Who'd be a Ref..

[Banquo]

Maybe give all the fans little remotes and they can vote on the controversial decisions.

presses like button

[Which Tyler]

presses like button

TMO decisions take long enough without debilitating it with the addition of a "like" button

[Banquo]

presses like button

TMO decisions take long enough without debilitating it with the addition of a "like" button

lol. That would be a great addition!

[Puja]

presses like button

TMO decisions take long enough without debilitating it with the addition of a "like" button

Very nice. Very nice indeed.

Puja

[loudnconfident]

Maybe give all the fans little remotes and they can vote on the controversial decisions.

Or Text "yes" or ,"no" to 7890
(Calls cost £2 plus roaming charge)

[Which Tyler]

This might be interesting here:
https://www.rugbynetwork.net/main/s105/st205634.htm

[Oakboy]

Maybe that highlights the question of whether law changes are needed or whether current ones need enforcing.

For example Spreadbury talked about enforcing a new 3 second rule for passing from the ruck but the current 5 second one is not enforced.

Does his criticism of Exeter stand up? Are teams realy battering the line less? Or, are players not as good at crashing over as some of Exeter's used to be?

[Puja]

I love Spreadbury. Was reffed by him once, in a real low-level 2nd XV game where he was turning out just for fun. We turned up with 14 and the other side were full strength with subs to spare, so we took something of a thumping and, in the second half, he started giving us a couple of comedy decisions to even the odds a bit.

Puja

[p/d]

I love Spreadbury. Was reffed by him once, in a real low-level 2nd XV game where he was turning out just for fun. We turned up with 14 and the other side were full strength with subs to spare, so we took something of a thumping and, in the second half, he started giving us a couple of comedy decisions to even the odds a bit.

Puja

I assume ignoring crooked line outs and the hooker popping up in a scrum

[Which Tyler]

Favourite memory of Spreaders was reffing Bath v Glos "Scrum down, our ball"

[Cameo]

My starting point is that refs have a tough enough job without post match relitigation like this. Teams and fans just need to deal with it. In this case, people have quite reasonably pointed to other decisions in the match that went in Scotland's favour.

However, the fact that there seems to be a reasonable minority of pundits and fans who think that a) the protocol was followed correctly and b) the TMO and ref made the right decision on the basis of that protocol suggests that either the protocol needs to be drastically changed or some clarification is needed.

Just so we are on the same page to start with, I have copied the key image above (hopefully - if not you can find it here - https://www.ruck.co.uk/conclusive-new-a ... ave-stood/). These aren't weird shots that came out days later, I was being sent similar screenshots within seconds of the decision happening.

I honestly don't see how anyone can think these shots are anything other than crystal clear in showing the ball was down. The boot that was under the ball is no longer there and there is nothing else. The only way the ball was not touching the ground is if there was a hole in the ground or the ball changed shape.

I have also heard some chat about it not being clear whether it was over the line when grounded or whether it was still being held by a Scottish hand. Hoepfully was all agree that it would be farcical if the TMO saw the ball was down but didnt award the try on a different basis without mentioning it to the ref. The ref said no try on the basis of no grounding, if there was a grounding but some other issue came up, that needs to be discussed with him.

People defending the decision and process seem to be focusing on the word 'conclusive' but:

a) I don't see that word in any protocol - BBC Scotland reporter Andy Burke was saying an official told him they are looking for 'compelling' evidence to overturn a decision.

b) Even if 'conclusive' is in the test, I don't think it is meant to mean what people are saying it does. It doesn't mean that there is no conceivable way that it could be wrong.

c) If conclusive is the test and it means 100%, then that is stupid. You are applying a test that is stronger than we apply for a criminal charge. If Skinner was charged with putting the ball on the ground and the jury was shown that video, there is no way he would be cleared. There is no ressonable doubt the ball is down. In any case, it doesn't make sense to apply such a high test in order to overturn a decision that may well be marginal. Berry may have been 55% sure that the ball was held up. If he sees videos making him 90% sure that it is down, why make him stick with a decision that he is pretty sure is wrong.

To me, what happened is:

a) Berry made an on field call that he thought the ball wasn't grounded and I don't blame him for that given the bodies about.

b) The TMO found evidence showing the ball being grounded and told Berry that.

c) Berry was ready to change his decision.

d) The TMO started doubting the evidence of his eyes, presumably because of pressure given the match situation. He therefore wanted something that was never going to exist - a view with no bodies in the way.

e) Berry just accepted this despite what the TMO had said a few seconds earlier. I think a stronger or better ref would have asked the TMO to talk through his reasoning and what he thought he was seeing (e.g. we can see the boot that was under the ball and it is no longer relevant, is there anything else between the ball amd the ground?).

I dont really care whether World Rugby comment om this decision but I would like them to clarify either that conclusive is the test but it doesn't mean 100% or (preferably) that conclusive isn't the test and that if the ref and TMO see compelling evidence that make them confident they made the wrong decision originally then they can overturn it.

[Cameo]

Just one final point.

The test for a penalty try is:

“A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position."

It is ridiculous if a ref is meant to give a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but isn't allowed to give a try if he or she sees evidence showing an actual try has almost certainly been scored.

[Oakboy]

Just one final point.

The test for a penalty try is:

“A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position."

It is ridiculous if a ref is meant to give a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but isn't allowed to give a try if he or she sees evidence showing an actual try has almost certainly been scored.

I think the basic question is, "Would a better ref have awarded the try?"

[Mikey Brown]

Just one final point.

The test for a penalty try is:

“A penalty try is awarded between the goal posts if foul play by the opposing team prevents a probable try from being scored, or scored in a more advantageous position."

It is ridiculous if a ref is meant to give a penalty try if a try would probably have been scored but isn't allowed to give a try if he or she sees evidence showing an actual try has almost certainly been scored.

Well put. This situation, where a 50/50 is worth more than only being 99% sure it’s down, should just not happen. One gives benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. One hinges entirely on the almost arbitrary phrasing of the ref asking someone else to have a look.