The Stormers penalty try was wrong three times

Let's examine the visual evidence available to the TMO...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huUgA_kHiz4. Go to minute 1.22.48 to see the genesis of this move.

This happened seconds before, but Jones loses the ball in the tackle ....it pops up about 3 metres, and goes forward. Bekker standing two metres inside the line contests the ball which then goes forward off his hand so it's received behind where it started. Mistake number one, it doesn't pop up, it pops forward. It should have been a Stormers scrum.

Higginbottom a few seconds later boots the ball through. It is momentarily caught by Bezuidenhout.....facing and moving laterally across the field. Higginbottom's left hand goes to Bez's waist and the ball is suddenly propelled at right angles to the line Bez  is running. That can only happen if it is knocked out.  The Aussie commentator says; "it looks like a knock on by Higginbottom". It's clear as crystal, especially from the goal line view. We should have had the second Stormers scrum right there.

Then the chase. Habana and Phipps are on the 25 metre line at the same time. Phipps is laterally closer by maybe 10 metres....Bryan has to run the hypotenuse. Do your sums and Habana has to run 27 metres to Phipps' 25 metres. Is Bryan 8 metres faster than him over the 100.....you betcha. Habana slows up slightly to make sure of the ball. The Aussie commentator says : "I can't see it being a try Clarky, Habana would have got there". 

And even if Phipps was a pace ahead he would have had to dribble it over the line maintaining full pace and dived on it. Unreasonable doubt in my view.

So three mistakes were made in the scoring of this penalty try.....the pop up, the knock forward and the chase. All of which were perfectly obvious on the match tape. No mysterious other footage was needed.

Good summation.

If Phipps had actually scored the try, I could see the knock-on being a no call because of lack of evidence at thet time but the fact that he didn't score combined with all the variables you just pointed out and then to arrive at the conclusion that he would have legally and physically scored based on numerous assumptions about what would have happened - is such a stretch as to leave one shaking your head in disbelief.

I also believe that the holding back of Phipps should have been a red. There is absolutely no place for that in rugby  - pure and simple blatant cheating - but you see it far too often.

We can argue till we are blue. It won't change anything. I think its better to move on than to piss and moan about it.

One often gets the impression that the commentators collectively do a better job calling these things than the TMO. In fact when the TMO diverges from the commentary view, it is almost always controversial. Perhaps in part because the viewer buys into what they are told. But I do think multiple perceptions are better than one, and the debate seems to help. Perhaps for tests and RWC matches a panel of three might reduce the controversy. But maybe that's over the top.

Spooony of course it's a done and dusted as far as the Stormers are concerned. But we still have posters on here ,who believe the TMO was simply lacking information.....the evidence disproves that. And we have others who suggest refs should never be criticized. Again when you look at this sequence of errors, it's clear that their actions need to be debated....it's one way to put pressure on low standards.

Fair enough Mozart. But this things lead only to arguments rather than discussions. And the TMO answered the question the referee asked wrongly. By doing so he could avoid calling the knock on and only look for the foul play.

If you listened the referee asked Try or No try which he answered Probable try, Which is totally the wrong question. If the referee did ask Probable try or not then the TMO were correct not to look at the knock on. But the referee did not. Also them not providing the TMO the angles he asked for was the killing factor, So only clear and obvious we can get if someone ask Bray to upload those recordings up to youtube as the Broadcaster taped them but not give it to the TMO. TMO is part of showbiz rugby. They are trying too make the game exciting for viewers, And TV networks are trying to win a ratings game. 

  So no there is no evidence to suggest it wasn't a knock on. Only Bray's word who have seen all the angles which was not shown 

If you listen to the referee "carefully" he says: "just look at that last passage of play". The TMO had every opportunity to go back and look at the full movement  and call an obvious knock on. There is no debate....it was obvious. All this angle rubbish is just spin, lies to use an old fashioned word....don't buy the lies.

No Mozart he said Try or no try first because there is "No look at everything carefully" in the TMO protocol. Must I explain the protocol to you so we can get on the same page as you have clearly no idea how it works?

You don't have to explain anything to me....look at the tape. The Ref  says: "try no try, just go back to that last passage and advise a restart".  The commentator says: "potentially what the TMO may look for is this play by Higginbottom".....referring to the knock. Another commentator says I think Higginbottom knocked it on.

This isn't a difficult debate.

Thank you Mozart so we agree that the question was "Try or No Try.

Try or no try means he have no clue if the try was scored. For the TMO the important part is the question. That question asked will tell one what the criteria is which the TMO can use. Altough its was extended the TMO is still bound to the criteria of the question.

So lets look what just the question of "Try or no try"  tells us 

? Knock-on;
? Forward Pass;
? Player in Touch;
? Offside;
? Obstruction;
? Tackling a Player without the Ball;
? Foul Play;
? Double Movement in the Act of Scoring.
Before being considered, the incidents in their view must:
? Be Clear and Obvious;
? Be from the last restart in play BUT no further back than two Ruck & Maul phases.

That is what just that question tells the TMO so you can see look at everything is irrelevant or whatever he said after the question because Try or No try tells us first he had no clue a try was scored and TMO must look back no further than two ruck and maul phases.

FIne. But the TMO fif not apply that protocol. 

But first lets look at the other questions.

The referee stops play and refers the matter to the TMO. His question is important:

"Any reason why I cannot award a try."

That is one of two questions that a referee may put to the TMO. The other is the "try-no try" question, which the referee uses when he has no idea whether a try was scored or not. The referee uses the "any reason" question if he believes that a try has been scored and wants to know if something had happened before the try was score that could negate the try, like losing the ball in the act of scoring.

As you can seethis almost look like the criteria of which this situation fall under but looking closer its not. Because the referee have no clue that a try was scored or not so this one is totally ruled out.

The thirf question is Probable try or no try? 

This relates to it would have been a try But for the act of foul play. Again like "Any Reason" is the keyword "But is the keyword"

This sounded like our situation correct? Could be BUT the referee did not see the foul play. He did not even know if a try have been scored.  So thats why he asked "try or no Try"

But there is always a but.

The TMO went and Answered the third question the "But for the act of foul play – probable try or no try?"

Why is it very important to ask .

Because the questions are still tied to a specific protocol.

And for the third question is

probable try or no try?

The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

3.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. The offences will normally be an act of foul play such as obstruction or playing a player without the ball.

3.4 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious and that but for the infringement a try would probably have been scored if he is to advise the referee to award a penalty try. If there is any doubt that a try would be scored the TMO must advise the award of an appropriate sanction in accordance with Law.

So you can see no 3 criteria is only for foul play by the defending team. Obstruction or any foul play. The TMO can not look for anything else like knocks ons or forward passes when the Probable try or not question is asked. Doing that he is going out of his protocol.

The protocol altough extended is still bound by the question. So ask the wrong questions and the clear and obvious can still be ignored. Answer the question wrong or applying a different questions criteria can still ignore the clear and obvious like in this game.

TMO did not receive the angles he asked for so all finger have to point to FOX and sked why they did not give him the angles for the ruling? 

That is very simple to work out. Melbourne have one of the best ssupporting fans in Australia. Twice the size of Sydney and in terms of viewers losing ratings and viewers for a team based there is a big loss to a TV network. But like in Sydney people will watch and keep on watching a winning team. So they will assist where ever possible to get the ratings up. The week before they mugged the Chiefs and the Rebels came within 5 points. Thanks to dodgy TMO decisions. Two of them. People were Happy and they were looking forward to this game. As the Rebels did so well the week before. And to keep the viewer totals up  they simply just did not provide the angles the TMO asked for. After all its not illegal. Like Fox have done over the years with the News. Its their news and they will give the news like they want it. Same with rugby and the the TMO. Its their rugby and they will provide the TMO with what they want to. This is the trouble if there is a monopoly with the rights of broadcasting. THe TV network is the boss and you have to run everything through them

Well thanks for that. You obviously went to considerable trouble, and I enjoyed reading your views. You may be right in some regards. But the point was, the TMO was given try no try latitude....not probable try latitude. And the commentators and the reffing panel implicitly accepted that the TMO had the obligation to look at knock ons.The panel spokesman said the TMO couldn't make the right decision because he didn't have the right angle.....not because he was precluded from looking at knock ons. A claim which is pure nonsense....every angle looked like a knock on.

Read the first post on thiS thread Sasu. If you can't see the knock, even the biased Aussie commentators did....get real