Highlanders V Brumbies Super Bang Bang quarter finals
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Damo" data-cid="599005" data-time="1469183818">
<div>
<p><strong>I think a big part of the reason the ref didn't go to the pocket was because Moore (and then Fardy and Pocock) kept demanding it all the time. </strong> Highlanders were probably a bit lucky not to get a card after one of the mauls. Was it luck though, or just bad management by the Brumbies?</p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>Totally agree with that. Their ref management is shocking. It's not just a one off for Moore either, he's always been bad and yet still gets picked as captain. I'm not sure that's the 'right' way to ref a game of rugby though. Personalities shouldn't come into it and if a team is playing cynical rugby (15 penalties) then they probably should be shown a yellow.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="598985" data-time="1469181356"><p>
I thought initially it would be a clear try - but, he had the ball out in front of him as he lunged for the line and then somehow it ended at his hip - so not sure how he couldn't have lost it.</p></blockquote>
<br>
There was pne shot where he appeared he may have lost it. That and no clear and obvious evidence of a try being scored it was the correct decision. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="mariner4life" data-cid="598992" data-time="1469181967"><p>
Larkham looks like he can't believe they lost. He's a shit coach, which surprises me given he was such a smart player. <br><br><br></p></blockquote>
<br>
Top players with natural ability often make shit coaches -
<p>loved the way Smith was down low shouting encouragement into the tunnel in the last few scrums.</p>
-
<p>I thought it appeared he may have even lost control of it, far too much doubt.</p>
-
<p>I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p>
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Toddy" data-cid="599064" data-time="1469223243">
<div>
<p>Seems Larkham is having a real big whinge about the no try. I thought it was a pretty good call. Video ref couldn't see the ball grounded and on the front on camera it appeared that in all likely hood the Brumbie was short of the line. </p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>He cries like a girl over a practice which protects his side equally from questionable decisions, they cannot give it if they cannot see it - the hypocrisy shines bright.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599067" data-time="1469224093"><p>
I wonder if League has things right in these cases. The ref makes a call, then he can look up stairs for any reason to over turn the call. If that was an AB instead of a Brumbie last night, I would have been pissed at the no try call. Cameras don't always see everything. To be honest, in real time I thought that looked a dead set try.</p></blockquote>
<br>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......" -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763">
<div>
<p>I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>thats where he says give me a reason why I cannot award a try...so in that instance last night, unless the TMO saw something (knock on) then he would have awarded it.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="pukunui" data-cid="599091" data-time="1469232763"><p>
I don't really agree. This just brings another variable that is likely to cause fuck ups. If the ref can't see it he shouldn't be making a call based on a hunch. If he sees it grounded he can either give it or say "i have seen a grounding but want to check ......"</p></blockquote>
<br>
Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or 'give me a reason not to award a try'. The way it stands at the moment, and I think it was Chris B that raised this a few weeks ago, the defending teams get the benefit of the doubt when those questions aren't asked. -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Crazy Horse" data-cid="599137" data-time="1469244551">
<div>
<p>Why not? They should say ' give me a reason to award the try' or '<strong>give me a reason not to award a try</strong>'.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p> -
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="antipodean" data-cid="599139" data-time="1469245266">
<div>
<p>in particularly the latter example the problem is clear; there was no evidence of grounding. So asking that way wouldn't make a difference.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p> -
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.
-
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Chris B." data-cid="599142" data-time="1469245518">
<div>
<p>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.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p> </p>
<p>I understand that, but that's absurd. The point is to score a try, therefore the onus is on the attackers.</p> -
<p>A ref cannot arbitrarily decide what question to ask the TMO. </p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref <em>thinks </em>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".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref <em>thinks</em> the ball was not grounded/held up/knocked on etc but is not entirely certain, he will ask "try or no try".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>If a ref hasn't seen a grounding, he will and should ask "try or no try".</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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. </p>
<p>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.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>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.</p>
