Should the referees have overturned Scotland's no-try? | Whistle Watch
Вставка
- Опубліковано 13 лют 2024
- After another exciting weekend of Six Nations action, Whistle Watch is back as Nigel Owens to give his opinion on all the big talking points.
Nigel discusses Scotland's last minute try or no try against France at Murrayfield, George Ford's charged down conversion against Wales at Twickenham, as well as answering all your Emirates Fan Questions.
To see even more insight into referees at the pinnacle of the game, catch Whistleblowers for free and exclusive on RugbyPassTV: rugbypass.tv/video/578207
#Rugby #SixNations #Review #WhistleWatch #Referee
SUBSCRIBE to World Rugby on UA-cam!
Keep up-to-date on all things rugby by following World Rugby on social media @WorldRugby - Спорт
Would be nice to get an opinion on the Scotland try not just stating the rules which we all know.
What’s the point in them giving you an opinion - chances are you’ve already got an opinion, you’ll reject one you don’t agree with and you’re looking for social validation for yours. Perhaps the lesson to take is that it is a grey area of the laws
@@DarceG-jh1ikIt literally said on the screen, ‘Nigel’s Opinion’. I was expecting his opinion
@@DarceG-jh1ik Are you not a little interested in why Nigel didn't actually give his opinion when he always does, including (maybe especially) when it's a grey area, of which there are many in rugby, as you rightly point out. World Rugby is rightly protective of officials (I just watched the excellent 'Whistleblowers' documentary on Rugby Pass), so given this is World Rugby's own YT channel, it seems consistent that they would carefully monitor/edit what is said by Nigel. The honest opinion of someone as experienced and knowledgeable as Nigel does genuinely sway opinions of reasonable people, so we would like to hear it. Is that unreasonable? In this instance the vast majority of rugby players, former rugby players, rugby journalists, fans of all nations (including French fans) are saying that it was an error of judgement (not of protocol, of judgement) leading to a mistaken result-defining outcome, which gives me confidence as a biased Scotland fan (🙂) that I'm not wrong to be confident in what I'm certain I saw.
In fact, by alluding to the 'pressure' of the moment, I suspect that might be Nigel's tacit way of saying they got it wrong but that we shouldn't blame them too harshly. I could be wrong, but if he is, I agree with that and wish the officials only the best personally and professionally. (But I still think they got it wrong and I'd actually like to know if Nigel agrees or disagrees with that, which is why we watch this show 🙂)
there is no opinion to give. the ref on the day would need to see the ball directly touching grass to overturn his on field decision, which he couldn't. there for Nigel's opinion is probably that the ref was correct.
Nigel made it quite clear, the TMO has to have a valid reason, not an opinion, to overturn the On-field decision. If there is any doubt, he has to tell the Ref to stick with their original decision.
The video replay showed that:
A) It is unclear whether or not the ball _definitely_ touched the ground.
B) If it _did_ touch the ground, there is no evidence that the ball was, and had remained throughout, under the control of the attacker.
The TMO had no option other than to inform the Ref that his decision stands.
But the TV angle *clearly* showed the ball had been grounded. It was an on-field error by the referee that should have been corrected by the TMO. Sorry Nigel, but you've copped out of criticising your former colleagues in the refereeing profession.
Why aren’t we getting an explanation around the TMO stating “there is the ball on the ground”??
It’s over the line, and the TMO states it’s on the ground.
At which point the ref admits he made his on-field decision too soon, i.e., BEFORE seeing the ball reach the ground, asks whether he should change his decision, and then everyone bottles it.
I am a long time admirer of the famous Welsh referee, but I agree that he bottled discussing the “Scotland try” in detail on this occasion, which is very unlike him.
Has somebody being having a chat.
I don’t like knocking referees as we all make mistakes on a daily basis. In this case maybe the instructions given to the referees rather than the referee, is what is at fault.
Yes the referee was very close to the action but as the camera clearly shows he rushed his decision.
My guess is that he saw the ball held up by a boot and immediately made his decision.
However he saw for himself on the replay that he should have kept looking for another five seconds and if he did his decision would certainly not have been “ onfield decision, no try.
He probably would not have said, on-field decision, try, either, as though it was very unlikely the ball fell from the boot onto a hand, it would be more sensible to go to the TMO to see if the cameras had seen anything more definitive.
I must mention that another viewer claims that the referee didn’t blow his whistle when the ball was held up by the boot, but later when the majority of opinion would be that it probably had touched the grass.
To further muddy the water a young French player claims that he managed to get his hand under the ball.
Regardless it was clear from the dialogue of both the referee and the TMO having watched the replay, that they both felt it was a Scotland try and almost came round to awarding it, but because of the on-field decision of the referee they both felt their hands were tied.
But were their hands tied, or did they tie each others
The question is, should the referee have said , “ I may have made a mistake in his conversation with the TMO, or indeed could the TMO have not said to the referee, “Are you still happy with your original decision” having seen the replay.
Their communication was poor as if they are not allowed to give their honest opinions.
A lot of very experienced commentators agreed that the decision made was the correct one.
It clearly wasn’t.
The only way it could be the correct decision is if referees are banned from changing their mind.
But apparently this is not the case.
If a referee makes an incorrect decision during the match, that is highlighted on the screen, most are big enough to change their minds, and it happens regularly.
Why should it be different because it is a match winning try decision.
I don’t see any good reason for the referee to give an on-field decision no try, because the truth was that he wasn’t certain.
Neither was the TMO. If at that stage they both agreed that on the law of probability it was a try, would that be the way to go.
Another possible solution to this mess is to have an assistant TMO, where you now have a third decision maker.
You could also add the two linesmen where you now had 5 people with a vote.
These linesmen are usually experienced referees so there is no weakening of the decision making.
Naturally not everyone is going to be happy regardless,but it is more easily accepted if the majority decision is 3\2 or 4/1 etc.
The decision on this occasion was made by a very good referee who on this occasion probably made a mistake which he found impossible to reverse.
I feel for him. I honestly do. Though it must have felt like an eternity to Scottish and French fans it all happened in a very short period of time.
It is time for chat and change.
Actually, you assume that the referee thought the ball was held up by a boot as the rationale for his on-field decision of not allowing the try. But the referee stopped the play way after that, many seconds after the ball had been moved away from the boot. What we all saw from the TMO angles is the ball being initally held up by that boot, and then being pushed further down off that boot. But we don't see if the ball was then pushed down onto the grass... or onto a french player's hands. We just assume from the images that since it's further down it has to be grass, but we don't see it from these angles. Actually, French player Tuilagi claims he had his hands below the ball. No one ever claimed the ball was held up by a boot or leg. I believe that is what the referee saw too...as that is the only way to justify the decision.
@@l.d.8047 but one can’t see the hand, or even a suggestion of a hand there... so that’d be just another totally blind assumption...
@@dannyboywhaa3146 You can't see the grass either, so claiming the ball was grounded is also a totally blind assumption
@@l.d.8047 no, it isn’t because the boot was on the grass, you can see the ball lower than the boot, therefore it must be on the grass - it’s a process of deduction and nothing blind about it whatsoever!
@@dannyboywhaa3146 A hand is way thinner than a boot, so the ball could be lower than the boot without it actually touching the ground. I don't know who's right or wrong, but if we can't see because something obstructs our view, then we're blinded and we both can only assume.
Really admire Nigel but on the Scottish no try decision that is not what happened. TMO had said there was a clear grounding from the best available angle. Ref said so I can overturn my decision? TMO bottles it and goes back and looks at inconclusive angles. Why if you have the conclusive angle and already said so? A bit farcical. That said Scotland guilty of not playing in the second half until they had to. A 6 point gap is not a comfortable lead in any universe.
who grounded the ball ? which player
@@MarkTill-vt3ku Sam Skinner, the player who carried the ball over the line tucked inside his elbow (between his forearm and bicep). The TV replay clearly evidenced that.
Thanks Nigel,I'm french but I feel we robbed the Scots last weekend...I know it's the ref decision and I can't think of any harder job in such conditions.
Did you maybe miss the push in the back of Scotland 14 on LBB that should have been a penalty try?
You probably never played...
Maybe Scotland weren't robbed Damien. If you look at it again, the ball as we all know was placed on the players boot, then it was actually rolled forward slightly while he tried to ground it, that was technically a knock on and not a try. People are focusing on the grounding but not thinking of the second movement to attempt to ground it.
@@adogonasidecar1262Why would you assume he never played ? With a dumb comment like that, he could say the same for you. Anyway the movement to attempt to ground the ball was technically a knock on anyway. Scotland had lots of time to win this if they had any ideas other than playing kick volleyball, in the end it was the right result. Scotland didn't deserve to win it ,they had enough opportunities. Stop moaning.
@DamienMarecaux Don't feel guilty about it. As Brian M stated, the attempt to ground the ball was a double movement and it was actually moved forward off the boot . It was a knock on under the rules. No try. I'm a neutral, neither French nor Scottish nor of any Six Nations country so I looked at with cold unbiased logic. Even if he grounded it, he knocked it on while doing so. It wasn't a try. France won, Scotland wasted lots of chances to win.
@@adogonasidecar1262Why the childish comment ?
It's a pity that Mr Owens didn't answer the one significant question that was asked.
Was the ball grounded or was it not? Did the TMO bottle it, having said the ball is on the ground and then saying he's not sure? Note, of course, that we all saw video that conclusively showed the ball to be touching the ground.
Lol.....total avoidance of the Scottish try.
What you expect. He is in World Rugby's pocket.
Silenced.. never thought I'd see the day he was paid off to not speak freely.
Thought he explained it quite nicely.
How is there a total avoidance? He literally spent nearly a full minute on it, like what else do you want?
still being paid by World Rugby obviously
I’m sorry Nige but that is a complete World Rugby cop out, nearly as big as the TMO who stated the ball was on the ground and then changed his mind. World Rugby have to do better, surely the Ref just has to have try yes or no as his question to the TMO.
This was literally the rule and it was changed due to the referee reverting to TMO too often/not making enough decisions. Rule changes can’t just be demanded because the underdogs lost. The current system very, very rarely has any issues, hence the excessive outrage. This is so unusual that it prompted a huge reaction. No system will be 100% “correct”, but at least we currently have a consistent system.
The Yes/No system was completely broken as anything "unclear" cannot be answered with a yes or a no.
The ref said no try he did not ask the TMO this Question try no try and TMO said he could not clearly see where the ball was or a grounding to make him overturn the refs decision imnot saying it was the correct one but it all depends on whar the ref said
Mr Owens sir you have earned my respect decades ago as I watched so many of your games. In the Scotland No-Try example, the TMO actually STATES at one point over his live microphone the following words " There is the ball on the ground".....at which point Nic Berry replies "So in that case I will reverse my decision then?".....AFTER which the TMO backs off it, appears to change his mind, falters. Nobody I have spoken to since the game disagrees that it was a fair try.
And that yellow card incident: The images I have seen quite clearly show the diving player in contact by his shoulder on the back of the head of the player lying on the ground. Facts are Facts.
Sure we can see the ball on the ground but we can't see if it's on the line in the same picture. I'm confident at 90% that it's a try but according to the law it's not an "undisputable evidence" to overturn the referee field decision.
Bang on.
I liked this show last year. A bit long but I didn’t mind. Now it’s boring. States the obvious and avoids opinion. And last week for example, passively suggested Wales were warned by the referee once in the first half. I was listening to the Welsh, BBC broadcast abroad. The Welsh commentator actually joked how many times could referee, O’Keefe worn the Welsh team with a final warning! They also suggested a final minute penalty was coming as the Welsh players were offside and Mr Owen’s ignored that. I feel the show has passed its sell by date. You’ll hear all of this analysis on match day.
As this is posted by ‘World Rugby’ there’s absolutely no way they would allow Nige to utter criticism of the Ref & TMO at the end of the Scotland Game (despite having confirmed a try should have been given in post match analysis). They’ve replied ‘nothing to see here’ to Scotlands concerns and issued diktats to circle the wagons to protect their officials.
Quite embarrassing for WR and their Ivory Tower elite.
You could see on one of the bits of footage though - actual footage of the ball on the grass over the line@@Tarod5 . That's what's so weird. Sure, if they didn't have that picture, entirely correct not to award it. But you can see it touching the grass, and the TMO says "That's it grounded".
It was a try (I'm french)
Yes
No.
Tu es peut etre francais mais pas malin.
La definition d'un essai, c'est si l'arbitre l'accorde. Il ne l'a pas accorde, donc pas d'essai.
Maintenant, est ce que je pense que la balle a ete aplatie? Oui bien sur. C'est evident.
De la meme maniere que je pense que l'arbitre aurait du accorder un essai de penalite sur la poussee dans le dos du 14 sur LBB sur la ligne d'essai.
Dans les deux cas, l'arbitre s'est trompe. Il n'y a pas eu essai de penalite et il n'y a pas eu essai.
L'arbitre fait partie du jeu...
@@adogonasidecar1262 Doesn't matter what language you use, Everything you write is Gobshite language.
It was a try. I'm Irish 🇮🇪
Nigel - you didn't actually give an opinion tho. on the Scottish try. That was a cop out
Here we watch the subtle world rugby defence of a shocking decision.
As to the Ethan Roots penalty try and yellow card. I don't think that that maul would have resulted in a probable try. If you watch the slow motion replays, Maro Itoje wrapped up the Welsh #8 the minute that he came back to ground with the ball, which is why they never managed to transfer it to the back. Ben Earl also had a "ball and all" hold on Wainright as well. That maul was ultimately destined to be a turnover to England in goal.
Very possible. That said, there was a deliberate, malicious infraction. That puts the decision into the ref's hands and at that point in the game and on the pitch, the ref will likely be harsh. It's a case of FAFO... Can't blame the ref.
It was a Scotland try, don't understand why it wasn't given.
If it was 10 minutes into the game, it would have been given!
It was clearly grounded and should have been given the benifit of the doubt...scotland won that game.
Generally it felt the officials struggled with the pressures of the game over the weekend. Most games saw poor decisions. I’m not speaking negatively of officials, but it shows how big the Six Nations is for players and for referees. Like players, referee don’t always preform as well as they’d hope.
I can’t think of another single clip in this series when Nigel doesn’t actually go on to give a decision whether that’s in agreement or disagreement with the on duty officials.
On the Scotland try, that’s right, I said Try because that’s what it was, he either doesn’t go on to do that, or if he did it was cut out in editing.
It does him no credit to try and obfuscate and fail to give an opinion. And I say that as a big fan of Nigel Owens.
100%
What try? there's so many feet, hands, dark spaces there, even if was grounded there was no evidence , TMO is right and he got paid for that.
He is a Welshman still smarting over the loss to Scotland obviously!!!
Didn't he just say that there was nothing illegal about the Chessum tackle?
And that it should have been a penalty against Ford at the end of the Eng v Wal match.
@@DT7w8 So many feet, hands, dark spaces there, and clear video showing the ball on the ground. We all saw it. We all heard the TMO's voice saying the ball is on the ground.
Missing the point that the TMO said it was down.... then reversed. Someone please just say it was wrong instead of hiding. Unless there was a hole in the ground it was grounded!!
I am sorry; the image was clear, and the ball was grounded. Explain the law to justify a clear mistake, won't bring improvements. Also, it demonstrates how unflexible world rugby is to adjust the TMO laws. I am neither Scottish nor French; World Rugby must accept, be humble and improve the TMO.
there would be plenty of (probably fairly partisan) french who would say you can't see the grass, all you see is the ball getting lower. The mistake is not "clear" to everyone. Hence the difficulty. Could/Should the TMO have said "I believe its down", probably - it was after all, in all probability, grounded.
It is unclear whether it was grounded, or it had remained under the attacker's control throughout ... therefore the TMO has no option but to tell the Ref to stick with his onfield decision.
So, whether it _was_ a valid try, it was NOT the TMO's fault, it was the "fault" of the ref ... the one guy who couldn't see what happened.
No. There was no visual of the grounding. Only strong indications that it had been grounded. You see something and your brain derives conclusions from what you see, but that's not what you saw. You saw the top of the ball go down, with the ground and the bottom of the ball hidden by a huge arm. Never the bottom of the ball on the grass. You can assume the ball was legally grounded but you cannot see it.
@@adogonasidecar1262 Perhaps you haven't seen the image where Tuilagi's huge arm is obscuring the TOP half of the ball but not the bottom half, which is so low to the grass that there can't possibly be anything underneath it? It actually disappears into the grass...
@@Andrew-le5tq I've watched all available angles at length. Only indications, no evidence. Requires deriving conclusions based on what one believes likely, not based on a visible fact.
Now, I happen to personally believe it highly likely, but that's not the way the TMO decision is supposed to be made.
Don't like it? Change the rule. I don't mind, really. Might be a good thing.
At 3.22 you say there wasn't a clear view of the ball being down and yet the TMO had already stated that he saw a grounded ball. He then changed his mind after the ref asked again was he sure. IMO it was a clear attempt (successful as it turns out) to get the TMO to change his mind. Everyone has seen the photographs of the ball on the ground. I admit I'm biased being Scottish but I'm fed up watching us being cheated either for the Australians or by them. And worst of all the ruling bodies supporting them. This kind of thing will be the end of rugby if they don't stop it.
The fact that Mr Owens doesn't give his opinion, means he doesn't agree with the verdict.
No discussion on the kick tennis and "Dupont's Law"?
🏴 Try 100%. Sorry Nigel.
SO, Nigel, you said it was clear it was over the line and the TMO said he saw the angle showing it was grounded....where's the dilemma? Also, did the shoulder, no arms tackle that was binned, impede the Scotland player probably scoring a try?
The dilemma is that there is no evidence that the Scottish player remained in control throughout (and also there is no actual video showing it _did_ touch the ground, only that it _appears_ to touch, which is not enough to overturn an on-field.
@@Kyrelel Yes ...and the players never came on the pitch. Nonsense.
I strongly felt that with the prior offsides France gave away defending their try line AND the shoulder charge... a lot of refs would have awarded a penalty try. If Atonio was not tackling like that, or some people suggest you're meant to remove the offending player entirely from the equation, there was a probable chance Scotland would have scored. So few people are talking about this and instead focusing on the held up try in the last seconds of the match...
People don't seem to get that the decision was made based on the ref's on pitch decision, burden of proof required to overturn said decision, and protocol. The ref was willing to overturn it and the TMO was about to agree... but either someone reminded the TMO or he remembered himself of the need for conclusive without doubt evidence and felt it wasn't there. As many pundits and other decently qualified people have said, was it a try, yeah 90% sure. 10% short of an overturned decision.
@@fatkev1983 But there's nothing in the law or protocols that requires 100% certainty. Where does it say that? I'd argue it was closer to 97%, but even at 90% that's still 10x more likely to be a just outcome for the moment and the match. Why are we so beholden to protocol when the overwhelming probability leads to a different outcome?
And yellow plus penalty try on Fickou action on the first half ? VDM was over the shoulder and end up in neck area. Rowe pushed LBB to prevent him to secure the ball and that also mean no ruck so no offside line. And VDM that is not coming back from his side when intercept.
Also where are the angles about how Russel get the ball back in Le Garrec hands ? Looks like he was offside and may have touched the ball so knocking it forward. Maybe by checking that first the ref would have had easier decision at the end.
Nicely on the fence Nigel
3:20 no clear evidence? If you watch the highlights there was clear evidence the ball touched the ground.
Actually, there wasn't. Appearing to touch and touching are not the same. Also, you cannot tell if the ball remained under control throughout .. so, no evidence to overturn the on-field decision.
@@Kyrelel Go to specsavers ASAP
It was a Try Nigel. Please don't go down that road. It's completely devalued the competition
Nigel, there is no referee's opinion I respect more in the game than yours, you know there's a BUT coming! But, there was a video angle that showed the ball on the ground. Looking for an objective factual proof to me, misses the point. Take the 2 Eng Wales penalty try calls, one given, one not. Both correct calls IMO, however, like the Scotland try, they are both subjective, not 100% provable, balance of probability. Therefore, I cannot understand why same balance of probability burden could not be applied and a try given?
The angle showing the ball on the ground did not show the base of the ball, so there could still have been a hand under the ball. There was no definitive proof that the ball was grounded.
@@Yogimaxithe invisible hand theory.
Ffs, there might have been a rabbit under the ball. Lord Lucan. Schroedingers cat.
Once an official invents things, we need just give up.
@@pitoren Unless you can prove it happened, it didn't!
Just what I said
Not correct @patcow9999 . The video angle never showed the bottom of the ball. Only could surmise that the ball was on the ground, never could see it. I happen to believe the ball was grounded, but I certainly did not see it.
If the ref had given the try on first instance, I would have been very much ok with that. But you miss the point that on TMO, one no longer looks for probability, but for evidence. There was no definite evidence.
Maybe the rule should be changed. However it was applied correctly.
What bothered me in the Scotland France game was that Antonio got a yellow card. Correct. But later on a Scottish player saved a try on the line with a brazen high tackle. Not even a penalty.
Part of why I don't subscribe to the predictable persecution complex from the Scots about this ref. Got to take the rough with the smooth
They cleared that of being a high tackle as there was only force to the shoulder and not the neck, Nigel said as much during the game.
Nigel, you were very diplomatic about the Scotland try and very clearly explained the importance of the on-field decision of 'no try' by the referee. If you happen to read this, how about telling us what your decision would have been had you been the TMO and not the referee on that occasion.....???
Nigel thankyou for clearing up the Chessum yellow card … at the beginning of the season the referees came to our clubs to explain tackle height … we went the through scenarios and I specifically asked about the ball carrier and their position going into contact … the referee clearly explained that the ball carrier has to present a clear tackle contact zone when leading into contact if they reduce the contact zone by lowering their height or staying low from a pick and go then head contact is not to be punished… there are keyboard warriors out there that think any head contact is a straight red….
The main aim of these videos is helping people to understand and explain the laws. With something as controversial as the Scotland decision, a leading former referee saying it was right/wrong would just encourage a culture of attacking officials wherever we disagree with a decision. My sense is that the ball was clearly grounded, but it’s a really tricky judgement call and I do understand why Nigel and/or World Rugby wouldn’t want to pass comment - at least outside the proper review processes. And helping people understand the laws is more valuable in my eyes. Then the opinions can be informed - even if they’re still passionate! I think it’s good to remember that referees are developing too, just like players.
It also clear that those calling for Nigel to give his opinion would instantly be dismissive if Nigel considers that no try was the correct decision. The reason why the try cannot be given is that even if you can accept that the ball is probably grounded, there is no evidence of how it got to that position and therefore whether it was still in full contact and control of the Scottish player. All the angle shows is the bottom of the ball probably on the ground with no angles showing the top of the ball and the player's hand
@@UBPICSvideos The TV replay angle, when followed in it's entirety, clearly shows the ball is tucked inside Skinner's elbow (between his forearm and bicep) as he crashes over and is still in that same position when the bottom of the ball momentarily touches the ground. There is no "probability" involved - The TV replay angle clearly shows the ball on the ground. A TV cannot show it is "probably" on the ground! And the remit of the TMO from the ref was to check if the ball touched the ground or not. Nothing more, nothing less. So the ref clearly was satisfied the ball was in Skinner's control when he blew the whistle, otherwise he would also have asked the TMO to check if it was properly grounded.
Come on Nigel, whats your opinion regarding Scotland try, yes or no. If the ball is grounded by the attacking team in the defending team's dead ball area that's a try? But the officials process decides it's not. Surely a case of the tail wagging the dog? Before we had a TMO, the referee would have been right in there trying to determine for himself whether it was a try or not. I can remember from my time playing the ref would tell us to get up slowly so he could see whether the ball had been grounded or not. Now that we have a TMO, the ref makes an initial decision then walks away from the scene to discuss it with TMO. Would it not be better for refs to exhaust all possibilities themself and make the best possible on-field decision before referring to the TMO?
It was a try....Nigel is here just being a PR voice for 'no mistakes' World Rugby.
The balance of probability (a legal tenet) is that the ball was on the ground after it descended from being held up . Otherwise perhaps it was levitating. However it seems that rugby law has a higher standard of proof than criminal law.
lol! that tickled me...
A ball held up, is a ball held up... Gravity will always take over if all interactions with the ball stop... Its good to recall that a ball must be placed into touch & not thrown.
Gravity is not a member of either side :)
It does have a higher standard of proof when there has been an initial decision made. If the ref had said try, yes or no.?????
The game of rugby is governed by laws so one has to bear in mind that certain principles of law need to be applied when making on field decisions. One such principle is the assessment of evidence. In this particular case, the evidence was in the form of TV replay angles to see if a ball touches the ground or not. This is an objective exercise based on factual evidence. The TV replay will prove if the ball touched the ground or not. It really is as simple as that. Unfortunately, on this occasion the TMO initially understood this by showing that TV evidence to the ref who was about to award a try but then the TMO somewhat irrationally decided to import his subjective opinion into the assessment as to whether the ball was grounded or not, instead of just leaving the TV angle as the best evidence upon which to make the decision. We could all see on the TV replay that the ball touched the ground. so what were the TMO and ref thinking when they back-traded?
Balance of probability is used in civil cases. Criminal law uses the much higher threshold of “beyond all reasonable doubt”
On the balance of probability the ball was grounded and it’s a Scotland try. Is the grounding beyond all reasonable doubt? No. We see the ball drop lower than the foot and assume it’s on the ground. I did not see ball on grass. I think it probably was, but I couldn’t be certain of it
@@Morhaw rugby is a civil practice not a criminal one , unless you are Australian, so we should go with the balance of probability.
1) When the onfield descision is no try, does the TMO need 100% proof of grounding to change the dicision, or is 96% good enough?
2) Can a referee change their initial statement if they realise they've made an error (including in their on-field try decision)?
Of course it was a try
Do you have any proof, because no one else on Earth does.
@@Kyrelel more than enough proof that would likely hold up in a court of law in the UK... but the problem is in this scenario you need to be 100% certain to overturn the on pitch decision. Definitive proof. Saying there is no proof shows you lack understanding why it happened and that you ignored what Nigel says in this video AND during the BBC coverage of the match. The commentators also outlined this within minutes of the verdict.
@@fatkev1983 Agreed on your response to Kyrelel, but not on the requirement for 100% certainty. BBC rugby correspondents said they talked to a test match official who said the agreed requirement when they discuss these moments is 'compelling evidence'. Would you say the evidence was compelling?
@@Kyrelelthe footage. This was televised 😂
Is it possible for a view on the interception by Scotland (v France) at ~14:15 ? For me, the 14 doesn't make it back onside therefore he plays the ball from an offside position preventing a certain try => penalty try and/ or sin bin, no?
It was a TRY, without Russel's offside at the beginning of the action 👌🏻
And it was also a PENALTY try for VDW high tackle on French number 13 Fickou.
Hmmm, you’re being a bit spineless on the Scotland try decision.
The TMO said on live telly, the ball was grounded
You can clearly see the ball move from the foot onto the ground as clear as day. I can't believe the TMO didn't see this.
Take the fact that he doesn’t give an opinion as a tacit acknowledgement thst he believes it should have been given. He’s not likely to come out against referees but he is likely to defend them and he doesn’t do that.
It was a try. Thousands in the stadium knew it was a try. Millions watching the match on TV knew it was a try. The TMO bottled it!
Did anyone else notice France no. 19 look at where Berry was standing and then drop his massive arm to the ground to block the view of where the ball was being grounded. We hear about painting a picture for the ref and he may well have won France the game with that move because if his arm wasn't there the view would have been clear.
Well spotted. I also saw it on saturday ... and he came in from the side which is illegal! Cunning bit of work by the big man but the best video replay angle clearly showed the ball on the ground and the try should have been awarded during the TMO review ... but for the TMO irrationally doing a back-trade and contradicting himself
The fact that no picture was used to explain the Scotland try tells you everything you need to know. It was a try and everyone could see it. The official bottled it. Clear and simple. Another example of... "the emperor's new clothes"
Love you Nigel, but, with regards to the Scotland try, I'd be more interested in knowing how YOU interpret the best camera angle (had you been TMO), and also interested in hearing whether a referee can change their onfield decision.
Nigel's interpretation of the law around charging down conversions seems to assume people keep perfectly still. Law 8.14 states:
"All players retire to their goal line and do not overstep that line until the kicker moves in any direction to begin their approach to kick. When the kicker does this, they may charge or jump to prevent a goal but must not be physically supported by other players in these actions."
... in any direction TO BEGIN THEIR APPROACH TO KICK.
That doesn't say you can't move or shuffle at all, but any movement that is part of their approach to kick.
If George Ford had taken a step to the side and immediately moved forward to kick, that would have been valid. But he doesn't. He moves to the side and stops, therefore it is not part of his kick approach and it was an illegal charge down.
Hi Nigel, just asking for a little clarification from a fan but non RU expert. I understand a maul but have a problem understanding how a player is deemed to bring the maul down as it seems keeping your feet when it is so dynamic is a real problem. Is the emphasis solely on the side going backwards to stay upright or is it more nuanced?
No comment about them changing their minds in the Scotland game? Typical….
Nigel explained why, by the Laws and protocols, the decision was "correct". Nigel gave the same assessment live during the game reminding everyone due to the route the officials have gone, it needs to be conclusive proof to overturn the on pitch decision. I am sure at one point Nigel says "it looks like it's on the ground doesn't it, when you look at that? But he needs CLEAR evidence to prove that it is".
I swear the Irish 9, particularly in the first half, kept adjusting the ball with his hands instead of with his feet
What about that last minute taking out of Rio in the air from Ford?
Ford was stood on the ground and the Welsh player fell on top of him. If that was a penalty let alone a card, the game is doomed.
Right, give us the definitive answer about scrums; as an ex loosehead I know full well that the ref can't see what's happening in the scrum, it's impossible, he or she can't see through our bodies. Unless the ref lies flat and looks up into the scrum they can't possibly see what's going on. Why do referees give on the fly scrum advice when they've never played in the scrum and the players can't adapt to the advice anyway because they're literally locked in place and can't do anything different? Tell me why players go through the motions without changing anything and the ref suddenly decides it's okay this time?
Great questions. Some infractions in scrum are obvious, but most are super hard to ascertain and the refs can be played, and are often played...
Scrums are disproportionately penalised and are seemingly randomly decided. Annoying part of the game and frustrating to watch. Needs a radical change to test a team’s strength.
The Atonio yellow card V Scotland should have been a red, let me explain myself. The TMO calls the referee to say there was a "No arms off the ball tackle", the tackle which we saw replays off and I think everyone except the TMO thought was the infringement was also a no arms tackle and this one was always offside but on ball. Scotland did a tap and go maybe 40 seconds prior to this tackle, where Atonio takes out Schoemann off the ball, high, with no arms wrapped. Do 2 yellow card offences in 40 seconds equal a red? I think it should and the TMO should have noted to Berry that this wasn't even the tackle he stepped in for.
Nigel, whom I respect as an ex-referee, described the decision process within the laws of the game. I am disappointed he did not express a personnel view but then that is not his remit - he has always expressed, in the past, the any situation within the context of the laws. It was a try by the way - but thats history, and second French try was a forward pass - look at where touch judge was standing before and after the ball is passed
Question - what is officially grounding? Is it pressure? Is it touching a single blade of grass? If the 1st - then they may be an element of doubt, even tho. I think likely a try. If the second - 100% a try.
Can someone explain why referees, and it seems to be more and more often, shout "Use it" to a scrum half who ignores that ref and still takes as long as he likes to get the ball out? Has any number 9 ever been penalised for not using the ball quickly?.. I've never witnessed it!
It would be free kick for waisting time not a penalty
@@Poweroftouch Yes, but have you witnessed any scrum half actually being penalised for it?
Re: The penalty try for Roots collapsing the maul. At the time, Itoje had a secure grip on the ball, so how do you arrive at the conclusion that Wales would have scored?
Nigel, you were a very good ref. I would advocate and encourage you to fully embrace farming as your neutral, indeed putrid stance on officials is now contributing to the demise of the sport.
In that case the ref should not have given an on field decision about the Scottish try. He should have said that he wasn't sure and wanted to see evidence of the ball being grounded. Ref made a bad call.
Sorry to be dumb but what platform is the whistlewatch address on to contact our ref supremo
Why not give the attacking team advantage in these decisions. ?
Charging down a conversion doesn't mean you can boot the ball off the tee (because that would be infringing) so should have been a retake no?
The Wales penalty try, yes a yellow card, but no try surely, Ben Earl and Maro Itoje had the ball wrapped up, the try would not have been probable
Try no doubt about it
Regarding charging on conversion, during the World Cup, Cheslin Kolbe was not behind the line but on the line. Don't you think that the referee could have reviewed on tv to make sure that kolbe move was legal ?
A last point, the kicker has a routine with body moves. How to differentiate the routine from the first move to kick ?
Thanks.
" Nigel Owens to give his opinion on all the big talking points" - except the last few minutes of the Scotish game...
At 82:01 - 82:03 you SEE THE GROUNDING. At 83:01 - 83:10 this moment is rock and rolled and you SEE THE GROUNDING multiple times... so SEEING THE GROUNDING is now not conclusive?
The thing is that you *could* actually see the ball grounded. Whilst from many angles, one just had to assume that it was the case because the ball had passed over the foot and you could see the top of the ball drop, from one of the angles, you could actually see the ball on the ground under someone's leg. The thing was though that it was in deep shadow and I did wonder if the screens that the TMO/referee were looking (and whatever lighting was around them at the time) at might not have made the ball difficult to see. But it was clearly there on the TV broadcast.
Nigel, can you answer why it wasn’t a penalty try? Tuilagi entered from the side of the ruck then didn’t roll away. This was all in the red zone inside the 5m area. That would then be yellow card, minimum penalty. Probably penalty try.
That would have removed any contention about whether the ball was grounded.
Laughable that Nige says there was no contact with the head when the still clearly shows contact with the head!!! I’m not saying it was anything more than a yellow but he’s been strict he’d up by his graphics crew!!
I believe he said legal hit initially then the head is contacted - not sure how you completely missed that.
I think it is more to do with initial impact, if we are talking about the Scotland v France incident. To me it looked like the contact was made more on the back, but you have two big guys colliding and it can be difficult to tell where shoulders end and neck\head start.
What I would have loved to ask, should Scotland have got a penalty try from that yellow card incident? As Nigel stated, France had conceded two penalties trying to defend their try line prior to this. Also, as pointed out in another example in this video, a penalty try only has to be probable if the player had not committed the infringement. I think this incident meets those requirements. But I admit there is no precise guideline for this and at the discretion of the referee.
I disagree that Wales would probably have scored a try from the collapsed maul, the ball was wrapped up and would not have likely been grounded. Given that referees are allowed to (and do) take into account cover defenders who might potentially make a tackle when assessing PTs for deliberate knock on, I don't see why they shouldn't also take into account players who have actually got hands on the ball in a maul situation.
He didnt have to give the opinion tho Nigel, he didn't want the TMO s to change the result. Ego got the better of his judgement.
Was it a well timely or an illegal charge on Ramos's conversion? We'll never really know.
Nigel - you welshed out of giving your opinion on the Scottish try !
the biggest mistake was Nic Berry giving a decision when he couldn't see the ball after it rolled off the foot. Should have just sent it upstairs.
I don’t understand the logic of the ball is over the line and then seen grounded on the floor which therefore means a try but seen to not be good evidence
I don't see any logic at all, so I don't make any attempt to try to understand it. There is none. It was a try and World Rugby post this propaganda from an ex-ref and paid TV pundit sitting on his farm surrounded by cow pat!
That was a try, simple. Tmo bottled it as did the ref.
this makes less sense now if it had nothing to do with whether the ball was over the line how is it not given it's clearly grounded
I never thought Nigel Owens would bottle making a call in the way he just did. In doing so, he has lost a lot of respect (not just mine) and pretty much killed off the Whistlewatch concept. No honesty = no point.
I'd like to see a change to the end of game rules making it such that held up doesn't end the game, not exactly sure what restart should be, maybe a tap on the 10. Anybody got thoughts?
also Atonio did make contact with Fagersons head. you only have to look how Fagerson's head moves when hit with the shoulder
Is there any reason we never got a whistle watch for the RWC final? 🤔
Strange Nigel does NOT talk about the laws/rules and talks about the PROCESS instead, which is secondary.
But I'll humour this. I like Nigel, but he works for World Rugby, let's all remember that!! "Nigel's Opinion" haha you'd assume that, but stating it makes it even more doubtful.
The laws say that when a ball is grounded over the try line, then it is a try. When Nic Berry looks at the ball, it is grounded, and he can award the try. When the TMO looks at it, he can see the ball grounded beyond the try line and so can award the try.
There we go, it's that simple.
As soon as Nic Berry decides he has seen something that nobody else has seen and says it's held up, then there is a serious problem. The process follows that, and then after the TMO says it is grounded but decides he has seen something else that nobody else can see, and says there is doubt, then there is a 2nd problem.
Let's say that one problem is a mistake, and two problems well you can decide, and then World Rugby's employee Nigel gaslighting us with process and not laws is a 3rd problem, and is corruption.
I think if this was Nigel's "opinion" and wasn't sitting on the official World Rugby YT channel, Nigel would've given more of his opinion. Broadcasting on the official World Rugby channel makes his "opinion" a bit of an official World Rugby opinion. Would actually be interesting to hear Wayne Barnes' opinion. He had his critics, but he improved over the years to become a brilliant ref (it was his TMO and Bunker that spoilt the RWC final, not him).
I didn't realise the RWC final was "spoiled". As I keep saying to people who moan about the late knock-on call, why are people moaning about the late call and not the potential "game spoiling" failure to spot the obvious knock-on by the referee? If the TMO hadn't intervened then an even worse error would have occurred with a try being awarded after an obvious knock-on.
I get there’s only so much you’re allowed to say but that was 1000000% a try. Yes you can’t see the ball on the ground but it physically CANNOT be any lower. It MUST be on the ground.
Bruh the TMO literally said the ball was grounded from the first angle. There was no dispute whether the ball was over the line or not the ref had called it held up. You cant go from a clear grounding to saying inconclusive because other angles are less conclusive you stick with the one you know gives you the evidence.
Spot on. It's all about the objective evidence ... which in this instance is a TV replay angle. The evidence speaks for itself (the camera doesn't lie) and the TMO initially got the process right but then inexplicably turned the process on it's head into a subjective exercise and made it all about "him" and what "he could see or not see". Great material for any first year psychology student ...
Also kick tennis was not mentioned?
Interesting that you don't show the angles as the explanation is given of the obvious Scottish try...
Nic beri beri is a gift from all of us in South Africa……..lots of love from rassie…..
So Nigel didn't give an opinion on the Scotland try. World Rugby likely wouldn't let him state the blindingly obvious.
Said on the day it was a try for him!
Hi Nigel, as you explained with the Scottish last minute try / No try against France a definitive answer from the T M O is required, try yes or no , ( black or white )
Yet when it comes to a penalty try being awarded as in the England v Wales game , it comes down to probabilities, this law needs to be changed, in my opinion the player deemed to have prevented the probable try should be red carded, not a yellow to be reviewed just a straight red. This would help in a big way I think to stop these cynical acts being perpetrated.
Nigel if you do read this comment, I would be very interested to hear your views.
I am a x- player and played most of my rugby in Munster
C'mon Nigel. We know the rules. Let us know what you would have done as the TMO for the Scotland try.
That is the problem though, a lot of people don't know the laws and protocol that ultimately made it VERY difficult to overturn the on pitch decision. They need to listen more. I was gutted the try wasn't given.
Absolutely brilliant. I’m fed up with pundits and giving their opinions on TV when they don’t know the rules. They should have an ex Top level ref on all TV stations rather than ex players who I’m sure are paid a fortune but don’t add anything
The TMO said it was a try then backtracked, come on Nigel you side stepped that one ... thought you had more integrity than that ...Hiding behind the rule book when the ball was clearly not held up. Bottled it
I can't see it being covered...
While from one angle the ball clearly comes off the foot of the French player and was most likely grounded.
When was the whistle blown? And at what point did the ball become most likely grounded? Before or after the whistle?
😢Absolute retreat! The video shows ball on ground! Sufficient evidence to overturn! I hope to never see Nic berry and Brian MacNiece Ref any other game before that robbery is corrected.
The GOAT Nigel Owens!!! I agree it was a try, but in the rules has to clear & evident. The ref couldn't see grounding therefore his call was that it was held up. Made it difficult with players & limbs in the way. The TMO had camera angles to show ball had been grounded and in one camera angle shows over whitewash. The grey area is we can't see the goal line. It's a 50/50 call. If there's doubt and they can't say categorically that it's a 100% call they have to side with no try. Feel for the Scots as it's harsh but they'll bounce back!
Ref wasn't looking for the goal line. His on field decision was "held up, no try", which means he was satisfied the ball had been carried into the in goal area (which includes the line) and he only asked the TMO to check if any TV angle showed the ball touched the ground because he did not see it touch the ground. One TV angle showed the ball touch the ground and the TMO showed that to the ref who was about to award the try ... but then the whole situation became irrational and descended into farce.
The problem is that the ref gave an on field "opinion", instead of saying that he could not see a grounding, and asking the TMO if he thought the ball was grounded. I think we can all agree that in all probability the ball was grounded, even though you can not definitively see it. So what cost Scotland the match was the ref asking the wrong question. As a neutral fan the Scots were robbed.