. At the moment the default is - we can't see a grounding so a try wasn't scored (even though plenty of times it doubtless has been).
 
At present, if you can't get your hands under the ball, the next best thing defenders can do is to obscure the cameras - and they're clearly being coached to do this.
 
I quite like the way the leaguies do it - as described above. The ref gives his decision and then you go to the cameras to see if there's evidence that he's wrong.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
So you're asking the ref to guess and the TMO to find evidence to the contrary?
 
Even in league they don't like their system because the donkey refs and TMO keep coming up with utterly baffling rulings.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599157" data-time="1469250902">
<div>
So you're asking the ref to guess and the TMO to find evidence to the contrary?
 
Even in league they don't like their system because the donkey refs and TMO keep coming up with utterly baffling rulings.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Nothings perfect! :)
 
I guess on reflection at least the way they do it at present everyone understands, what's going to happen - or at least they should. Not sure what Stephen Larkham's excuse is.
 
What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.

Damo

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599160" data-time="1469251806">
<div>
Nothings perfect! :)
 
I guess on reflection at least the way they do it at present everyone understands, what's going to happen - or at least they should. Not sure what Stephen Larkham's excuse is.
 
What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.
</div>
</blockquote>
Not sure about that. Once the ball crosses the try line there cannot be a tackle, ruck or maul. After the ball crosses the line any player is entitled to dive off his feet in order to score a try or prevent an opponent from scoring a try (the only proviso being that he can't engage in dangerous play). 
 
I can't see how you would determine whether a player was legally trying to prevent a try or illegally (according to you) doing so to try and obscure the camera. Just don't think that is realistic.

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Stargazer" data-cid="599156" data-time="1469249921">
<div>
That's like sending someone to prison because it looks like he committed a crime but without actually having seen clear evidence he committed the crime, and then asking a judge afterwards to establish whether he actually did it or not.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Not sure the judicial analogy really works.
 
I reckon a fair proportion of "can't see" tries are actually scored, so there's going to be a hell of a lot of OJ Simpson's wandering about. :)

Chris B.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Damo" data-cid="599164" data-time="1469254355">
<div>
Not sure about that. Once the ball crosses the try line there cannot be a tackle, ruck or maul. After the ball crosses the line any player is entitled to dive off his feet in order to score a try or prevent an opponent from scoring a try (the only proviso being that he can't engage in dangerous play). 
 
I can't see how you would determine whether a player was legally trying to prevent a try or illegally (according to you) doing so to try and obscure the camera. Just don't think that is realistic. 
</div>
</blockquote>
 
On the first part - that just needs a new rule for televised matches.
 
On the second part - you pretty frequently see people diving around the try-scoring situation after the event. The threat of being penalized would stop some of this - and then, like everything else, it's up to the ref's judgement.

antipodean

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599160" data-time="1469251806">
<div>
What possibly could be improved is to start giving penalties for people who clearly dive in late to try to block the cameras.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
Surely the cameras have already caught what footage they need?
 
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599168" data-time="1469255031">
<div>
On the first part - that just needs a new rule for televised matches.
 
On the second part - you pretty frequently see people diving around the try-scoring situation after the event. The threat of being penalized would stop some of this - and then, like everything else, it's up to the ref's judgement.
</div>
</blockquote>
 
I'm against adding new rules. Particularly any that require an assumption of intent.

No Quarter

Anyway 
Quarter Final One: Check 
Quarter Final Two: Hurricanes please don't let team NZ down

booboo

Sky news reporting Brumbles ass coach fined 10K for abusive email to Angus Gardiner. 
Consolidating my opinion that they are whingey cry babies. As are their crowd/fans. 
Reflecting on the state of the front office too?

reprobate

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="booboo" data-cid="602633" data-time="1470178310">
<div>
Sky news reporting Brumbles ass coach fined 10K for abusive email to Angus Gardiner. 
Consolidating my opinion that they are whingey cry babies. As are their crowd/fans. 
Reflecting on the state of the front office too?
</div>
</blockquote>
that's a shocker - possible i guess, but it seems far less likely that email is heat of the moment.

booboo

My point is more that with a better culture he would be less inclined to make such a rash heat of the moment decision.

The Silver Fern

Highlanders V Brumbies Super Bang Bang quarter finals