Blues coach John Kirwan is going to ask SANZAR for ‘clarity’ on a controversial TMO decision made in his team’s 36-39 loss to the Lions in Johannesburg at the weekend.
While Kirwan conceded the Lions were “deserved winners”, he still felt the need to raise the issue of the TMO decision.
rugby365
On route to the tryline it appeared as if a Blues player knocked the ball out of Lions centre Deon van Rensburg’s hands.
The ball spilled into the ingoal area, with Coenie van Wyk falling on the loose ball for the try.
South African Stuart Berry initially referred the incident to the TMO (Johan Greeff of SA) – when it was unclear whether Van Rensburg knocked the ball on or whether it was the Blues player that knocked it out of his hands – before the try was awarded.
“We probably didn’t deserve to win, because we made too many mistakes in the first half and the [first] yellow card [when prop Charlie Faumuina was sen to the sin bin for repeatedly collapsing the maul on the half-hour mark] was a two-try affair,” Kirwan said.
“As a result we came into the second half under the pump,” the Blues mentor added.
“I’ll be asking Lyndon [Bray, SANZAR’s head of referees] about the TMO decision.
“That was a bit of a tough one at a critical moment so we will have to have a look at it.
“I thought the Lions deserved to win in the end.
“I thought we could have stolen it, but we have to give ourselves a better chance.”
I have seen on some of the other sites and here people have posted the official rules regarding the knock on and that it was a knock back etc.
It may be, but one question: If the Lion player was tackled in the same manner on the halfway line for instance, would it have been ruled as a knock on straight away or would the ref have gone through the same amount of trouble to “arrive at the right decision”?
I honestly believe all refs would have seen the knock and have ruled it as such, we have seen balls that look like it goes backward being ruled as knock ons during normal play, yet Berry seemed very eager to ignore that and get the TMO involved.
Bear in mind, he had made up his mind that it wasn’t a knock on. But a knock back and only wanted to know what happened after.
I would like to know whether the ball was grounded before or after he blew his whistle, we never get to see that during the slow mo.
I somehow also doubt that the Lions were really deserving of getting the inevitable penalty every time they got into kickable range.
Anyhow, it’s not the player’s fault, I guess they are just the lucky recipients of these dubious decisions and can only take full advantage of it.
@ nortierd:
hey nortie, i also read that and posted in the lions thread, the explanation really does not satisfy me, and is only for if the ball went backwards and not forward like saturday.
It is not what happened at all.
@MacroBull
Cool, yes, it is still not so clear cut, but the score stands and the Blues lost, I feel for a side who scores 5 tries to 3 ( well 2 and a maybe ) and still lose because of some contentious issues
Didn’t something similar happen in the Stormers game right before half time?
At that time the score was 10-6. The officials also judged that the ball went back from Kobus van Wyk and the Chiefs got a try. Followed by the one right after half time, the two in tandem served to effectively bury the Stormers.
TOUGH LUCK KIRWAN!!!
Personally I feel that there should be some revision of certain laws. For example, when a player tries to pick up and run a ball from the base of the ruck, it sometimes happens that the ball rolls slightly forward. Maybe a few cm, never even leaving the ruck. Yet this gets blown as a fwd, and scrum to the opp. That is just ridiculous.
Also, the whole ball in contact situation. I agree that it should be the job of the ball carrier to protect the ball, and it is perfectly fine when you actually rip the ball from their hands (ala F. Louw, H. Brussouw). But more often than not, especially the kiwis, seem to go into the tackle situation with the idea of dislodging the ball intentionally, when a perfectly good tackle is on offer. Dit is bok *@%.
These things will be hard to police by the ref, and a LOT of discretion will be needed, however it is something that should be looked at IMHO.
ek het daai drie gesien,ek reken dat daai hoog vat op deon veroorsaak het dat die bal verloor is,ek sou n strafdrie en geelkaart gegee het vir n proffesional foul
http://www.irblaws.com/index.php?domain=10&year=2011&clarification=82
This clarification covers what happened with the so called controversial try. The ball was knocked out of Van Rensburg’s hands by the Blues player. So it was clearly knocked backwards and a Lions player dotting it down.
@ Lion4ever:
2. Ball-carrier A from the red team runs towards the blue team’s dead ball line. Opponent
B approaches A from behind and rips the ball out of A’s hands such that neither player
has possession of the ball and the ball travels TOWARDS THE RED TEAM’S GOAL LINE. (We often
see this either ruled play or a knock-on by B).”
this does not explain the ball going forward to the blue teams goal line as what happened on saturday? or am I reading wrong?
hmmm I assume reds goal line is in reds forward direction. but how can this possibly “often be a knock on by team B(blue)”
Users Online
Total 31 users including 0 member, 31 guests, 0 bot online
Most users ever online were 3735, on 31 August 2022 @ 6:23 pm
No Counter as from 31 October 2009: 39,416,719 Page Impressions
_