The Laidlaw 'try'

[jgriffin]

Planet Rugby insists it was a try (see 'Loose Pass', no TinyURL at work) as Laidlaw supposedly exerted pressure.
I personally thought he did not, as his momentum would have turned the ball forward, not stopped it. I saw a natural stop to the ball rolling.
However I thought that Barnes would've been perfectly entitled to give a penalty as Laidlaw climbed BY's back and left the ground, holding his arms, at least two strides away from the line and therefore illegally impeded him.
Opinions?

[BJ.]

At the time, my first call was Laidlaw was all over YBY like a cheap suit and should have been penalised for it.

[maskedsquid]

I thought it was either a try, as I believe there was contact with the ball from Laidlaw, or a penalty for to England as he was all over YBY well before the try line. However, not sure whether the video ref can rule on that offence by Laidlaw, so I think it probably should have been awarded as a try.

[Richard]

I am surprised it wasn't awarded as a try as it was against England

[sam16111986]

However, not sure whether the video ref can rule on that offence by Laidlaw, so I think it probably should have been awarded as a try.

Surely the TMO has to review the act of scoring and if the act of scoring comes as you are forcibly dragging back another player then the TMO should voice that opinion. It's not like he's calling something that happened in the move leading up to the try as Laidlaw is still all over Youngs as they go over the line. Should have been a penalty to England.

[bluntiger]

Surely the TMO has to review the act of scoring and if the act of scoring comes as you are forcibly dragging back another player then the TMO should voice that opinion. It's not like he's calling something that happened in the move leading up to the try as Laidlaw is still all over Youngs as they go over the line. Should have been a penalty to England.

It doesn't work like that. The TMO is only allowed to review the act of scoring so if there is an offence leading up to the score, that is the referees responsibility. I think of it as the TMO is only allowed to review what happens beyond the try line and what happens before the try line is down to the officials alone to adjudicate.

[me2]

Correct bluntiger, the TMO can only rule on what happens beyond the try line.

For example, if a player steps in to touch on his way to scoring the TMO cannot disallow the try. However he could disallow the try if the player was in touch when the ball was grounded.

Deciding on obstruction before the try line is not in the TMO's remit, however obstruction beyond the try line would be.

[Smurphswillgetya]

Methinks Youngs has got a monkey on his back and need to get rid of it as soon as possible.

I agreed with the TMO. It was not a try, end of story.

[daktari]

It also depends on the question asked, " Can I award a Try? or "Any reason not to award a try?", the TMO has to work within what he is asked.

It was very close but I think it was no try

[Daveyboy]

If the roles had been reversed, (ie BY had been climbing all over Laidlaw whilst BY's finger nail just possibly grazed the ball for a nanosecond whilst it was in mid-air) I would also have said "No Try!"

[DickyP]

Correct bluntiger, the TMO can only rule on what happens beyond the try line.....

Absolutely wrong - if this were true then Cueto would have scored in the world cup in 2007 as that was before the try line - any foot in touch and plenty of knock-ons/dropped balls will be in the field of play. Also any foul play that prevented a player getting to the ball, which we've also seen.

As for the Laidlaw effort the only time he even possibly brushed the ball was when it was in the air.

[tigerburnie]

[quote="bluntiger]

It doesn't work like that. The TMO is only allowed to review the act of scoring so if there is an offence leading up to the score, that is the referees responsibility. I think of it as the TMO is only allowed to review what happens beyond the try line and what happens before the try line is down to the officials alone to adjudicate.[/quote]

As has been aluded too,if for example there was a foot in touch before the ball was grounded,then it's no try,the TMO is not restricted to over the line only.

[Bill W (2)]

Surely the TMO has to review the act of scoring and if the act of scoring comes as you are forcibly dragging back another player then the TMO should voice that opinion. It's not like he's calling something that happened in the move leading up to the try as Laidlaw is still all over Youngs as they go over the line. Should have been a penalty to England.

Correct in the first part (IMHO).

If the question asked was "Was it a try, yes or no?" the answer is no!

If the question asked was "Is there any reason I cannot award a try?" the answer is "Obstruction by Scottish player, Penalty England" or "Ball not grounded 22m drop out"

I cannot remember what question was asked. I think it was the former.

Assertions as to all the TMO can judge on are what happens in the in goal area are simply wrong!

[GT1]

Cast your mind back to Glous game when even Sky thought Toby had scored a try but not given by TMO!! You never know what will be given!

[tig1]

Personally i much prefer the rugby league system where the referee specifically asks the TMO what to check for...grounding, offside, obstruction, forward pass...whatever he thinks might be in doubt.

The Union system is a bit silly with all the semantics about..can i award the try ? was a try scored ? yes or no? blah blah.

The idea is to improve the accuracy and legitimate awarding of the tries. So in this case it would have made more sense to be able to ask the TMO to check whether Laidlaw had obstructed the player and had he grounded the ball. They wouldnt have wasted all the debate about the grounding because the TMO would have just given a penalty against Laidlaw.