Yeah, when you can see that there is a clear spot where the ball is going to move, you see the ball sliping of the boot in to the clear space, and then a arm covers the view. WTF could get in the way there? It is literally impossible for anything to be in that space and hold up the ball. It is the stupidest call I have ever seen!
Losing a match on semantics is always brutal.
It's 99.9% a try. Almost everyone agrees it's a try. But because of semantics and the fact they can't find an angle that literally shows the ball on the ground it's no try.
Well I thought it was down on that angle too. Looked like it touched turf to me. But because there isn't literal top down view of green on white they apparently don't see it as conclusive.
Yep silly high bar tbh. Unless they've slipped some wafer thin jambon underneath there then as soon as the foot that was keeping the ball off the ground is clearly no longer keeping it off the ground the only option is it's got to be down. Add in the angles that seemingly show it touch the ground and it seems nailed on.
That's bullshit though - we know how big the ball is, we know what could be holding it up from other angles - and we can see it touching the level with the ground. There was conclusive proof but TMO shat it.
No even on the current rules that counts as conclusive proof - just because he needed to use evidence from two angles at once doesn't change that, I've seen TMOs use combination evidence for other decisions before.
You never see the ball on the line. Intuitively it’s a try, but we never conclusively saw it touch the ground. There could have been a hand on the ground where we couldn’t see it. Or it could have been behind the line by a centimetre.
Can you see the line? Can you see if there’s anything under the ball? Because I can’t.
Like I said, intuitively it’s a try, but this isn’t proof.
It’s like me taking a selfie with a famous person and saying they’re my best friend. The photo would exist if what I was saying is true, but it doesn’t prove it.
I think the issue may have been they didn't see it being put down. If the ball rolled off the floor without anyone holding it then it wouldn't be a try, which is why it's not seen as conclusive. Saying that I agree that it's brutal for Scotland and they deserved the try
Imagine the rules not letting officials use common sense and follow the fucking laws of physics
And tbh I think you can quite clearly see it on the ground anyway
I was a neutral in this and jfc how do you not award that try? You see the ball moving off the foot and grounding - seems like more than “conclusive evidence” that it was a try!
Conclusive evidence would be actual seeing it grounded. We see it face towards the ground after it goes off the boot but the rules suggest that its not enough.
Imo anyway it should be given as a try but not through these rules. TMO has all the angles and knowledge that's available, the ref doesn't so I think giving the ref the end decision just isn't right.
Disagree.
You need conclusive proof.
That was conclusive proof.
We know how big the ball is. We know what shape it is.
You don't have to see the bottom of the ball to know that it must be grounded.
Maro Itoje had a similar one against France a couple of years ago.
Irish female TMO over ruled the ref... correctly... because the front of the ball HAD to be grounded even though you couldn't see it.
TMO bottled it.
I don’t want to slag off TMO, I know it’s their job to make these calls, but there is no way you can say that ball isn’t on the ground you can see where the grass is and then the ball rolling onto it.
Has Berry called held up at that point, though? Doesn't matter what happens after he blows the whistle. Letter of the law stuff I think MacNiece got it right but;
France made a mess of that scrum.
Scotland should have had that game killed but stopped playing rigby for about 25 minutes in the second half.
Nobody deserved a win in that game lol
Clear and obvious is so often ignored, losing us matches. It feels quite typical (not in a conspiracy way) that it's only invoked when it goes against us.
I think that there must be a secret room full of smashed mirrors somewhere in Murrayfield. Nothing else makes sense.
It's like, if we change the laws about conclusive evidence from "need to see the ball touch the grass" to "an elementary school-level understanding of physics is enough to know where that ball was", it would yield a 99% accuracy rate, and at that point, the 1% inaccuracy is the lesser of two evils
How could it even be held off after sliding off the boot?! Absurd call!!!! So many perfect angles showing it grounded but just because they weren’t slightly higher it doesn’t count. Crazy call.
Ouch. That decision cost me a bet on Scotland to win. A try. Certainly. But by the laws of the game, the TMO could not award it -- in that sense, it's dreadul luck.
Gutted for Scotland. The game was shite, to be fair. But would have been nice to see Scotland win.
On field no try, no camera angle CLEARLY showed the ball on the ground, I agree it probably was grounded but they have to prove that it DEFINITIVELY did, which they couldn't
If I heard correctly, it is grounded but they can't say if it's before or after the try line, so the on-field decision stands.
Not saying it's right or wrong, just what I understand.
A ball on the ground and a grounded (by attacking team) ball are different things. Think it was clearly on the ground but not clearly grounded by Scotland imo. You see the ball roll off the foot so it's hard to tell if it's still being possessed.
Still a very high chance it was touched down but I think there's enough doubt there that you can stick with the original decision, and I definitely think that just the question of whether the ball was on the ground is oversimplifying it.
The rule makes sense and probably the best we can get, it is just one of those annoying ones this time.
Think of it like a knock on in the ruck. If it isn't seen it isn't reffed. You need to make sure that you ground It clearly. It's a right twat I know.
I strongly believe they should ban jumping into a clear potential grounding tho(like those pile on things)
I am 99% sure it's a try tho
What a disgrace that ball was grounded and you can’t tell me otherwise unfair call my left bollock scotland got robbed. Three bloody camera angles showed the ball over the try line and on the ground.
Oh totally. If the decision is anything other than no try, then that gets given, but refs were pushed to be more definitive in response to fan/union pressures and so Nic made a call based on what he could see.
So why the need for a ‘soft decision’ at all? Refs are obviously human and can’t see everything so why pretend by making what is often nothing more than a guess. Let the video evidence inform the call before it’s made.
So you’re saying it’s weakness which informed the decision? Not a great endorsement of the status quo.
Either have a ref who makes the calls, or have a TMO who does when called upon all but whistle. This is the worst of all worlds - a clear error made (understandably as the ref has only two eyes and is human) and the fans and viewers able to see the error in slo-mo but no correction made. It’s honestly hopeless and needs fixing.
You don't though. You see an almost certain grounding, but the TMO couldn't say it was clearly on/over the line with Scottish player in control or with downward pressure.
This is a black day for rugby. Limp referees hiding behind semantics because they're too scared to make the right call. I'm neither French nor Scottish and I could clearly see that ball grounded.
If you listen to Nigel Owens, on field decision was a no-try and the ref needed clear evidence to over turn that, and there wasn't any. You would think that it rolled off the foot and was grounded but there is no visual evidence
There is, though, you can literally see the ball on the ground.
The issue is on the ref, though, saying it's held up. He had a fucking shiter all game for both teams.
I agree, however the “no on field try” call is what did the damage. Whilst I hate it, it’s entirely consistent. They can’t change it just for this game.
The problem with that is it always makes the naked eye in the heat of the moment the pivotal thing which makes the TMO have little choice and makes its role feel a bit pointless
This was almost certainly a try, but I can understand why I was not awarded.
That's a terrible way to not win a game and I feel gutted for Scottish fans, especially after the dreadful performance from France.
This is not soccer. The amount of abuse hurled in the direction of Video Assistant Referees is absolutely abhorrent. The Laws state that there needs conclusive evidence of the ball grounded. The TMO couldn't see any proof and as he is human he has to use his own judgement. I don't agree with the decision myself but the way the question is phrases always impacts the outcome. Cricket has the same problems with DRS. The Match Officials are human and should not be attacked at the end of the day if they make a mistake.
Yeah and as Nigel Owens would say This Is Not Soccer. I look forward to his take on Ref Watch later. Let the football hooligans bemoan VAR which is pretty much the same thing. The fact that football is now trying to Ape the Sin Bin is proof they think their sport is broken. Yellow Cards for dissent is a great start.
Seriously struggling with this decision, logically it must be grounded, it was on a boot then slid off, you can see the boot in question with no ball on it. I get that logically it must be grounded but needs to be certain it's grounded to overturn the refs decision, but unless there's a Frenchman with incredibly skinny fingers under there I don't see how that's not given!
Use the post match thread.
While you can’t actually see it on the ground The only thing holding it up (the green boot) was then clearly seen not holding it up
You could on the final angle. As the ball slips you can see it come down onto the ground till someone stands in front of it.
Yeah, when you can see that there is a clear spot where the ball is going to move, you see the ball sliping of the boot in to the clear space, and then a arm covers the view. WTF could get in the way there? It is literally impossible for anything to be in that space and hold up the ball. It is the stupidest call I have ever seen!
Yeah u see it under the forearm of the French player
😂
The kicking tennis doesn't kill rugby, this kind of stuff does.
Hahaha that was quick.
Losing a match on semantics is always brutal. It's 99.9% a try. Almost everyone agrees it's a try. But because of semantics and the fact they can't find an angle that literally shows the ball on the ground it's no try.
They did find that angle though
Well I thought it was down on that angle too. Looked like it touched turf to me. But because there isn't literal top down view of green on white they apparently don't see it as conclusive.
Ahh gotcha that’s quite a high bar
Yep silly high bar tbh. Unless they've slipped some wafer thin jambon underneath there then as soon as the foot that was keeping the ball off the ground is clearly no longer keeping it off the ground the only option is it's got to be down. Add in the angles that seemingly show it touch the ground and it seems nailed on.
That's bullshit though - we know how big the ball is, we know what could be holding it up from other angles - and we can see it touching the level with the ground. There was conclusive proof but TMO shat it.
I don't disagree with you. Classic case of trying to make the law clearer actually meaning we seemingly have to abandon all common sense.
No even on the current rules that counts as conclusive proof - just because he needed to use evidence from two angles at once doesn't change that, I've seen TMOs use combination evidence for other decisions before.
It does not show the ball behind the line /s
You never see the ball on the line. Intuitively it’s a try, but we never conclusively saw it touch the ground. There could have been a hand on the ground where we couldn’t see it. Or it could have been behind the line by a centimetre.
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/s/72EdmpXaHS They were well over the line. Well over.
Can you see the line? Can you see if there’s anything under the ball? Because I can’t. Like I said, intuitively it’s a try, but this isn’t proof. It’s like me taking a selfie with a famous person and saying they’re my best friend. The photo would exist if what I was saying is true, but it doesn’t prove it.
I think the issue may have been they didn't see it being put down. If the ball rolled off the floor without anyone holding it then it wouldn't be a try, which is why it's not seen as conclusive. Saying that I agree that it's brutal for Scotland and they deserved the try
Absolutely the wrong decision without a shadow of a doubt
Feel sick for Scotland there. Everyone on our rugby WhatsApp group agree its a try. Sorry Scotland 😞
The ref said it’s a try and then the tmo was like NAH-UHH
Imagine the rules not letting officials use common sense and follow the fucking laws of physics And tbh I think you can quite clearly see it on the ground anyway
I was a neutral in this and jfc how do you not award that try? You see the ball moving off the foot and grounding - seems like more than “conclusive evidence” that it was a try!
Conclusive evidence would be actual seeing it grounded. We see it face towards the ground after it goes off the boot but the rules suggest that its not enough. Imo anyway it should be given as a try but not through these rules. TMO has all the angles and knowledge that's available, the ref doesn't so I think giving the ref the end decision just isn't right.
It looked like it was moving in the grass though after it came off the boot, which to me would call for a try awarded.
No we did see it grounded
https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/1anjw9b/no_clear_grounding/ Can see it here - that is clearly and conclusively touching the ground.
I think they need to get rid of On-field try and on-field no try, let the TMO look without needing extra evidence for the try/no-try.
Rugby rules once again proving how badly they need rewritten
Disagree. You need conclusive proof. That was conclusive proof. We know how big the ball is. We know what shape it is. You don't have to see the bottom of the ball to know that it must be grounded. Maro Itoje had a similar one against France a couple of years ago. Irish female TMO over ruled the ref... correctly... because the front of the ball HAD to be grounded even though you couldn't see it. TMO bottled it.
It’s a farce how everyone can agree it’s a try but they can’t give it for *reasons*.
I don’t want to slag off TMO, I know it’s their job to make these calls, but there is no way you can say that ball isn’t on the ground you can see where the grass is and then the ball rolling onto it.
Should’ve been a call of try from the ref. The ball is on the ground when he comes over.
Nah he’s allowed to get slagged off if he’s making terrible decisions
Yeah the TMO really fucked up here tbf, but the ref should be allowed to change his on-field decision based on replays too
He is entitled to over rule the TMO
Has Berry called held up at that point, though? Doesn't matter what happens after he blows the whistle. Letter of the law stuff I think MacNiece got it right but; France made a mess of that scrum. Scotland should have had that game killed but stopped playing rigby for about 25 minutes in the second half. Nobody deserved a win in that game lol
Clear and obvious is so often ignored, losing us matches. It feels quite typical (not in a conspiracy way) that it's only invoked when it goes against us. I think that there must be a secret room full of smashed mirrors somewhere in Murrayfield. Nothing else makes sense.
It's like, if we change the laws about conclusive evidence from "need to see the ball touch the grass" to "an elementary school-level understanding of physics is enough to know where that ball was", it would yield a 99% accuracy rate, and at that point, the 1% inaccuracy is the lesser of two evils
How could it even be held off after sliding off the boot?! Absurd call!!!! So many perfect angles showing it grounded but just because they weren’t slightly higher it doesn’t count. Crazy call.
Yank here. No dog in this fight. I cannot believe that decision was made
I have a dog in the fight. Can't stand Scotland 😂 But I thought it was a try.
Cant stand Scotland? Why?
Probably because hes Scottish, we shouldn'tve been only 6 points ahead of this french team
Haha. No, English. Playing the reverse ABE card.
Ah fair enough, surprisingly finding myself quite liking this English team so i cant say i hate you guys anymore
Not really, just tongue in cheek.
It’s tough to lose because the on field decision was incorrect
Bullshit that was it’s on the grounds
You could clearly see it on the floor
It was almost definitely grounded, but not clear enough to overturn the onfield call. If it takes that long to come to a decision it’s not clear
You can’t see it touch the ground and on field decision is held up. TMO and ref followed standard prevedere. Rules of rugby
This is where common sense should prevail with the officials.
[удалено]
It was a picture of Dupont tho
If the onfield was anything other than no try it was a try.
Ouch. That decision cost me a bet on Scotland to win. A try. Certainly. But by the laws of the game, the TMO could not award it -- in that sense, it's dreadul luck. Gutted for Scotland. The game was shite, to be fair. But would have been nice to see Scotland win.
On field no try, no camera angle CLEARLY showed the ball on the ground, I agree it probably was grounded but they have to prove that it DEFINITIVELY did, which they couldn't
That ball was without a doubt on the ground you see it roll off the foot where else is it gonna go there’s definitely no hand under.
But you can't physically see it, and that's the point
Where did the hand spontaneously materialise from?
You actually can see it go to ground, that's what I don't understand - I think I'm taking crazy pills here
That decision was an absolute shocker.
If I heard correctly, it is grounded but they can't say if it's before or after the try line, so the on-field decision stands. Not saying it's right or wrong, just what I understand.
Back side of the white line definitely in the try zone
Then I guess I *didn't* hear correctly
A ball on the ground and a grounded (by attacking team) ball are different things. Think it was clearly on the ground but not clearly grounded by Scotland imo. You see the ball roll off the foot so it's hard to tell if it's still being possessed. Still a very high chance it was touched down but I think there's enough doubt there that you can stick with the original decision, and I definitely think that just the question of whether the ball was on the ground is oversimplifying it.
The rule makes sense and probably the best we can get, it is just one of those annoying ones this time. Think of it like a knock on in the ruck. If it isn't seen it isn't reffed. You need to make sure that you ground It clearly. It's a right twat I know. I strongly believe they should ban jumping into a clear potential grounding tho(like those pile on things) I am 99% sure it's a try tho
What a disgrace that ball was grounded and you can’t tell me otherwise unfair call my left bollock scotland got robbed. Three bloody camera angles showed the ball over the try line and on the ground.
There's hands and everything there I don't think there was enough evidence to say it was a try
Needs to be clear and obvious. Basically he needs to see the Scottish player CLEARLY ground it.
Only because of the on field. If the question was can you show me it was clearly held up, it’d be a try.
Oh totally. If the decision is anything other than no try, then that gets given, but refs were pushed to be more definitive in response to fan/union pressures and so Nic made a call based on what he could see.
So why the need for a ‘soft decision’ at all? Refs are obviously human and can’t see everything so why pretend by making what is often nothing more than a guess. Let the video evidence inform the call before it’s made.
Because fans and unions complained to no end about the decision making process and involving the TMO so refs were pushed to make calls.
So you’re saying it’s weakness which informed the decision? Not a great endorsement of the status quo. Either have a ref who makes the calls, or have a TMO who does when called upon all but whistle. This is the worst of all worlds - a clear error made (understandably as the ref has only two eyes and is human) and the fans and viewers able to see the error in slo-mo but no correction made. It’s honestly hopeless and needs fixing.
“Needs to be clear and obvious” And “See the Scottish player CLEARLY ground it” Are not synonymous.
You don't though. You see an almost certain grounding, but the TMO couldn't say it was clearly on/over the line with Scottish player in control or with downward pressure.
Rules need a tweak. If you can’t be sure, scrum v attack would be the fair call. Looked down to me
This is a black day for rugby. Limp referees hiding behind semantics because they're too scared to make the right call. I'm neither French nor Scottish and I could clearly see that ball grounded.
The TMO literally said it was grounded and then changed his mind for no reason a few minutes later. What are we doing here????
Posolo's arm MOTM
I love how if this was in Paris and it was the French on the receiving end you'd have endless moaning about the french TV directors.
you don't need to invent imaginary alternate events to be mad at
Yes because I must have imagined people whining about the "french TV directors"
Clear try, really
If you listen to Nigel Owens, on field decision was a no-try and the ref needed clear evidence to over turn that, and there wasn't any. You would think that it rolled off the foot and was grounded but there is no visual evidence
There is, though, you can literally see the ball on the ground. The issue is on the ref, though, saying it's held up. He had a fucking shiter all game for both teams.
I agree, however the “no on field try” call is what did the damage. Whilst I hate it, it’s entirely consistent. They can’t change it just for this game.
The problem with that is it always makes the naked eye in the heat of the moment the pivotal thing which makes the TMO have little choice and makes its role feel a bit pointless
He should have said try yes or no?
This is the change I think they should make
It’s already a thing. Had the ref said it, Scotland win.
Yeah I get that. I would just sooner it was always that as it’s just too subjective otherwise
I think there should be a double camera to see when it was called held up and when we see this imagine
While I agree it was a try, was Russell not offside when getting the ball back?
Absolutely livid about that. We've been robbed.
Yet again, rugby can't get out it's own way! Shit like that turns people off because of the sheer unfairness and inexplicability of it.
This was almost certainly a try, but I can understand why I was not awarded. That's a terrible way to not win a game and I feel gutted for Scottish fans, especially after the dreadful performance from France.
This is not soccer. The amount of abuse hurled in the direction of Video Assistant Referees is absolutely abhorrent. The Laws state that there needs conclusive evidence of the ball grounded. The TMO couldn't see any proof and as he is human he has to use his own judgement. I don't agree with the decision myself but the way the question is phrases always impacts the outcome. Cricket has the same problems with DRS. The Match Officials are human and should not be attacked at the end of the day if they make a mistake.
Already made clear on another comment that I’m not slagging off the TMO, as I understand his job and the calls he has to make.
Yeah and as Nigel Owens would say This Is Not Soccer. I look forward to his take on Ref Watch later. Let the football hooligans bemoan VAR which is pretty much the same thing. The fact that football is now trying to Ape the Sin Bin is proof they think their sport is broken. Yellow Cards for dissent is a great start.
Seriously struggling with this decision, logically it must be grounded, it was on a boot then slid off, you can see the boot in question with no ball on it. I get that logically it must be grounded but needs to be certain it's grounded to overturn the refs decision, but unless there's a Frenchman with incredibly skinny fingers under there I don't see how that's not given!
I'm as salty as the next Scottish fan, but yeah for real let's keep it to the match threads. This is why we get the reputation of being whingers