Stormers penalty try 'an honest mistake'

Bray, who has been open and forthright about decisions this year, disagreed with the SA Rugby Referees assessment of the penalty try during last weekend’s 30-21 win for the Rebels, saying the penalty try awarded to the Rebels should not have been awarded as a knock on had occurred.

Bray blamed a lack of camera angles for the decision, which he said would have made the television match official’s decision a lot easier.

While the news will be scant consolation for Stormers fans, credit should be given to the refs for at least admitting the error, and for doing something to rectify it so that it does not occur in future.

"I have spoken with both the TMO and the Broadcaster [Fox Sports]. It is obvious that the best angle, that provided clear evidence that a Rebels player knocked the ball on when tackling Stormers #2, was not displayed during the TMO referral replays. I think there are two good learning points for us, moving forward within the TMO Protocol Trial: firstly, we are reviewing with the TMO how articulately he presented the Director with what he was looking for, i.e. "potential knock on by Rebels player". Secondly, I am awaiting a report from Fox Sports, as to why unfortunately that camera angle was not available at the time of the referral."

Bray said there was no question that the wrong decision was made.

"There is no question that this was an unfortunate error - and it obviously meant that the TMO could not make a conclusive decision on the knock on. Had he been able to access the reverse angle at the time of the decision, then the penalty try scenario would have been cancelled out."

"Having spoken with all parties concerned, I am 100% satisfied that this was a communication and process issue - an honest mistake. Our learning out of this will be to re-clarify the robust process between the TMO and Broadcast Director, to ensure the specifics of any incident in question are clearly understood by the Broadcast Director, and that angles are fully available at the time of the TMO referral. It helps nobody for the Broadcaster to then replay an angle that was not available at the time of the referral."

Earlier the SA Referees website had said the try was legitimate as the knock on did not fall within the parametres of the TMO.

i havent seen that reverse angle which apparently would have made all the difference, but the fault seems more techinical, cos with what the TMO had to work with, he made the right call.

at least beeno1 aka storminged now has a new tune to add to his repitoires, was getting bored of hearing the its the refs fault and its because of injuries that the stomres havent won anything in spXV, and to have it stuck on repeat, sheesh. the only thing worse is the Boks definition of attacking rugby, :oP

The angles shown on the net, taken straight from match footage, were clear as can be. If it was an honest mistake, it was a damned incompetent one.Good on the refs for calling this one.

But I'm afraid you have a lot of egg on your face Sasu, your rather over confident calls on this never made sense. As for RooiAaas just another of his anti Stormer rants gone wrong.

Well saidDr Moz youscore a bulls eye for sure!

Congrats to Bray but calling it an honest mistake is not on. How many honest mistakes can these kiwi refs make before we call a spade a spade. The Stormers and Sharks were robbed blnd by kiwi refs and this was of course merely a continuation of all the never ending honest mistakes that give nz a total misconception of their rugby ability. It appears tha ti fyou make enough mistakes benefiting nz teams you could be nz ref of the year!!

Anyhow huge egg for saSUE and the ab wanabee rooitwit.  

Ou rooitwit thinks we must just lie down and take all this nonsense. What  a lame jellybaby!!!

Indeed, this just adds a new excuse to the already bulging Stompie Blowhard repertoire of excuses.

@mozter,
i take it u never watched the game and read the report??? how very beeno like of u.

the crux of the matter is the footage of the knock on wasnt shown on game night, thats what lyndon bray was talking about.

anyone who actually watched the game when it happened, as opposed to read a few a comments and then watched some dinky di replays of the footage on the net, would know that the one angle which could have made a difference wasnt shown at the time.
no footage that matt godard or the viewrs seen when it was broadcasted clearly indicated a knock on, hence bray stating
"I have spoken with both the TMO and the Broadcaster [Fox Sports]. It is obvious that the best angle, that provided clear evidence that a Rebels player knocked the ball on when tackling Stormers #2, was not displayed during the TMO referral replays"

hope that makes more sense, but just a question, did u actually watch the game live???

stormer fans do have a pretty bad rap, they seem to be the least liked fans in SA from what ive read in other forums.
could this also expalin why WP have the caped crusaders and no one else inSA does??? hmmmmmm, connecting the dots, and the picture im seeing is very ugly indeed.

the decision was made based on the evidence that was available. 

Funny that we saw a decent view when watching but the TMO didnt. How very convenient. Why harp on a about this. The real problem is the continuation re bent refs we are getting. 

Two points Sasu:

So effectively there was an element of doubt involved in that passage of play and the TMO was stupid enough to give the benefit of doubt o the attacking side. The bloke needs to be sacked

 Moz - your second point is the crux of the matter - the fact that Phipps was held back disrupts the whole timing of the play and changes where the contact point with the ball would have been bringing in the assumption that Phipps could have handled the ball well enough to get it over the line without knocking on.

Good point about Habana, Matey.....he definitely slowed to avoid over- running the ball. And the fact that Phipps would have had to get the ball over the line instantly and accurately, seems to have escaped the TMO.

@sasuke

Thanks for a good point made Ek ou. Now you want to tell me you can trust these guys on 50/50 calls.

So if I understand correctly the AUSTRALIAN broadcaster didn't show the best angle to the TMO when he awarded the AUSTRALIAN team a penalty try? 

According to the protocol, the TMO is basically in charge of the broadcast during a review. He decide which angles he wants to see when and how many times he wants to see them.

Windpomp IF you are correct then it makes the position worse than ever?

@spoony,

thanks for bringing this article back up, the timing considering the recent comments elsewhere is extremely convenient, o_O

if u dont mind me asking, but is spoony a 2nd ID of urs???
i ask because brother beeno1 has a phd in multiple IDs and was busted not so long ago with his alter ego storminged.
nothing worn with what brother beeno aka storminged did, or with u if thats what ur doing, just curious is all, :o)

@ceradyne,
heres a comment from bray in the article,,,,
"There is no question that this was an unfortunate error - and it obviously meant that the TMO could not make a conclusive decision on the knock on. Had he been able to access the reverse angle at the time of the decision, then the penalty try scenario would have been cancelled out."

as explaind by gregclarke on foxnews, and to my understanding in the article, matt goddard who was the TMO and is a uselss referee made the correct call with the footage available, meaning he didnt have access to all the camera angles.
why he didnt have access to that particular camera angle is the real question which still hasnt been answered.

Rooinek - I think its horrid of you guys to be criticising the ref. They all do their very best and you complete twats are so ungrateful. How would you like to be a ref.

Sasue

Sasu there were two reasons the try should not have been awarded:

Mozart

@Ceradyne

@mozter,

ur argument about habana would have gotten there first is case of a diffrence in opinions, cos IMO phibbs was held back 4 strides by bnezihootwhatshisface, anyone who has done rsistance training in sprint related exercises will tell u just how much of an advantage that is. if the stormers hooker hadnt held him nothing will change my opinon in saying that phibbs wouldnt have gotten there first.
the commentators did have their doubts about that though, as noted habana was giving chase and that could of been enough to raise a resaonable doubt of a try.
end of the day each to their own, but i know how much of a diffrence some holding u back by the jersey can make and that is why i think phibbs would have gotten their first.

but regarding this comment of urs,,,,
"1) The knock, which was perfectly obvious in the match footage and was commented on by the commentators and match reporters....the missing footage was not needed."
what i love about by recording every single game super rugby game and saving it on my rugby hardrive is the easy access of having footage playing while i address peopels comments and their points of view.
1) no the commentators did not say it was a knock on, they said it was not a knock on and there was no problems with that what so ever, it was the penalty try they had questionmarks over.

2) here is a link on utube from my man kostaz for the whole stormers vs rebels game.
www.youtube.com/watch
show me what time in this clip which shows the whole match that was broadcasted that night, where there is clear footage of that knock on which u say "was perfectly obvious".
cos i saw zero evidence of higgs hand knocking the ball out of his hand, i only saw evidence of what might have been higgs knocking the ball out of his hand, but it could have easily have been higgs knocking the stormers hookers arm.
if u or anyone else for that matter can show me this clear "perfectly obvious" knock on by pointing out the time on the clip, it would be greatly appreciated.

@Sasuke

@spoony,

not only did i read the article, but i actually watched the broadcast as opposed to (cough cough) imagined the broadcast, LMAO, :oD

if u read my conversation with mozart, u will see that its him u should be directing that comment too, cos he thinks that knock on was "perfectly obvious", o_O

as for the conspiracy theories about austalia fox and what have u, well, at least ur on the right site, cos conspiracy theories are the cornerstone of nearly every saffa rugby fan, :oP

@sasuke Again without beating you to death with caps lock. There can be no clear and obvious because Fox did not give the requested angles to the TMO. But obviously Bray got a bit of power and can request the tapes from the recordings as all the angles are recorded. So if you did not see it clearly and obviously is irrelevant cause you do not have access to those tapes. Bray got and he said clearly and obviously. You are going to argu with Bray with is a Aussie?

@spoony,

all im saying is, there was no footage what so ever of higginbotham CLEARLY knocking the ball on, which is contrary to what mozter was saying.

tim horan even said in the replay, thats not a knock on, which is technically correct, cos there was no footage of higgs hand touching the ball, the whole point of my argument since u brought ths thread back up was that very point, something that should of been clear to anyone who watched the game, somehting im not 100% sure that mozter did, o_O