Tri Nations: Springboks - All Blacks @ Nelson Mandela Bay Stadium (20-8-2011, 15:05)

[Darwin]

Fair enough Darwin, but from a legal perspective, there is nothing which dictates that he CAN'T do as he did. if it's not in the laws, then how can it be illegal?

if I f**k your mother, does that constitute you to kill me, because according to you, it's illegal.

We are not not talking about a 'legal perspective', we are talking about the accepted protocols of the game, which both the TMO and ref clearly (and I'm sure knowingly) breached. You clearly seem to think that is fine that they breached this protocol, and nothing I say will convince you otherwise, so there is really no point in continuing to debate

 

[TRF_heineken]

Haha, okay okay, maybe that was a bit over the top, sorry for that one...

all i'm saying is that how can something be illegal if it's not in the laws??

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

I don't think a facepalm would be suitable. That has to be the worst metaphor i have ever read.

Worst!?

That is by far the most awesome metaphor I have ever seen.

 

[TRF Mr Fish]

Haha, okay okay, maybe that was a bit over the top, sorry for that one...

all i'm saying is that how can something be illegal if it's not in the laws??

It say the TMO can officiate what happens in-goal.

 

[ranger]

Haha, okay okay, maybe that was a bit over the top, sorry for that one...

all i'm saying is that how can something be illegal if it's not in the laws??

It says they can only adjudicate on what happens in the ingoal. They can't therefore adjuticate on what happens outside of the ingoal.
This really isn't a hard concept to grasp.

 

[TRF_heineken]

lol

geez maybe I must go to IRB's legal website coz looks like nobody here is seeing it from the same viewpoint as me.

I get that the law that darwin put on his post only talks about the in-goal area. and that the ref can only consult him of the movement in goal.

but how many TMO decisions was judged that the guy was out BEFORE the in goal area??? that happened before the player was in goal or even scored the try, so why is that allowed??

 

[Darwin]

lol

geez maybe I must go to IRB's legal website coz looks like nobody here is seeing it from the same viewpoint as me.

I get that the law that darwin put on his post only talks about the in-goal area. and that the ref can only consult him of the movement in goal.

but how many TMO decisions was judged that the guy was out BEFORE the in goal area??? that happened before the player was in goal or even scored the try, so why is that allowed??

It is allowed because this situation is clearly defined (as posted above):

-The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was
or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.

 

[SavageLez]

I can't recall which Test match it was but I have seen the TMO used when a try was scored and overturned or not given due to blocking of the defender right on the try line.

Nowhere is that stated in the rules but the TMO was used and the try was disallowed.

I have a feeling it was a SA vs NZ game and JdV may have been the defender?

At the end of the day it is about getting the correct results. Paddy O'Brien should back the ref and assistants if their are obvious knock on's, forward passes or indescretions which could result in unfair points been awarded to any team.

The ref should have asked TRY or NO TRY and the TMO should be able to rule that is was way forward!

Often a player is short of the line or knocks it on just short of the line

and the TMO is asked the same question.

 

[madflyhalf]

South Africa vs. New Zealand in Rustenberg in 2006, obstruction by So'oialo.

But IMO that happened with So'oialo already in-goal, so that was a good call by TMO!

 

[ranger]

lol

geez maybe I must go to IRB's legal website coz looks like nobody here is seeing it from the same viewpoint as me.

I get that the law that darwin put on his post only talks about the in-goal area. and that the ref can only consult him of the movement in goal.

but how many TMO decisions was judged that the guy was out BEFORE the in goal area??? that happened before the player was in goal or even scored the try, so why is that allowed??

Picture this:
You're driving along and then a mad man, driving on the wrong side of the road, almost hits you. You manage to avoid it, but then another guy, again on the wrong side of the road is coming right at you. Then, the same thing happens again, and again, and again all along the road.

How many of these madmen on the wrong side of the road does it take before you realise that you're actually the ******** on the wrong side of the road...

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

Oh my... if i f**k your mother... I am at a loss for words.

 

[Sker]

Blue Bull supporters...

'Nuff said

 

[kusta]

Some exerts about the incident from IRB Referee boss Paddy O'Brien (courtesy of the NZ Herald): "The referee and the television match official were operating outside our agreed protocol,""That will be addressed with George [Clancy] in our review of the game. It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet.""They will be told there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion.""They made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the leadup to a try, then that's the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision"

Obviously he would say that when his national team is losing, I wonder what he would have said if it was the Boks who were in that situation?! And instead of saying maybe the TMO should be involved more as it was the good decision he says he's gonna slam the ref....I know he can't change the rules but he couldve said something like that so to have the TMO rules looked at instead of talkin Kak.

 

[Black Heart]

Obviously he would say that when his national team is losing, I wonder what he would have said if it was the Boks who were in that situation?! And instead of saying maybe the TMO should be involved more as it was the good decision he says he's gonna slam the ref....I know he can't change the rules but he couldve said something like that so to have the TMO rules looked at instead of talkin Kak.

From memory Wayne Barnes had his support over the All Blacks semi final loss in 2007 so you're pulling at loose strings by making such an argument.

 

[SavageLez]

I think that a team should be allowed to appeal a decision 1 call per half and if decision to appeal is correct they keep the appeal if needed in the same half. Also if a TMO can make the call that the ball is touched down short of the try line (which is not behind the try line) then Saturdays call was perfectly fine in my opinion. Why can TMO rule on it being short if that is not behind the try line?

 

[TRF_heineken]

I think that a team should be allowed to appeal a decision 1 call per half and if decision to appeal is correct they keep the appeal if needed in the same half. Also if a TMO can make the call that the ball is touched down short of the try line (which is not behind the try line) then Saturdays call was perfectly fine in my opinion. Why can TMO rule on it being short if that is not behind the try line?

That's another thing yes! and that's also not in the laws mentioned by darwin!

so there's basically 4 things that has happened before the the player was in the in-goal area to score the try so why am I being grilled here??

 

[antipodean]

I think that a team should be allowed to appeal a decision

Perhaps cricket is more your thing.

 

[ranger]

Seriously you guys?

 

[TRF_stormer2010]

I think that a team should be allowed to appeal a decision 1 call per half and if decision to appeal is correct they keep the appeal if needed in the same half. Also if a TMO can make the call that the ball is touched down short of the try line (which is not behind the try line) then Saturdays call was perfectly fine in my opinion. Why can TMO rule on it being short if that is not behind the try line?

The appeal thing was trialed in the varsity cup; worked a treat IMO. I remember one game in particular between UCT and Maties where big calls from the ref where (rightly) overturned and corrected. It was only in relation to tries being scored though and there was a limit on the extent to which it went back (nothing after stoppages) which I thought made sense. The drawback is it takes a minute or two and kinda takes away some of the shine of the game if you get my drift but i felt it was very fair; maybe becuase UCT got 2 tries that shouldn't have been tries overturned LOL even though we still lost the game (just) it felt a lot more fair than it otherwise would have had those tries stood.

Still, within the laws of the game as is that try should have stood (even if it weren't a try). But I'll take this one LOL; we've been at the wrong end often enogh!

 

[SavageLez]

O Brien is just being a Di** Head!

I salute you Graham Henry!