• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

2014 Super Rugby Final: Waratahs v Crusaders

I take it you missed this bit:

''The work of the TMOs was a borderline disaster until the latter stages of the competition, but there was also an incident once again in the final where it appeared as if Nadolo's foot touches the line on his way to scoring the Crusaders' second try,'' Kaplan said.

To be honest there's a bit of a difference between the two calls. One was an error of law, one was a error of judgment. To the TMO it didn't look like Nadolo was out (I personally think it was a 50/50 call - don't recall any instance Nadolo losing the ball over the line?), and it's his prerogative to make that call. In contrast, incorrectly applying the law is a different kettle of fish - there shouldn't be any subjectivity in the law. Of course you could quite rightly argue that Joubert had to make a judgment call on what he saw, perhaps he wasn't able to visually see it was not a tackle etc. etc.

Not that I think it makes a difference - a couple of calls here and there are always 50/50, such is the nature of the game. It's not like Joubert had an awful all round game, which he is prone to (last year's final, for example). The Waratahs won fair and square (though of course if the Crusaders had as favourable a draw as the Tahs then I'm sure they would have had the home final and won it ;)).
 
To be honest there's a bit of a difference between the two calls. One was an error of law, one was a error of judgment. To the TMO it didn't look like Nadolo was out (I personally think it was a 50/50 call - don't recall any instance Nadolo losing the ball over the line?), and it's his prerogative to make that call. In contrast, incorrectly applying the law is a different kettle of fish - there shouldn't be any subjectivity in the law. Of course you could quite rightly argue that Joubert had to make a judgment call on what he saw, perhaps he wasn't able to visually see it was not a tackle etc. etc.

I disagree and argue that the Nadolo case is a clear error of law. If you watch him as he slides over, the ball slips out of his hands has he's attempting to ground it and his foot is being dragged into touch. His fingers are barely touching the ball as it hits the grass and it's not technically being "grounded" when it does. So it's a clear error of law in my view.

Have a look for yourself though:
Nadolo-try.gif


You can see right at the end he's clearly lost the ball.

The only way that becomes an error of judgement is if you think that he judges the foot not to have gone in touch in spite of it being pretty clear that it does, and then also take the meaning of the verb "to ground" to include dropping something on the ground.

It didn't matter thankfully, but it was a massive ​error.
 
Last edited:
I have to agree with Mr Fish in terms of Nadolo losing the ball. To me it doesn't look as though he loses contact with the ball at any stage before grounding it - it is much clearer in the side-on angle that they showed. I do think his foot touches the sideline before he grounds it though....
 
I wouldn't call that grounding the ball... I know Union doesn't technically require "control" like they do in League, but to me grounding implies you do have hold of it, and he clearly doesn't as it's not even touching his fingers, but rather his wrist when it hits the ground.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call that grounding the ball... I know Union doesn't technically require "control" like they do in League, but to me grounding implies you do have hold of it, and he clearly doesn't.

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.

He clearly had enough of a hold of it to ground it though or at least guide it to the ground.

Either way I think the Crusaders were a tad unlucky with Joubert's call, but I think overall he had a good game.

Funny it's coming from Kaplan, probably my least favorite referee of all time.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't call that grounding the ball... I know Union doesn't technically require "control" like they do in League, but to me grounding implies you do have hold of it, and he clearly doesn't.

That's the point though. You don't need "control", therefore what Nadolo did was perfectly fine. There is no requirement to hold the ball in a particular way - Nadolo just chose a rather unconventional way to ground the ball ;)

The question is how else could you rule on this? Nadolo never loses contact with the ball, therefore it clearly can't be a knock-on....
 
Last edited:
He clearly had enough of a hold of it to ground it though or at least guide it to the ground.

I don't know that he does... I've seen a fair few like that that ref's have judged knock-ons and when you look at the high res in slow motion it actually does look like there is separation before it hits the ground, so I'd argue that would be fair.

Either way though, I think it's contentious at best, and combined with the foot going into touch there's no way in hell it should have been awarded.
 
Last edited:
I don't know that he does... I've seen a fair few like that that ref's have judged knock-ons. It's the separation of the ball from his fingers that's the problem - it's a clear loss of possession.

Either way though, I think it's contentious at best, and combined with the foot going into touch there's no way in hell it should have been awarded.

I guess that's why they are called laws and not rules, they're open to interpretation. I would say having enough control to make sure your hand is touching the ball at the same time as the ball hits the ground is enough.

I haven't seen all the angles the TMO had, but it certainly looks contentious.

Interesting and on a totally irrelevant side note: This is a law I didn't know existed:

22.4 (g)
Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents' in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball

So you could technically run along the outside line to chase a kick, and have both feet out of play when you ground the loose ball. Interesting, I wonder if that happened in a club game if the referee would rule I was out.
 
Last edited:
Almost a week now and this is still getting hashed and rehashed. Nadolo scored, McCaw infringed, Waratahs won.
 
Almost a week now and this is still getting hashed and rehashed. Nadolo scored, McCaw infringed, Waratahs won.

I'm happy with the end result (obviously). I only brought up Nadolo's "try" because Larksea tried to argue that the McCaw decision was the "controversial" one.
 
I disagree and argue that the Nadolo case is a clear error of law. If you watch him as he slides over, the ball slips out of his hands has he's attempting to ground it and his foot is being dragged into touch. His fingers are barely touching the ball as it hits the grass and it's not technically being "grounded" when it does. So it's a clear error of law in my view.

Have a look for yourself though:
Nadolo-try.gif


You can see right at the end he's clearly lost the ball.

The only way that becomes an error of judgement is if you think that he judges the foot not to have gone in touch in spite of it being pretty clear that it does, and then also take the meaning of the verb "to ground" to include dropping something on the ground.

It didn't matter thankfully, but it was a massive ​error.

The grounding is JUST ok to me but I think his big feet surely cut the chalk and beyond very quickly but even the feet going out is not clear cut obviously. I would've ruled no try, brilliant run but I assume that he was out.
 
Last edited:
On Nandolo's try TBH I would have ruled it as inconclusive as its hard to say for sure if he got it down before his touch hit the chalk due to the shadow from the corner flag.
 
On Nandolo's try TBH I would have ruled it as inconclusive as its hard to say for sure if he got it down before his touch hit the chalk due to the shadow from the corner flag.

The thing with it is, is that on HD if you slow it down there appears a clear separation between his hands and the ball before it hits the ground. Combined with his foot and the touch line, it just casts far too much doubt over it to award it, and it really was a poor decision to give it.
 
The thing with it is, is that on HD if you slow it down there appears a clear separation between his hands and the ball before it hits the ground. Combined with his foot and the touch line, it just casts far too much doubt over it to award it, and it really was a poor decision to give it.

I agree it shouldn't have been given but we're just coming to the same conclusion from different angles.
 
I don't think it was a try either but I knew they were going to award it watching it live. Looking back, I don't even think the TMO was looking at his feet - all the focus was on whether he grounded it. This isn't league so he didn't need to have control to ground the ball which is why I think the try was awarded but his foot was clearly out. Either way, the Waratahs ended up winning and we had the best Super XV Final I can remember so it worked out for the best. No harm done.
 

Latest posts

Top