The UAFC

I did see it and as the Law stands, congratulated Lealiifano on his thought process & perspicacity.

That said, there are things I hate in the game which rely on players being a smart-ass, such a the ball clearly not going out of play but because some glype puts a foot out of play it makes the game stupid, corrupts it to an extent that doesn't sit well.

A BR says, debates on TMOs existing is redundant, it should be a matter of just getting the process to as refined and quick as it can me made whilst being consistent with getting the decisions correct. That in itself is not easy, for I also saw this weekend, a clear triple movement supported & awarded by the ref, against what the TMO appeared to think.

So why support this smart-ass, Lealiifano? Because whoever said that the TMO cannot intervene after a conversion was a mug & Lealiifano will have done the game a favour if it leads to the obvious rule change which is the TMO can draw attention to a reason not to award the try prior to the restart at halfway.

Thank you, I knew you would all agree.

BaggyTrousers wrote:I did see it and as the Law stands, congratulated Lealiifano on his thought process & perspicacity.

That said, there are things I hate in the game which rely on players being a smart-ass, such a the ball clearly not going out of play but because some glype puts a foot out of play it makes the game stupid, corrupts it to an extent that doesn't sit well.

A BR says, debates on TMOs existing is redundant, it should be a matter of just getting the process to as refined and quick as it can me made whilst being consistent with getting the decisions correct. That in itself is not easy, for I also saw this weekend, a clear triple movement supported & awarded by the ref, against what the TMO appeared to think.

So why support this smart-ass, Lealiifano? Because whoever said that the TMO cannot intervene after a conversion was a mug & Lealiifano will have done the game a favour if it leads to the obvious rule change which is the TMO can draw attention to a reason not to award the try prior to the restart at halfway.

Thank you, I knew you would all agree.

I think the difficulty faced by World Rugby is the problem of consistency of application of the protocols. bringing in further clarification just muddies the waters as we saw with Paynegate. The more they try to fix it, the more difficult it becomes to get it right.

Simple for me. TMO should not be reviewing anything until time is off.

Simpler for me. Once the referee awards the try the try is awarded

Fair enough Snipe, but "until the next phase of play" means that what he did was easily seen as gamesmanship & bad for the image. It's just badly thought out ..............not just that but very easily fixed.

Furthermore, for most people the conversion process is an element of the try scoring process, for you simply can't have a conversion without a try, so viewing it as one entire process & "the next phase" being seen as "restart" couldn't be simpler.

I believe a review would have seen the try chalked off so it can almost be implied that he cheated, not good for the game .................unless it leads to my amendment being rushed forward.

Snipe Watson wrote:

Kofi Annan wrote:Some may recall that I mentioned this option last year during the World Cup,, , some ridiculed me, simple , it's in he laws of the game.

We've all known about it for some time, but this is the highest profile example of its use.
It's within the letter of the law all right, but not the spirit.

Ahhhhh "the spirit of the game" can you show me were that is written in the laws of the game or "rules of competition".

Russ wrote:Simpler for me. Once the referee awards the try the try is awarded

Even Clancy?

Rooster wrote:

Russ wrote:Simpler for me. Once the referee awards the try the try is awarded

Even Clancy?

It would hold the referees properly to account for their decisions

Kofi Annan wrote:

Snipe Watson wrote:

Kofi Annan wrote:Some may recall that I mentioned this option last year during the World Cup,, , some ridiculed me, simple , it's in he laws of the game.

We've all known about it for some time, but this is the highest profile example of its use.
It's within the letter of the law all right, but not the spirit.

Ahhhhh "the spirit of the game" can you show me were that is written in the laws of the game or "rules of competition".

Away up the yard with ye Kofi......
Who mentioned the spirit of the game? I'm on about the spirit of the laws, which by definition is not written down......


....as you well know.

He isn't a sinner because he didn't break any laws but I don't think he is a saint either. So no to both.

Dave wrote:He isn't a sinner because he didn't break any laws but I don't think he is a saint either. So no to both.

Thanks for that Dave, you've been a big help.........

Snipe Watson wrote:

Dave wrote:He isn't a sinner because he didn't break any laws but I don't think he is a saint either. So no to both.

Thanks for that Dave, you've been a big help.........

My work here is done

Snipe Watson wrote:

BaggyTrousers wrote:I did see it and as the Law stands, congratulated Lealiifano on his thought process & perspicacity.

That said, there are things I hate in the game which rely on players being a smart-ass, such a the ball clearly not going out of play but because some glype puts a foot out of play it makes the game stupid, corrupts it to an extent that doesn't sit well.

A BR says, debates on TMOs existing is redundant, it should be a matter of just getting the process to as refined and quick as it can me made whilst being consistent with getting the decisions correct. That in itself is not easy, for I also saw this weekend, a clear triple movement supported & awarded by the ref, against what the TMO appeared to think.

So why support this smart-ass, Lealiifano? Because whoever said that the TMO cannot intervene after a conversion was a mug & Lealiifano will have done the game a favour if it leads to the obvious rule change which is the TMO can draw attention to a reason not to award the try prior to the restart at halfway.

Thank you, I knew you would all agree.

I think the difficulty faced by World Rugby is the problem of consistency of application of the protocols. bringing in further clarification just muddies the waters as we saw with Paynegate. The more they try to fix it, the more difficult it becomes to get it right.

Are the protocols even universal yet? Of course 99.9% of rugby rugby in the world uses the 'WTF is a TMO' protocol, but even amongst the others, are we still not running a trial on TMO use? I can't keep up.

Also Baggy - your problem with catching the ball with foot-in - is that not being scrapped next season? Or is that another trial?