You’re wrong and Smith’s try was a fair one

These are strong statements, but not backed up by any sound argument! (perhaps yet?)

If you are saying the try was a fair one as the referee missed the knock-on, you must be ok with that forward pass in 2007 too?

or

If you say the try was fair as page 5 of the TMO Protocol did not allow the TMO to call play back to the foul play at the lineout, I would genuinely like to hear your interpretation of page 5 of the TMO Protocol.

Google informs me the meaning of fair is:

without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage

Referring then to the try as fair (after a clear knock-on) seems to me as somewhat of a creative mental leap!

Nevertheless, looking forward to your explanations and arguments backing up your strong statements!

I’m optimistic that someone who makes comments about the fairness of a referee’s call, will also read relevant articles to gain a fair understanding of Rugby’s laws and protocols.

One can only hope …

Rocky, I suggest you review my article, and also the responses in the comments section, which provide a detailed analysis and explanation as to why page 5 of the TMO Protocol actually allowed the TMO to call play back to the lineout in the 2023 WC final.

Another week, another wrap from Geoff, but sadly, no insightful comment re page 5 of the TMO Protocol yet. Which made me think about the phrase “in due course”. It can be a very convenient copout, isn’t it? But then I reminded myself that there are many first-class comments at the end of my article, and it will take some time to review and absorb all this information. No worries mate, take all the time you need.

😂

So I am going to respond to you in due course

Noting my article was published in September, and we are now in December, take all the time you need bro.

A word of caution though – both my article and the comments section provide a very detailed analysis of how page 5 of the TMO Protocol was correctly applied.

I therefore suggest you put aside some quality time to work through this information. Fingers crossed your response will be worth the wait.

Colvin, my article is about the legitimate TMO intervention, not the Boks. LOL

But even when they couldn’t intervene they still did (Aaron Smith in the WC final).

Geoff, I suggest you read my article where I’ve busted this myth – page 5 of the TMO Protocols allowed the TMO to call back play to the foul play at the lineout.

No worries, apology accepted

Timeline of articles published at NZ Herald:

1 Sep, 2024 03:33 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: Springboks’ bench power home to deny All Blacks

2 Sep, 2024 09:39 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: Ellis Park haka response under scrutiny

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

Piru’s comment earlier today:
Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Yeah right

mmm, makes me think of the saying, none so blind as those who will not see

The timeline at nzherald.co.nz

1 Sep, 2024 03:33 AM
match report
Headline: All Blacks v South Africa: Springboks’ bench power home to deny All Blacks

2 Sep, 2024 09:39 AM
article with headline
All Blacks v South Africa: Ellis Park haka response under scrutiny
quoting MacKenzie’s response to a question about the fireworks, noise and flyover, interview held the evening after the game

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
article referring to the apology that was issued on the Monday
Headline: All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

Piru’s quote
Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Yeah right

“//https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/alert-top/526788/all-blacks-ellis-park-haka-response-under-scrutiny” target=”

Interview after the game on the Saturday
Journalists writing articles date stamped Sunday
Apology made Monday

Seems like a patchy memory to me.

Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Piru, you may want to reconsider your comment – Damian McKenzie is widely quoted in NZ media as saying something, and several NZ journalists then wrote articles, including one with a statement there is a question over whether what transpired was respectful well before the apology was made.

Don’t rewrite history mate.

Comparing
It’s mean to restart play. (note the full stop)
and
The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage. (note the with)
created a bit of confusion on my part, sorry mate, I didn’t get the impression you’re already familiar with the law.

But you don’t get a penalty just for winning a lineout, or beating a tackler or taking a great catch in the air.

That is true.

You are overlooking a key aspect though – penalties are not given for winning anything in the game.

Instead, penalties are given as a direct result of an infringement.

Infringements are also possible in all the winning examples you noted:
Winning a lineout – taking out the opposition’s legs in the air
Beating a tackler – by lifting a knee into the tackler’s face
Taking a great catch in the air – with a boot in the face of the defender

In all of these examples, penalties would apply as players’ safety were jeopardised.

Which is the same principle that applies when a scrum isn’t contested as per the laws.

Winning a scrum doesn’t result in a penalty.

Instead, infringements in a scrum, that can impact players’ safety, result in penalties.

Piru, I suggest you download a copy of Rugby’s Laws and refresh your working knowledge of scrums. Scrums with the aim of a restart only, are called uncontested scrums, and are as a result of a sending off, temporary suspension or injury.

All other scrums are defined as contests for possession, hence the favourite saying of some commentators explaining a penalty – you’ve got to stay in the contest.

you’d think the point of winning scrums was to milk penalties, not to give the attack a good platform from which to play rugby, as defined in the very laws of the game.

DaveJ, I think you need to refresh your knowledge of Law 19 Scrum, for ease of reference it starts with the principle:

The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage.

And also notes the end of a scrum as:

36. The scrum ends:
a. When the ball comes out of the scrum in any direction except the tunnel.
b. When the ball reaches the feet of the hindmost player and it is picked up by that player or is played by that team’s scrum-half.
c. When the number eight picks up the ball from the feet of a second-row player.
d. When the referee blows the whistle for an infringement.
e. When the ball in a scrum is on or over the goal line.

I think it is a bit of a stretch to say Law 19 defines a contest for possession (which could result in a variety of infringements as noted in the 12 pages of Law 19), as give the attack a good platform from which to play

Thanks SB for your comments. I can assure you whilst writing this article, I was most certainly not “crying looooong after” a win. And, arguing points and seeking blame wherever it can be found, is probably a much better description of what some NZ fans and journos were doing since the final, and then again following recent losses.

As recently as this month, nearly a year after the final, a professional rugby journalist on the other side of the ditch described the Rugby World Cup final TMO intervention as an error that wasn’t publicly acknowledged by World Rugby, and then went on a tangent about some referee decisions over the years against the All Blacks.

Another journo wrote on the Roar that the TMO knowingly acted outside of the regulations. Wow, that is a strong (and now proven wrong) statement.

Now, if a professional journo believes everything written by another journo, without investigating the TMO Protocol themselves, I think that is a slippery slope to accepting misinformation as truth. And if one reviews the various Roar pages where the TMO are mentioned, one can easily see how this misinformation has resulted in some very bad things being said about the TMO.

I believe the culture of fans pointing fingers at the officials when their side has lost, is most likely a direct consequence of comments made by various coaches over the years, and then made much worse by Rassie’s video. (I am on record stating this video was a mistake, and had a very bad influence on rugby.)

I don’t want to fall in the same trap by forensically analysing every single controversial incident after every game – it would take years and years of commenting before the topic of controversial rugby incidents and decisions will be exhausted.

But if professional journos are writing, well, lets be polite by describing it as stories some distance away from the truth, it just cries out for an article explaining how they got it so wrong.

There were a number of incidents of note during the final, a red card for the one captain, a yellow for the other, two other yellow cards, etc. None of these were regular features in recent articles though, only the “unlawful” TMO intervention story was repeated ad nauseam (even by experienced Roar journalists).

I don’t “want to forensically litigate” anything, the TMO Protocol is self-explanatory and speaks for itself. But as the article demonstrates, only if one doesn’t stop reading at page three.

It is also possible he said something, but it wasn’t broadcasted.

Too many unknowns.

What I do know is this – I am prepared to pay for a broadcast with audio from the officials only. Which may just result in more known unknowns. But perhaps not. Who knows?

😂

Time to move on…the Boks won the final
I agree.
and are the greatest team of all time
I respectfully disagree. In my opinion the top of the list in the professional era would be the 2011 – 2015 All Blacks.

In my view a common sense approach is:

If there is a knock-on before a try is scored, the try shouldn’t be awarded.

If you accept that the ref apologised to the NZ team, then your speculation holds no water.

At the 1h25m15s mark of the clip shared by Grumpy, Barnes explained to Ardie:

“I agree with you that he’s played the man in the air. Ok, so that’s the first offence. But then it’s hit your hand and gone forward, so it’s a knock on. So it’s no try, but it will be your penalty back on the lineout.”

I don’t pick up an apology here, and I therefore don’t accept the ref apologised, please elaborate on the ref apology part of your comment?

As mentioned before, I’ve provided a detailed, methodical, logical explanation, backed up the relevant sections in Rugby’s laws and protocols to show how the TMO Protocols allowed the TMO intervention. I’ve since followed it up with an analysis of the YouTube clip, and further comments. I’m sorry you interpret some of these words as mocking people, that is not my intention. Please feel free to note specific instances and I will try to explain the rationale behind the comment.

And in case you missed my previous comment, I don’t necessarily agree with some of the views expressed by others on this article, or on the Roar in general, but feel free to pull apart any of mine, and I will gladly respond with my views.