Jump to content


Topic Advertising

Supporter Badges

Add some now to your signature so we know if we want to talk to you or not....see them all



One-week ban for Hougaard


  • Please log in to reply
&nsbp;

#41 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:41 PM

Well, then Dean Greyling's "try" was a try. Vlag just pointed out that the jurisdiction of the TMO is according to the law, limited to the in-goal area and whatever Greyling did before that should be irrelevant to the TMO.
Stupid, but true.


Nope. It was not a try.

"The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred."

It was from a double movement and penalisable, if there is such a word, making it "dead".
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#42 DbDraad

DbDraad

    Doring Draad

  • Members
  • 6116 posts
  • LocationDie Currie Cup kom weer!!!

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:45 PM

Well, then Dean Greyling's "try" was a try. Vlag just pointed out that the jurisdiction of the TMO is according to the law, limited to the in-goal area and whatever Greyling did before that should be irrelevant to the TMO.
Stupid, but true.

Not the law, there are no laws regarding TMO, the protocol. Be that as it may, the wrong decision was reached rugby wise, according to the laws. I think the TMO should rather apply the law than the protocol, as I think the laws of rugby should always supersede protocol. The replay should be "capped" at a certain time, maybe 5 or 10 secs, but the TMO should be able to go with the laws at all time, regardless of protocol. Protocol should not be hampering the TMO. He should be allowed to apply the laws from what he can see on his TV. Why the hell is the protocol written in such a way that it actually prevents the TMO of making a call based on the laws of the game? Clearly idiots at work here.
  • 0

THANX BOYS. GO WP!!!!!!

wp.jpgcurriecup.jpg
springbok.jpgstormers.jpgproteas.jpg vettel.jpg


#43 DbDraad

DbDraad

    Doring Draad

  • Members
  • 6116 posts
  • LocationDie Currie Cup kom weer!!!

Posted 06 March 2012 - 08:48 PM

Nope. It was not a try.

"The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred."

It was from a double movement and penalisable, if there is such a word, making it "dead".

The correct answer was given to CJ's stupid question, but the system is clearly flawed, and should be changed immediately!
  • 0

THANX BOYS. GO WP!!!!!!

wp.jpgcurriecup.jpg
springbok.jpgstormers.jpgproteas.jpg vettel.jpg


#44 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 06 March 2012 - 09:29 PM

Remember the TMO is not the decision maker, the referee is. In practice he actually asks the TMO to "investigate" something on his behalf and tell him what he sees, for him to make a decision. The TMO does not decide whether a try has to be awarded or not. For some reason everybody asks for the more involvement from the TMO and even for the TMO to be able to draw the ref's attention to incidents, etc. That would take away the responsibility of the ref. The referee is the one in control of the match and was always meant to be in control.

Remember rugby is a game played by humans and is officiated by humans and any human being can and will make mistakes. The involvement of the TMO is just another measure to try and limit the mistakes. The only problem in this particular game was the communication between the TMO and that was it.
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#45 DbDraad

DbDraad

    Doring Draad

  • Members
  • 6116 posts
  • LocationDie Currie Cup kom weer!!!

Posted 06 March 2012 - 10:59 PM

Then why have the TMO at all? Sorry, I do not agree with that Flag. The TMO should not be limited to a couple of questions, he should be able to advise the ref on everything that could impact the score in close vicinity of the goal line. As it stands, wrong decisions are being made because of protocol. That is wrong and can easily be fixed. Simplify the laws, take subjectivity out and you remove controversy. I know it will never be perfect, but it is in shambles ATM.
  • 0

THANX BOYS. GO WP!!!!!!

wp.jpgcurriecup.jpg
springbok.jpgstormers.jpgproteas.jpg vettel.jpg


#46 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:13 PM

Then why have the TMO at all? Sorry, I do not agree with that Flag. The TMO should not be limited to a couple of questions, he should be able to advise the ref on everything that could impact the score in close vicinity of the goal line. As it stands, wrong decisions are being made because of protocol. That is wrong and can easily be fixed. Simplify the laws, take subjectivity out and you remove controversy. I know it will never be perfect, but it is in shambles ATM.


Should be, would be, could be. The TMO is there to assist the ref and not to over-rule him. The referee has the final say, and that is it. The rest are advisors. Look at what the law says. You are not disagreeing with me. You are disagreeing with the law. The law does not even prescribe a TMO. It says that one MAY be appointed and he MAY be consulted. Let me quote it for you again:

6.A.6 REFEREE CONSULTING WITH OTHERS
(a) The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties,
the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other
aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudica tion of offside.
(b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.
The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.
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.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.

© A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.
(d) The referee must not consult with any other persons.
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#47 BaasJohn

BaasJohn

    The Law Man

  • Members
  • 699 posts

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:26 PM

I think a combination of the two arguments is in order. I agree that the on field referee should not be overruled. I agree that he should be the sole decision maker on what happens on the field of play. What I don't agree with, is that the on field referee should be limited on what he could consult with, with the TV ref. No such limitation exists in consultations between the AR's and the referee, so why should the TV ref be limited? He can see what is going on, on the field and he should be allowed to tell the referee what he sees when consulted, same as the AR's.

There is a story that runs that a certain PRO-fessional referee in SA made 83 calls in an 80 minute game in the ear of the on field referee. Somewhere during the game they blocked his feed to the on field referee because it took the on field referee's attention away from the game. You do not want that to happen either.

Draad, for the record, I don't think you can take out subjectivity out of any sport, for that matter. Interpretation will always be part of the game.
  • 0

#48 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 06 March 2012 - 11:35 PM

True, BJ. There are many things that many people would like to see changed. For instance, Barlee et al want any pass that does not physically travel backwards, to be ruled forward. :36_11_6: :36_11_6: What I tried to point out was what the ruling is at the moment. I have seen that Generaal Andre has already said that their might be a look at the rules again in view of that incident.

http://www.sport24.c...Watson-20120305

Cape Town - South African referees boss André Watson says the rights of the Television Match Official (TMO) could expand after the Bulls were awarded an illegitimate try in their clash against the Cheetahs over the weekend.

Spoiler

  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#49 Blikkies

Blikkies

    Senior Player

  • Members
  • 4567 posts
  • LocationRSA

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:28 AM

BaasJohn: "There is a story that runs that a certain PRO-fessional referee in SA made 83 calls in an 80 minute game in the ear of the on field referee. " lol - say no more.

Vlag: "The TMO is there to assist the ref and not to over-rule him. The referee has the final say, and that is it."
True, but are you aware of any incident where the ref has over turned the TMO's opinion?
  • 0


springbok.jpgcheetahs.jpgbluebulls.jpgferrari.jpg


#50 DennisL

DennisL

    Coach

  • Members
  • 14340 posts
  • LocationLittle Brak River

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:36 AM

True, BJ. There are many things that many people would like to see changed. For instance, Barlee et al want any pass that does not physically travel backwards, to be ruled forward. :36_11_6: :36_11_6: What I tried to point out was what the ruling is at the moment. I have seen that Generaal Andre has already said that their might be a look at the rules again in view of that incident.

I'm an et al too!!
In the Ikeys Varsity Cup match on Monday ome had the opportunity to see how absurd the "drifting" interpretation is. On occasion, quite legitimate "throws" ie initially going backwards, ended up 7 or 8 metres "forward" of the line of the thrower (because of a helluva strong following wind). Quite rightly these were all blown to avoid an absurdity. So, without such a strong wind and it's suddenly OK? No, Barlee and I are still not convinced!
  • 0
"Getting Jiggy with it!"

Posted Image

#51 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:37 AM

BaasJohn: "There is a story that runs that a certain PRO-fessional referee in SA made 83 calls in an 80 minute game in the ear of the on field referee. " lol - say no more.

Vlag: "The TMO is there to assist the ref and not to over-rule him. The referee has the final say, and that is it."
True, but are you aware of any incident where the ref has over turned the TMO's opinion?


No, because he asks him to confirm are look for something on his behalf, using the technology that is available to the TMO and not to him, the ref. It is not as if he the TMO is making a ruling. He is reporting what he has seen. If he was going to overrule him, why ask him in any case? It would be like: "Can you see any reason why I should not award the try?" Reply: "Yes, there was a double moevement". Ref:"Fvck you, I am going to award it in any case".

In the ideal world, the ref would have been able to watch the replay himself. TBH, I have often wondered why the ref do not just ask for a replay on the big screen and then make the decision himself.
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#52 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:41 AM

True, BJ. There are many things that many people would like to see changed. For instance, Barlee et al want any pass that does not physically travel backwards, to be ruled forward. :36_11_6: :36_11_6: What I tried to point out was what the ruling is at the moment. I have seen that Generaal Andre has already said that their might be a look at the rules again in view of that incident.

I'm an et al too!!
In the Ikeys Varsity Cup match on Monday ome had the opportunity to see how absurd the "drifting" interpretation is. On occasion, quite legitimate "throws" ie initially going backwards, ended up 7 or 8 metres "forward" of the line of the thrower (because of a helluva strong following wind). Quite rightly these were all blown to avoid an absurdity. So, without such a strong wind and it's suddenly OK? No, Barlee and I are still not convinced!


It is not an interpretation. Finish and klaar. At is a judgement based on a clear law description. "Thou shalt not throw the fvcking ball forward." At this stage the ref has to watch the hands of the thrower. In you guys' world he would have to watch the direction of the throwers' hips and in which way he faced when he made the pass, etc etc etc.
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#53 DennisL

DennisL

    Coach

  • Members
  • 14340 posts
  • LocationLittle Brak River

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:49 AM

Thank goodness the ref chose not to do that! He would have been jeered off the field!
  • 0
"Getting Jiggy with it!"

Posted Image

#54 vlagman

vlagman

    That Stats Man

  • Members
  • 31809 posts
  • LocationReading, England

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:50 AM

Thank goodness the ref chose not to do that! He would have been jeered off the field!


Jy sien. LOL
  • 0
Posted Image


I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

#55 DennisL

DennisL

    Coach

  • Members
  • 14340 posts
  • LocationLittle Brak River

Posted 07 March 2012 - 12:53 AM

Maar sien jy? :36_11_6:
  • 0
"Getting Jiggy with it!"

Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Toggle shoutbox Supersupporter Shoutbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

taipan : (23 April 2014 - 03:21 PM) Ah. Boring Chelsea
Cechie : (23 April 2014 - 11:09 AM) Latest tabloid gossip is Chelsea drew 0-0 in Madrid. Cannot be correct.
Duke : (23 April 2014 - 08:58 AM) Ah , ok , cool.
taipan : (23 April 2014 - 08:53 AM) If it is posted about Chelsea it is always tabloid gossip and cannot be correct.
Duke : (23 April 2014 - 08:49 AM) Get what ? Probably not
taipan : (23 April 2014 - 08:42 AM) You don't get it Duke
Duke : (23 April 2014 - 08:40 AM) So much for gossip
Blue : (22 April 2014 - 09:58 AM) NOW OFFICIAL - MOYES IS GONE
taipan : (22 April 2014 - 09:48 AM) Usual tabloid gossip
Blue : (22 April 2014 - 08:27 AM) Plenty rumours but no confirmation.
Duke : (21 April 2014 - 04:45 PM) MOYES Gone ?
Cechie : (20 April 2014 - 05:32 PM) STAN IS THE MAN!!!
Blue : (20 April 2014 - 12:39 PM) :emot117: 25% South African
Cechie : (20 April 2014 - 09:35 AM) MONTE CARLO GOES 100% SWISS :110104_emM5_prv[1]:
bobbok : (16 April 2014 - 07:30 AM) Ah! Weddings .........
J1M1 : (15 April 2014 - 04:14 PM) Hats off to Bubba!!Never had a lesson in his life.
taipan : (14 April 2014 - 08:35 AM) why? You are the one bitching.
bobbok : (14 April 2014 - 07:43 AM) You tell me .
taipan : (14 April 2014 - 05:30 AM) It is kak in general or just for the Stormers?
Blue : (13 April 2014 - 04:04 PM) http://www.supersupp...dges/sharks.jpg