NPR

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:36 pm**

ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:27 pm
Openside wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:25 pm
petej wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:22 pm

Penauds blatant knock on was just before the French second try.
The French lost the ball forward in the first try in the mail on the line.
France should have had a pen try and Vdm in the bin...woulda, coulda, shoulda, the result stands.

Is that for the tackle that Owens agreed was fine as it was on the shoulder not the neck?

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:37 pm**

ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:36 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm
PCPhil wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:14 pm Can't say it was grounded. Probably was but can't say for sure.
Whilst it probably was, there is no angle that actually shows the ball grounded. With the question asked it can't be given.

Which does not alter the fact Scotland pissed the game away. At half time I thought the game was lost by the failure to score then. The kick tennis in the second half as we tried not to lose put the tin hat on it. Trying not to lose rather than trying to win is generally a sure fire way of losing.

Scotland's precision was poor, tactics questionable and just generally a poor game.
+100% this

There is a pretty conclusive view just up the page...

Edit: on page 6

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:38 pm**

charltom wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:36 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:27 pm
Openside wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:25 pm

The French lost the ball forward in the first try in the mail on the line.
France should have had a pen try and Vdm in the bin...woulda, coulda, shoulda, the result stands.
Is that for the tackle that Owens agreed was fine as it was on the shoulder not the neck?

No, for the intercept when he was clearly offside, which Owens also said was offside. Prevented a certain score.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:40 pm**

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:37 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:36 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm

Whilst it probably was, there is no angle that actually shows the ball grounded. With the question asked it can't be given.

Which does not alter the fact Scotland pissed the game away. At half time I thought the game was lost by the failure to score then. The kick tennis in the second half as we tried not to lose put the tin hat on it. Trying not to lose rather than trying to win is generally a sure fire way of losing.

Scotland's precision was poor, tactics questionable and just generally a poor game.
+100% this
There is a pretty conclusive view just up the page...

Edit: on page 6

This you can actually see the ballon the ground.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:41 pm**

In real time Berry could have easily taken a second and stepped over to see the ball on the ground, as there was no French hand to prevent it, but he ran to the in goal line like a panicked child. saying he couldn't see it. These sort of screw ups should have consequences.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm**

It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:44 pm**

ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.

I think it's fair to say we have had our fair share of controversial game deciding decisions over the last few years.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:45 pm**

It is what it is.

Congrats to France.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:45 pm**

ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.

He fkd Scotland last year, too.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:48 pm**

What I find hardest to accept was that I think they both clearly said the ball was on the ground. Maybe it’s my imagination and I’ll have to listen back but I’m sure they both said it. What other proof is needed?

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:49 pm**

Tattie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:48 pm What I find hardest to accept was that I think they both clearly said the ball was on the ground. Maybe it’s my imagination and I’ll have to listen back but I’m sure they both said it. What other proof is needed?

They did and Berry said he was overturning his on field decision. Then they remembered the gold watches.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:49 pm**

charltom wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:45 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.
He fkd Scotland last year, too.

Completely unrelated to today Berry is a terrible ref.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:54 pm**

Big D wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:49 pm
charltom wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:45 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.
He fkd Scotland last year, too.
Completely unrelated to today Berry is a terrible ref.

The no knock on against Penaud was astonishing. It's clearly nearly a metre forward.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:56 pm**

Blackmac wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:49 pm
Tattie wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:48 pm What I find hardest to accept was that I think they both clearly said the ball was on the ground. Maybe it’s my imagination and I’ll have to listen back but I’m sure they both said it. What other proof is needed?
They did and Berry said he was overturning his on field decision. Then they remembered the gold watches.

So how can they defend this decision in their post match debrief? I’m assuming they have a post match debrief. It’s absolutely scandalous that it’s recorded that they both saw the ball on the ground and that he was reversing his on field decision to then change his mind for no apparent reason. They should both have the book thrown at them, shit like this just makes a mockery of the game and the TMO role. I’ve just about given up with international rugby - the amount of crap like this, particularly against Scotland is getting too much to put up with.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:18 pm**

S/Lt_Phillips wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:37 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:36 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm

Whilst it probably was, there is no angle that actually shows the ball grounded. With the question asked it can't be given.

Which does not alter the fact Scotland pissed the game away. At half time I thought the game was lost by the failure to score then. The kick tennis in the second half as we tried not to lose put the tin hat on it. Trying not to lose rather than trying to win is generally a sure fire way of losing.

Scotland's precision was poor, tactics questionable and just generally a poor game.
+100% this
There is a pretty conclusive view just up the page...

Edit: on page 6

This you can actually see the ballon the ground.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:21 pm**

Either way, it was a fairly low quality game of rugby.

Scotland were the better team for me, and should have had it wrapped up long before Berrygate.

I would be very concerned if I was a French supporter. They have went from arguably a top 3 side to a rabble. Lineout was a shit show until Marchand came on. Attack was static. Defence was passive.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:51 pm**

Jim Lahey wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:17 pm Shambolic decision at the end.

I guess on balance there is no doubt the Scots had the rub of the green the whole game from the ref. But still, that fuck up at the end probably overrides VDM's clear and obvious pen try.

It was a tackle only, no offside lines created as the arriving French player doesn't go over the ball but rather just immediately picks it up and passes it.

Even if it had been a situation where offside lines had been created, it was a penalty and yellow card at worst - there was a defender left to make a tackle on Ramos so don't think it was a probable try.

Penaud had a massive knock on that would have given a scrum just outside the French 22. Followed by a kicking battle that ended with the scrum France scored from. Le Garrec's pass to Bielle-Biarrey was forward. He had no momentum, forward out the hands.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm**

weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm
PCPhil wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:14 pm Can't say it was grounded. Probably was but can't say for sure.
Whilst it probably was, there is no angle that actually shows the ball grounded. With the question asked it can't be given.

Which does not alter the fact Scotland pissed the game away. At half time I thought the game was lost by the failure to score then. The kick tennis in the second half as we tried not to lose put the tin hat on it. Trying not to lose rather than trying to win is generally a sure fire way of losing.

Scotland's precision was poor, tactics questionable and just generally a poor game.

No question was asked, Berry just said on field decision is held up (which was because he didn't bother to actually stick his head in the pile up to see where the ball finished).

TMO Protocol is based on Clear and Obvious not definitive.

For clarity purposes, this is defined as an incident that is unlikely to be refereed in any other way

What ref would not consider that a try if they saw those views on field?

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:47 pm**

Big D wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:49 pm
charltom wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:45 pm
ASMO wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:42 pm It shall now forever be known as Berrygate.
He fkd Scotland last year, too.
Completely unrelated to today Berry is a terrible ref.

He always is. Worst international ref by some distance.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:50 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm No question was asked, Berry just said on field decision is held up (which was because he didn't bother to actually stick his head in the pile up to see where the ball finished).

TMO Protocol is based on Clear and Obvious not definitive.

For clarity purposes, this is defined as an incident that is unlikely to be refereed in any other way
What ref would not consider that a try if they saw those views on field?

You are correct that no question was actually asked, but then no question needed to be asked as an on field decision was made which required clear and obvious evidence to reverse.

This officiating team clearly did not feel it was clear and obvious, and neither frankly do I, though I absolutely believe it was highly probable. Clear and obvious to me would a clear picture of the ball on or over the line and I do not think the still posted clearly shows this. Others may disagree.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:31 pm**

weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:50 pm
topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm No question was asked, Berry just said on field decision is held up (which was because he didn't bother to actually stick his head in the pile up to see where the ball finished).

TMO Protocol is based on Clear and Obvious not definitive.

For clarity purposes, this is defined as an incident that is unlikely to be refereed in any other way
What ref would not consider that a try if they saw those views on field?

You are correct that no question was actually asked, but then no question needed to be asked as an on field decision was made which required clear and obvious evidence to reverse.

This officiating team clearly did not feel it was clear and obvious, and neither frankly do I, though I absolutely believe it was highly probable. Clear and obvious to me would a clear picture of the ball on or over the line and I do not think the still posted clearly shows this. Others may disagree.

Clear and obvious is defined as unlikely to be refereed any other way. What ref would not award a try in a situation where the camera angles provided were the views he had on the field?

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:35 pm**

weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm Paterson was excellent btw.

He really was, great decision making and not overwhelmed in the slightest. I was furious earlier when I found out we needed a full back at short notice as I had been out food shopping, but his performance makes me feel less guilty for not being there when Toonie needed me.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:41 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:31 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:50 pm
topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:55 pm No question was asked, Berry just said on field decision is held up (which was because he didn't bother to actually stick his head in the pile up to see where the ball finished).

TMO Protocol is based on Clear and Obvious not definitive.

What ref would not consider that a try if they saw those views on field?
You are correct that no question was actually asked, but then no question needed to be asked as an on field decision was made which required clear and obvious evidence to reverse.

This officiating team clearly did not feel it was clear and obvious, and neither frankly do I, though I absolutely believe it was highly probable. Clear and obvious to me would a clear picture of the ball on or over the line and I do not think the still posted clearly shows this. Others may disagree.
Clear and obvious is defined as unlikely to be refereed any other way. What ref would not award a try in a situation where the camera angles provided were the views he had on the field?

What is the point of that question? Short of going and asking refs it would be speculation.

I was not at the match but some who were said it was far from clear on the screens what was going on. Which meant the ref had to rely on the TMO whose view from what he said seemed to be that it was very close but he came down on the 'no try' side. Shit happens.

Neither of us have any idea how the majority of refs would react. You clearly believe that most would favour your view. I disagree. However, a point I have made elsewhere is that I tend to assume professional refs understand the laws and their operation better than us keyboard warriors, media etc so unless there is an egregious error (refs are after all human) I'll go with the reffing team.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:55 pm**

Punter15 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:35 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:35 pm Paterson was excellent btw.
He really was, great decision making and not overwhelmed in the slightest. I was furious earlier when I found out we needed a full back at short notice as I had been out food shopping, but his performance makes me feel less guilty for not being there when Toonie needed me.

cheered me up. A bit

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:22 pm**

weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:41 pm
topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:31 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 6:50 pm

You are correct that no question was actually asked, but then no question needed to be asked as an on field decision was made which required clear and obvious evidence to reverse.

This officiating team clearly did not feel it was clear and obvious, and neither frankly do I, though I absolutely believe it was highly probable. Clear and obvious to me would a clear picture of the ball on or over the line and I do not think the still posted clearly shows this. Others may disagree.
Clear and obvious is defined as unlikely to be refereed any other way. What ref would not award a try in a situation where the camera angles provided were the views he had on the field?
What is the point of that question? Short of going and asking refs it would be speculation.

I was not at the match but some who were said it was far from clear on the screens what was going on. Which meant the ref had to rely on the TMO whose view from what he said seemed to be that it was very close but he came down on the 'no try' side. Shit happens.

Neither of us have any idea how the majority of refs would react. You clearly believe that most would favour your view. I disagree. However, a point I have made elsewhere is that I tend to assume professional refs understand the laws and their operation better than us keyboard warriors, media etc so unless there is an egregious error (refs are after all human) I'll go with the reffing team.

Because that is what the Protocols require a TMO to consider - in assessing this decision as clear and obvious, it is unlikely to be refereed in any other way?

I don't think it's unreasonable to equate the angles presented to the TMO to any number of onfield decisions made by refs where the ball has crossed among a crush of bodies in a ruck, tackle or maul. If they see the ball as clearly as it was in those replays they will give a try.

I don't think or expect referees to be infallible, but everything about the TMO Protocol is put in place to "support and enable the on-field team to make better, more accurate refereeing decisions" and I think it failed to do that today.

I also have a concern about a TMO talking himself out of a decision he has reached (that the ball is on the ground) because he requires "definitive" evidence due to the referee's on field decision being held up. The word definitive appears nowhere in the TMO Protocols issued in July 2022.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:25 pm**

I'm just catching up as it was a family birthday today.

I can understand if French fans were pissed off that Duhan wasn't penalised for the tackle, but I can see the argument that Nigel Owens made as to why it's not a penalty. For me it's usually that seatbelt tackles that get pinged when the inside of the elbow joint is over the shoulder, and hand on the shoulder isn't really enough.
There was no offside as Disco has already pointed out because there was no ruck.

In that first half Darge was everywhere and young Harry Paterson has been really good on his debut.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:30 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:22 pm The word definitive appears nowhere in the TMO Protocols issued in July 2022.

Some phrases get passed into folklore or "common knowledge" at least - eg there was never a part of the law that required the player to be in control of the ball in the act of scoring, yet you'd hear that time and again in reviews of tries from commentators and ex-pro player pundits alike.

I don't know if that has changed but if it has it's only been in the last year or so

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:30 pm**

Just got back from the game, and this is some just seeing images and video in detail, and in good.light.

What the actual fuck. That’s fucking robbery.

Fuck this. We’ve been cheated by Nic Berry. Fuck him.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:43 pm**

There are also at least 2 clear offsides by tacklers in the phases of play at the end (Le Garrec's being the most egregious) as well as one by Moefana with no impact on play but the same as what Tuipulotu got pinged for twice in the same phase of play and binned last week.

Equally, worth noting that on that final carry, if the ball goes behind Skinner to Russell - or if Skinner recycles it instead of him going for the line (when we know a held up ends the game) there is only Bielle-BIarrey to the right of the posts for France...

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:49 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:43 pm There are also at least 2 clear offsides by tacklers in the phases of play at the end (Le Garrec's being the most egregious) as well as one by Moefana with no impact on play but the same as what Tuipulotu got pinged for twice in the same phase of play and binned last week.

Equally, worth noting that on that final carry, if the ball goes behind Skinner to Russell - or if Skinner recycles it instead of him going for the line (when we know a held up ends the game) there is only Bielle-BIarrey to the right of the posts for France...

Lack of composure again. Faffed about most of the second half, then panicked at the end.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:05 pm**

Having watched the last 5 minutes now I’m home, I have to say I’m struggling to blame the ref too much, it’s the TMO that totally fucks it.

After the TMO said he had seen it grounded, Berry was prepared to change his decision, but the TMO suddenly lost his confidence

The Irish are a scourge on rugby

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:09 pm**

Slick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:05 pm Having watched the last 5 minutes now I’m home, I have to say I’m struggling to blame the ref too much, it’s the TMO that totally fucks it.

After the TMO said he had seen it grounded, Berry was prepared to change his decision, but the TMO suddenly lost his confidence

The Irish are a scourge on rugby

If the on fields ref isn't sure enough to go to the TMO it should be try yes or no. None of this on field decision nonsense that makes their decision biased from the get go.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:46 pm**

Jockaline wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:09 pm
Slick wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:05 pm Having watched the last 5 minutes now I’m home, I have to say I’m struggling to blame the ref too much, it’s the TMO that totally fucks it.

After the TMO said he had seen it grounded, Berry was prepared to change his decision, but the TMO suddenly lost his confidence

The Irish are a scourge on rugby
If the on fields ref isn't sure enough to go to the TMO it should be try yes or no. None of this on field decision nonsense that makes their decision biased from the get go.

I agree. This is professional sport, it's not just fun, it's a business. You can't have outcomes decided by the weight of the wording of a question - "try yes or no" leaves it up to the evidence on screen, rather than a burden of proof being shifted one way or the other

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:10 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:43 pm There are also at least 2 clear offsides by tacklers in the phases of play at the end (Le Garrec's being the most egregious) as well as one by Moefana with no impact on play but the same as what Tuipulotu got pinged for twice in the same phase of play and binned last week.

Equally, worth noting that on that final carry, if the ball goes behind Skinner to Russell - or if Skinner recycles it instead of him going for the line (when we know a held up ends the game) there is only Bielle-BIarrey to the right of the posts for France...

They do often bash bash bash away at the line with no end result when we know they'll have more luck when they get round to sending it wider... but they still bash bash bash away. This time that was probably enough, apart from the try not being awarded, but they really ought to vary the attack a bit more at times like that.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:13 pm**

As much as the finish is utterly farcical, I have just rewatched VdM’s ‘defence’ after Fickou’s break. Penalty try every day of the week

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:19 pm**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 5:51 pm
Jim Lahey wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 4:17 pm Shambolic decision at the end.

I guess on balance there is no doubt the Scots had the rub of the green the whole game from the ref. But still, that fuck up at the end probably overrides VDM's clear and obvious pen try.
It was a tackle only, no offside lines created as the arriving French player doesn't go over the ball but rather just immediately picks it up and passes it.

Even if it had been a situation where offside lines had been created, it was a penalty and yellow card at worst - there was a defender left to make a tackle on Ramos so don't think it was a probable try.

Penaud had a massive knock on that would have given a scrum just outside the French 22. Followed by a kicking battle that ended with the scrum France scored from. Le Garrec's pass to Bielle-Biarrey was forward. He had no momentum, forward out the hands.

French wing clearly goes over the tackled player. He gets shoved in the back by a Scot, and goes past, but that's irrelevant, once he's been in place the offside lines are formed and don't disappear after.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:34 pm**

Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:13 pm As much as the finish is utterly farcical, I have just rewatched VdM’s ‘defence’ after Fickou’s break. Penalty try every day of the week

No no no no.

The Scots are clear. Nigel Owens says it wasnt a pen, and even though he also said he was offside for the intercept, as did Beattie and everyone else, VDM was in fact totally innocent and the ref was correct.

We are all wrong, the Scots have it right.

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:01 pm**

Jim Lahey wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:34 pm
Paddington Bear wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:13 pm As much as the finish is utterly farcical, I have just rewatched VdM’s ‘defence’ after Fickou’s break. Penalty try every day of the week
No no no no.

The Scots are clear. Nigel Owens says it wasnt a pen, and even though he also said he was offside for the intercept, as did Beattie and everyone else, VDM was in fact totally innocent and the ref was correct.

We are all wrong, the Scots have it right.

A night on the sauce, Jim?

I didn't hear what John Beattie said, or even what his son Johnnie Beattie had to say, they weren't involved in the coms, but they are both journalists and/or rugby commentators so they may have said something about the game. but neither of them were there at Murrayfield.

I saw a hand on the shoulder from vdM, I didn't see the classic seatbelt tackle where the arm is over the shoulder and near the neck - that was the point Owens was making - is he wrong and you are right?

I'm not 100% either way on the offside, some say there was a ruck there and so an offside line was in play, others say otherwise - but a ruck is defined as having players on their feet - you can check world rugby laws on this if you like and get back to me, I'll take your guidance on it either way, but from my one time viewing of it, there weren't too many players on their feet there

Posted: **Sat Feb 10, 2024 11:58 pm**

Jim discovering what it’s like to discuss rugby with a group of Irishmen it seems.

Posted: **Sun Feb 11, 2024 12:00 am**

topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:22 pm
weegie01 wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:41 pm
topofthemoon wrote: ↑Sat Feb 10, 2024 7:31 pmClear and obvious is defined as unlikely to be refereed any other way. What ref would not award a try in a situation where the camera angles provided were the views he had on the field?
What is the point of that question? Short of going and asking refs it would be speculation.

I was not at the match but some who were said it was far from clear on the screens what was going on. Which meant the ref had to rely on the TMO whose view from what he said seemed to be that it was very close but he came down on the 'no try' side. Shit happens.

Neither of us have any idea how the majority of refs would react. You clearly believe that most would favour your view. I disagree. However, a point I have made elsewhere is that I tend to assume professional refs understand the laws and their operation better than us keyboard warriors, media etc so unless there is an egregious error (refs are after all human) I'll go with the reffing team.
Because that is what the Protocols require a TMO to consider - in assessing this decision as clear and obvious, it is unlikely to be refereed in any other way?

I don't think it's unreasonable to equate the angles presented to the TMO to any number of onfield decisions made by refs where the ball has crossed among a crush of bodies in a ruck, tackle or maul. If they see the ball as clearly as it was in those replays they will give a try.

I don't think or expect referees to be infallible, but everything about the TMO Protocol is put in place to "support and enable the on-field team to make better, more accurate refereeing decisions" and I think it failed to do that today.

I also have a concern about a TMO talking himself out of a decision he has reached (that the ball is on the ground) because he requires "definitive" evidence due to the referee's on field decision being held up. The word definitive appears nowhere in the TMO Protocols issued in July 2022.

The TMO used the word 'certain', as in 'I can't be certain the ball is on the ground'. It is axiomatic that he thinks that is how others would call it otherwise you are suggesting that he should reach his conclusion, then decide he is wrong and others would see it differently. It is not exactly unusual for officials to change their minds on subsequent viewings, and if the final viewing meant he was uncertain then it is not being given.

You and others seem convinced this was a travesty and an outlier. I did not expect that try to be given during the replays, except for one brief flutter of optimism that was quickly doused. Had it been 'try yes or no' I think it may have been given, but to overturn the ref's onffield decision the TMO needs to have a high degree of confidence than he had.

NPR

Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers

Re: Scotland France for the lazy buggers