0
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/down_dis.png)
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
I agree with Westie, Hansen is on the money but it's world wide not just Twickers and SA. Both kiwis and Aus commentators go into fits about forward passes knock ons etc by the opposition and then flash up replays and then don't admit that they got it wrong and very rarely show suspected cockups by the home team.
I agree the ref should have as much help as possible to make his decisions but being influenced by directors and the big screen "no".
May the FORCE be with you!
Referees make decisions that effect the outcomes of rugby games in one way or another - shocker. How many refereeing 'errors' has Hansen's team benefited from? Referees are not perfect and will never be. Mistakes will always be made no matter if electronic or mechanical redundancies are built into the system.
Witness the whining in league at the video ref's decisions. When there is more recourse to other forms of adjudication of decision making other than the referee, the referee's lose their authority with the players on the field. Look at how referee's are spoken to in the NRL. Anyone and everyone has a foul mouth tirade directed at the referee's for one thing or another or whenever the try is scored the defensive players invariably make the box thingy with their hands for the video ref to take a look at it, even when it should be abundantly clear the try should be awarded. Referee's begin to doubt their own decision making and more mistakes are made by them. It's a slippery slope.
Hansen and his NZ friends describe their own proposal as 'in the spirit or rugby' whatever that means. Sounds just a tad like what happens on any given Sunday in the US of A.
The main sticking point is actually when do you consult the TMO. Nigel Owens awarded the try and there was no foul play leading up to it.
Very clear cut.
You can't then have the situation where because 80 000 screaming fan's don't agree with the decision the ref who has very clear guidelines to abide by and after awarding the try can then ad hoc consult the TMO.
Owens had no authority to change the whole process off his own bat.
If he had straight away asked the TMO to check the grounding no problem but not because some tv producer thought he may or may not have called it wrong.
Some of the TMO decisions I've seen this season have been bloody disgraceful anyway so if the ref makes a call you live with it, right or wrong.
Wests Scarborough 1st Grade juggernaut has played finals rugby each and every year since its inception and continues this remarkable feat yet again this season and unbelievably it's still rolling on and as an added little circle jerk for the masses Wests actually hold the record for the current longest unbroken finals record.
Hansen may be valid to the purists, but we are in an entertainment environment with electronic wizardry to amplify the sporting experience, Coaches need to work out that we need bums on seats and big screens bring them there and most are not purists, so if ref misses a cheap shot in real time and replay shows it up - fair go. Hansen would be spewing if a try was awarded against AB's 'cos ref was in wrong spot but thought he saw the grounding, or AB's not awarded a try when replay shows fair grounding.
One challenge per half, per team, bring the crowd into the game and let's get on with it.
No matter how valid the point is, there's no escaping the fact that it is delivered with the sole intent of having a swipe at the refs without saying anything that will get him fined.
Steve Hansen is exactly the wrong bloke to be making this kind of suggestion. I would contend that Steve Tew (Whilst not a helluva lot better) would be the best choice in New Zealand rugby.
C'mon the![]()
![]()
[QUOTE=westies man;
Owens had no authority to change the whole process off his own bat.
[/QUOTE]
This is the point I'm trying to get across
Wests Scarborough 1st Grade juggernaut has played finals rugby each and every year since its inception and continues this remarkable feat yet again this season and unbelievably it's still rolling on and as an added little circle jerk for the masses Wests actually hold the record for the current longest unbroken finals record.
I was a bit concerned about that statement the first time you said it but let it slide. Since you have quoted yourself.
Exactly which process did he change? Was he checking the play more that two phases in the leadup to the try? Did he ask for confirmation of something other than the actual process of scoring the try? Did he ask the TMO to provide guidance on something that wasn't foul play?
How did Owens change the process?
C'mon the![]()
![]()
He awarded the try. The AB'S went back to half way. Barrett teed the ball up ready for the conversion. After the replay on the big screen the crowd starting carrying on because there was a sponsor logo with similar markings close to the try line that had confused the crowd.
Owen's then stopped Barrett and asked the TMO to check the grounding.
After being told that the try was legal he then walked up to Barrett and said Quote[sorry bout that]Unquote. Barrett then attempted the conversion.
My point being that if he has awarded the try then it stands. If he had awarded it then straight away went to the TMO to check then that's fine but to award it and then 30 seconds later ask it to be checked because the crowd started baying is crap.
I'll say it again, he changed the whole process.
Wests Scarborough 1st Grade juggernaut has played finals rugby each and every year since its inception and continues this remarkable feat yet again this season and unbelievably it's still rolling on and as an added little circle jerk for the masses Wests actually hold the record for the current longest unbroken finals record.
Are we sure it was the crowd's reaction that made him check? Or did one of the touch jdges or TMO say over the ref's radio "Hang on, can we check that?" then there's no issue (IMO) as that's what the ref's radio is for. Of course, the touch judges and TMO sholdn't be swayed by the crowd reaction or any TV replay either.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
Has the guidance been changed, because when it was first introduced the limit of two phases was only a rough guidance and the ref can go back to the last time the ball was dead.
I recall a game where the Crusaders launched a quick attack which included a dodgy pass early on, then went through about 4 phases, with very quick recycle, before the try; Read and McCaw (and the commentators) were outraged when the ref went back to review the pass, but he was perfectly entitled to do so as it was in the build-up to a try.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
The ref can award a try (eg, based on grounding) having been unaware of a touchie seeing something. No problem with a touchie saying something immediately, as it would jar slightly if the ref had to ask them before raising the arm every time. 30 seconds does seem a very long time between a try being awarded and being alerted of an issue, though.
Maybe Owens should have asked the TMO/touchie why the long wait before the alert; if the touchie or TMO said "I've just seen the replay on the screen and the ball might have been grounded short" (or whatever) then Owens can tell him not to look at the screen, and/or that he saw the grounding in real time and was happy with it. I think Owens' problem here is that put too much trust in his assistants.
Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon
What assistants..they are usually blind!
Ok, based solely upon what Westie has said, I can't see how he has changed the process at all.....sure the timing is poor, and certainly doesn't help him to defend any accusations of bias, however he hasn't changed the process, because he used the TMO to confirm grounding. He is allowed to make his own ruling based upon his view of the replays on the big screen and I have seen referees blow a try and then decide to involve the TMO plenty of times......the only difference here is the timing.
Westie, I get that you are saying he was manipulated by the crowd, the video operator on the day and a zillion other factors....and you might be right, however to say he has stepped outside the bounds of his authority is simply drawing too long a bow.
C'mon the![]()
![]()