The UAFC

Was he exploiting the loophole, or drawing attention to it for the greater good of the game, before it decided a major trophy?

He was doing his best to play the feckin game without the interference of some superannuated, technology-laiden ref, second guessing the 'sole arbiter of fact'.

The one I'm waiting to see is the player who makes it to the goal line, then stops and allows a ruck to form before dotting down on the line. Thereby removing the ability of the TMO to interfere with a missed infringement a couple of phases back.

I haven't seen the incident personally, but based on what I've read it sounds completely legitimate. If there was any doubt over the try the referee should have gone to the TMO as soon as the try was scored. If he has to rely on replays in order to then go to the TMO then Leali'ifano has every right to go for the drop goal quickly.

ruckover wrote:I haven't seen the incident personally, but based on what I've read it sounds completely legitimate. If there was any doubt over the try the referee should have gone to the TMO as soon as the try was scored. If he has to rely on replays in order to then go to the TMO then Leali'ifano has every right to go for the drop goal quickly.

Not a case of ref going to TMO. This was a case of a TMO going to the ref (or not doing so quickly enough).

Any link?

BR wrote:

ruckover wrote:I haven't seen the incident personally, but based on what I've read it sounds completely legitimate. If there was any doubt over the try the referee should have gone to the TMO as soon as the try was scored. If he has to rely on replays in order to then go to the TMO then Leali'ifano has every right to go for the drop goal quickly.

Not a case of ref going to TMO. This was a case of a TMO going to the ref (or not doing so quickly enough).

Thank you for clarifying.

I still think it was legitimate. Ultimately the responsibility of awarding the try belongs to the referee and in his mind the score was good and therefore he awarded it. This then allows the kicker (in this case, Leali'ifano) to go for the posts - if the TMO doesn't get in quick enough to ask the referee to take a look at the score then the kicker is perfectly entitled to take it quickly.

Not that it makes any difference but was it a legitimate attempt at quickly converting or did he just drop kick it and not really care where it went?

The legitimacy of it is not in question, no laws were broken.
But this is sport, therefore the question is; was it a sporting act or a calculated act of gamesmanship to take advantage of an obvious loophole in the law? Or indeed did he do it deliberately to draw attention to the inherent problem with the law as it stands.

The TMO is now part and parcel of the officiating structure of the game. The protocols allow the TMO to intervene, but if a player acts quickly enough he can take away the TMO's opportunity to review the scoring play. So whether we agree or disagree with the TMO concept is irrelevant.

Don't think there is any doubt that it was legitimate under the current system. The question is, should it be? To know that the ref had missed an infringement (or to suspect it strongly enough) and then take this action could easily be described as ungentlemanly conduct.

BR wrote:Don't think there is any doubt that it was legitimate under the current system. The question is, should it be? To know that the ref had missed an infringement (or to suspect it strongly enough) and then take this action could easily be described as ungentlemanly conduct.

Yip, that's the question all right.

And the answer is - the law is an ass. If the FOUR officials did not notice a forward pass in real time and thereby call time-off after the try, then it isn't a forward pass in my book. They don't even have to see the forward pass, just have a doubt about it.

The constant reexamination of play effectively at the behest of the TV director and worse still the home crowd makes a nonsense of one of the basic tenets of rugby law - if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Next thing you'll be allowing refs to turnover perfectly good scrums simply because they can't be asred reffing them properly. Or indicating play-on then changing their mind when a player miraculously regains his feet.

Some may recall that I mentioned this option last year during the World Cup,, , some ridiculed me, simple , it's in he laws of the game.

BR wrote:And the answer is - the law is an ass. If the FOUR officials did not notice a forward pass in real time and thereby call time-off after the try, then it isn't a forward pass in my book. They don't even have to see the forward pass, just have a doubt about it.

The constant reexamination of play effectively at the behest of the TV director and worse still the home crowd makes a nonsense of one of the basic tenets of rugby law - if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Next thing you'll be allowing refs to turnover perfectly good scrums simply because they can't be asred reffing them properly. Or indicating play-on then changing their mind when a player miraculously regains his feet.

That's an argument about whether there should be a TMO at all and that is a bigger question and I know your position on it and disagree.
I like the TMO concept, but it's not a perfect system. The TV director's ability to 'not find' a compelling piece of footage is a bit of a conspiracy theory. It's not impossible, but it must be difficult. The TMO knows what cameras there are so he can ask to see each camera's footage. Referees can't see everything in the fast paced modern game and the game would increasingly become a lottery.

Kofi Annan wrote:Some may recall that I mentioned this option last year during the World Cup,, , some ridiculed me, simple , it's in he laws of the game.

We've all known about it for some time, but this is the highest profile example of its use.
It's within the letter of the law all right, but not the spirit.

Snipe Watson wrote:

BR wrote:And the answer is - the law is an ass. If the FOUR officials did not notice a forward pass in real time and thereby call time-off after the try, then it isn't a forward pass in my book. They don't even have to see the forward pass, just have a doubt about it.

The constant reexamination of play effectively at the behest of the TV director and worse still the home crowd makes a nonsense of one of the basic tenets of rugby law - if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Next thing you'll be allowing refs to turnover perfectly good scrums simply because they can't be asred reffing them properly. Or indicating play-on then changing their mind when a player miraculously regains his feet.

That's an argument about whether there should be a TMO at all and that is a bigger question and I know your position on it and disagree.
I like the TMO concept, but it's not a perfect system. The TV director's ability to 'not find' a compelling piece of footage is a bit of a conspiracy theory. It's not impossible, but it must be difficult. The TMO knows what cameras there are so he can ask to see each camera's footage. Referees can't see everything in the fast paced modern game and the game would increasingly become a lottery.

Not really arguing against TMOs (conceded that one years ago). Ref needs a hand and calls the TMO - fine. Or even a TMO sees something as it happens and pings the ref, just like an AR would - I can live with that. Any one of the 4 thinks 'let's look at that again', it's time-off and no real harm done. In this case I'm objecting to a TMO reviewing a passage of play without any prior concerns, simply because it ultimately resulted in a try.

BR wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:

BR wrote:And the answer is - the law is an ass. If the FOUR officials did not notice a forward pass in real time and thereby call time-off after the try, then it isn't a forward pass in my book. They don't even have to see the forward pass, just have a doubt about it.

The constant reexamination of play effectively at the behest of the TV director and worse still the home crowd makes a nonsense of one of the basic tenets of rugby law - if the ref didn't see it, it didn't happen.

Next thing you'll be allowing refs to turnover perfectly good scrums simply because they can't be asred reffing them properly. Or indicating play-on then changing their mind when a player miraculously regains his feet.

That's an argument about whether there should be a TMO at all and that is a bigger question and I know your position on it and disagree.
I like the TMO concept, but it's not a perfect system. The TV director's ability to 'not find' a compelling piece of footage is a bit of a conspiracy theory. It's not impossible, but it must be difficult. The TMO knows what cameras there are so he can ask to see each camera's footage. Referees can't see everything in the fast paced modern game and the game would increasingly become a lottery.

Not really arguing against TMOs (conceded that one years ago). Ref needs a hand and calls the TMO - fine. Or even a TMO sees something as it happens and pings the ref, just like an AR would - I can live with that. Any one of the 4 thinks 'let's look at that again', it's time-off and no real harm done. In this case I'm objecting to a TMO reviewing a passage of play without any prior concerns, simply because it ultimately resulted in a try.

No, well I'd agree with that. The NFL review every scoring play and that is becoming too clinical. The stop start nature of their game does allow for that, but I'd hate to see that in rugby.