Stomrers vs. Rebels away 17/05/2013

[Gena_ZA]

I am calmed down now and made peace with the fact that my beloved team suck this year.
You guys deserved the win, congrats

 

[InsaneAsylum]

thanks, as a rebels fan, I can say i know the feeling

 

[TRF_heineken]

Well, that article was written by a well known Stormers fan/ writer. And he is very biased in his writing.

This also has been reviewed by the SA Referees, and they say the correct call was made. So I apologise for the comments I made. The article about this can be found on news24.com

 

[Gena_ZA]

Not arguing the outcome of the game anymore guys, just to be clear on that

But what was the ref smoking in allowing the kicker to retake that kick after the kicker initially indicated going for posts and then went for a sneaky kick to the corner
Should that not have been a "missed kick" and play resumed.

Second attempt and he got it over - was stunned by that one

 

[InsaneAsylum]

Not arguing the outcome of the game anymore guys, just to be clear on that

But what was the ref smoking in allowing the kicker to retake that kick after the kicker initially indicated going for posts and then went for a sneaky kick to the corner
Should that not have been a "missed kick" and play resumed.

Second attempt and he got it over - was stunned by that one

It's an interesting one, hence the reason I watched the game on TV after seeing it live, I wanted to hear the ref's call. Woodward lined the kick up and instead of defending the kick, the stormers were all huddled up in the middle having a chat/drink. sure it was a sneaky thing to do, it's not really in the spirit of the game and I hope I don't see it again, but if the ref hadn't called it back and deemed it as a missed kick/play on, then a try would have been scored by the rebels. i think it was Habana that ran towards the ball but he only got there first because the whistle blew and the rebels players pulled up. the ref said "you said you were taking a shot, I want to see a legitimate attempt at a shot".

 

[Gena_ZA]

My point is the ref already indicated they are going for posts, then one can't change the strategy and make it an attacking kick
More opportunistic than anything, the error is with the ref that allowed a second attempt in my opinion

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

To be honest I don't think there's anything wrong with what they did! There's nothing in the rules that indicates you have to actually attempt to get the ball through the posts. It should've been play on a a try to the Rebels - the Stormers are lucky they only conceded three, I wouldn't complain.

 

[tenpm]

The law explicitly states that you must aim for the goal if you have indicated that this was your intention. The Rebels should not have had a chance for a second go, and it definitely should not have been play-on.

21.5 Scoring a goal from a penalty kick
(b) If the kicker indicates to the referee the intention to kick at goal, the kicker must kick at goal. Once the kicker has made the intention clear, there can be no change of the intention. The referee may enquire of the kicker as to the intention.
Sanction: Unless otherwise stated in Law any infringement by the kicker's team results in a scrum at the mark. The opposing team throws in the ball.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

The law explicitly states that you must aim for the goal if you have indicated that this was your intention. The Rebels should not have had a chance for a second go, and it definitely should not have been play-on.

Technically it doesn't actually say you have to aim for goal - it just says that if you say your intention is to go for goal, you must take a shot at goal. In which case, all that's required is you either drop kick the ball or kick it from a tee - so you can't tap it and run, for example.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Technically it doesn't actually say you have to aim for goal - it just says that if you say your intention is to go for goal, you must take a shot at goal. In which case, all that's required is you either drop kick the ball or kick it from a tee - so you can't tap it and run, for example.

One can't then claim a try of it no matter where you aim or kick, that's the rules
C'mon, this is nothing new

 

[tenpm]

That's technically not true; tries from balls rebounding off the posts are legal, for example.

Still, the ref (hopefully) isn't blind and he can tell when a kick isn't aimed at the posts. He correctly called the Woodward kick back for not being a legitimate attempt at goal. That meant that the correct decision then was to award a scrum to the Stormers.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

One can't then claim a try of it no matter where you aim or kick, that's the rules
C'mon, this is nothing new

The rules explicitly state you must not place kick for touch (21.4[D]), nothing is mentioned of intentionally missing a shot at goal and then playing the ball. If you hit the posts, for example, it's play on - the game doesn't stop for a 22 etc. (unless you're playing Rugby 2004...). There is, in fact, a rule which explicitly states that the kicker is free to kick wherever he chooses and may play the ball after kicking it (21.4[E]), though you could argue that this only applies to punts etc., the rules are unclear.

While I wouldn't necessarily disagree with referees not allowing players to intentionally miss, per se, it does not explicitly state this as a rule anywhere in the law book. Where's smartcooky? I'm sure he'd know if referees have been explicitly told not to allow this.

 

[Gena_ZA]

Would also appreciate his views on this
From memory, can anyone recollect a try being scored after a player indicated he goes for post and then deliberately kicked it for a player running to score in the corner?
Excluding hitting the posts

 

[sifplay]

The TMO judges on what the ref on the day asked him, that's why we got this ruling
Still Stormers did not deserve a win here, on current form they are dismal

He asked Try or no try and the TMO give him a complete different answer to the question. Probable try. Try or no try is for a in goal decision and TMO went out of his scope to cherry pick the foul play and completely ignore the Higginbottom knock and the fact that Habana was one of the covering defenders.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

He asked Try or no try and the TMO give him a complete different answer to the question. Probable try. Try or no try is for a in goal decision and TMO went out of his scope to cherry pick the foul play and completely ignore the Higginbottom knock and the fact that Habana was one of the covering defenders.

What are you talking about? If it's only for an in goal decision then he'd completely be ignoring the foul play out of goal - which is obviously what the referee was most concerned about. Try or no try simply means 'should I award a try?'. The fact that Habana was one of the covering defenders is completely irrelevant, if the Rebels player hadn't been held back he would've got to the ball first, Habana only barely beats him as it is. The only arguments against giving the try is the Higginbotham slap down. There was no cherry picking from the TMO, what a stupid comment.

 

[sifplay]

What are you talking about? If it's only for an in goal decision then he'd completely be ignoring the foul play out of goal - which is obviously what the referee was most concerned about. Try or no try simply means 'should I award a try?'. The fact that Habana was one of the covering defenders is completely irrelevant, if the Rebels player hadn't been held back he would've got to the ball first, Habana only barely beats him as it is. The only arguments against giving the try is the Higginbotham slap down. There was no cherry picking from the TMO, what a stupid comment.

No try or no try means he have no clue the try have been scored. The TMO still have a protocol and it can't out of it.

1. Decisions relating to in-goal


1.1. The TMO may be used when the Referee requires confirmation with regard to the scoring of a try. The TMO may also be consulted as to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.


1.2 The Referee will blow time out and make the “time out†T signal.


1.3 The Referee will make a “square box†signal with his hands and at the same time inform the TMO through the two way communication that he will require his advice.


1.4 The Referee will then ask the TMO one of three questions:


1) Is it a try â€" yes or no?
2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?
3) But for the act of foul play â€" probable try or no try? 1.5 The TMO will then liaise with the TV Director and look at all available footage in order to gather enough information in order to provide informed advice.


1.6 The broadcaster must provide all the angles requested by the TMO.


1.7 When the TMO has concluded his analysis he will provide the match referee with his advice and recommendations. The Referee should repeat the TMO’s recommendation to ensure that he is absolutely satisfied that he has heard what has been recommended.


1.8 The TMO will then advise the Referee as to when he may go ahead and signal his decision.
(This process is essential in order to allow time for TV to focus their cameras on the Referee for his decision).


1.9 The Referee will then communicate his decision in the correct manner. Play will then continue and the time clock restarted.


1.10 Where large on-ground video screens are available the TV Director may also communicate the decision.


1.11 In the absence of a video screen some grounds may use Red and Green lights to advise the crowd.


1.12 The important and primary method of communication still rests firmly with the Referee who will indicate in the normal way after receiving the TMO’s advice.


Additional jurisdiction protocol .

1. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal
1.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
1.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:
 Knock-on
 Forward pass
 Player in touch
 Off-side
 Obstruction
 Tackling a player without the ball
 Foul play
 Double movement in act of scoring
Referee judgement calls for all other decisions in the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.
In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.
For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball, i.e. were the player’s hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.

The most important past of this protocol and to understand it is the question asked by the referee. A TMO can't go out of his protocol. Now this states the following questions asked. And they numbered it for us for a reason.

1) Is it a try â€" yes or no?

This is when the referee have no clue whether a try have been scored or not.

2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?

This relates to when a referee sees the grounding but want to know if the ATTACKING team may have committed a offense.

3) But for the act of foul play â€" probable try or no try?

This relates to foul play and concerning a penalty try. This is for foul play that may have committed where there was no grounding and the referee wanted to know if not from the foul play a try would have been scored. This is what happened in the match and what SAReferees explains.


But they left out the most important thing in their explenation. That is what was the question the referee asked? The referee asked the TMO


Please provide assistance Try or no try?. I repeat Try or no try.


Now we got look at what try or no try says? No try and no try you will notice above is under 1 which clearly states as

1. Decisions relating to in-goal

So he did not know if the attackers or defenders have dotted it down. That is why he said look at everything because if the TMO have looked who dotted it down then he would have to look at knock on as well. If Phibbs dotted it down then Higginsbottom knock CAN be called by the TMO and pointed out the referee. He did not and just looked at the piece of foul play and gave a different answer than what the question was.
To Is it a try â€" yes or no he answered probable try or no try? The question was for in goal first and he jumped straight to before Higginbottoms knock ignored it and one quick view of the foul play he gave the decision.


Now he saw everything happening in real time and don't know if he got excited or are a Rebels fan or blind or deaf, dumb or whatever but he ignored the in goal decision and pointed the foul play out.


Now if he was clever enough to know he can't look at the knock because he believes they did not dot it down without looking but he was dumb enough to give a answer to a totally different question?


As you can see each question is numbered and for good reason because the number next to it defines the criteria and what he can look at.


So 2nd question

2) Can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?

relates to no. 2

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal


2.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.


2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls


2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:


• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul play
• Double movement in act of scoring


2.4 Referee judgement decisions for all other aspects of the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.


2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion, on each occasion, that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.


2.6 For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.


2.7 If there has been an infringement, the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.


2.8 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

and no 3

3) But for the act of foul play â€" probable try or no try?

relates to this part.

3. Potential infringement by the defending team preventing a try from being scored.


3.1. If the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement in the field of play by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.


3.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls


3.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. The offences will normally be an act of foul play such as obstruction or playing a player without the ball.


3.4 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious and that but for the infringement a try would probably have been scored if he is to advise the referee to award a penalty try. If there is any doubt that a try would be scored the TMO must advise the award of an appropriate sanction in accordance with Law.


3.5 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

So you see now how cleverly it was stepped around and cherry picked by providing half the details to make it appear right. The referee did not ask which relates to no 3 but no 1. The TMO went and applied no 3 to skip the knock on

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Then the referee asked the wrong question relative to his intentions. He specifically says he "will look at everything" and that he wants the TMO to "go back to the last passage". Looking at this as a whole it is clear what he wanted the TMO to do, and simply used a bit of wrong terminology - that shouldn't prevent the right call being made.

 

[sifplay]

Then the referee asked the wrong question relative to his intentions. He specifically says he "will look at everything" and that he wants the TMO to "go back to the last passage". Looking at this as a whole it is clear what he wanted the TMO to do, and simply used a bit of wrong terminology - that shouldn't prevent the right call being made.

No referee asked the right question. With that the TMO had to look up the play from last two rucks till the end. That would include the knock and the holding back. The TMO went and did no 3 which meant he can skip the knock on and just apply the foul. Read again my above bit but read the piece on Additional Juristiction an the parts I balded. Higginbottoms knock on make the foul play irrelevant as it happened first.

He did not make the right call. He skipped the knock on

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

No referee asked the right question. With that the TMO had to look up the play from last two rucks till the end. That would include the knock and the holding back. The TMO went and did no 3 which meant he can skip the knock on and just apply the foul. Read again my above bit but read the piece on Additional Juristiction an the parts I balded. Higginbottoms knock on make the foul play irrelevant as it happened first.

He did not make the right call. He skipped the knock on

He didn't skip the knock on, he decided that it wasn't a knock on. There's a big difference.