Matt Smiths disallowed try
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Super User
- Posts: 2050
- Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 12:37 am
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
I agree with Grimlish, it was a good move, bad luck the ball deflected off the post making an awkward bounce unfortunately contacting Matt's leg then arm before hitting the ground therefore a knock on.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
The TMO system is a good and equitable system. It isn't perfect and people can make mistakes. However, perhaps you should apply for the job of TMO as you are clearly more qualified than the officials in question to undertake the task in your own mind?
“It is no use saying, ‘We are doing our best.’ You have got to succeed in doing what is necessary.” Sir Winston Churchill.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
I think it was off his knee so a good score IMO
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
The sequence was, ball kicked, hits post, Smith is following up ball jumps up hits his leg, ball goes forward and hits Smiths forearm, ball goes forward and hits ground, Smith dives and then just gets his fingers on ball!
No knock on off his leg, clear Knock on off his forearm, so no try.
I think he would have made a better job if he had just tried to drop on ball after it hit the post rather than trying to control it, but no doubt there will be other opinions that disagree with this part.
No knock on off his leg, clear Knock on off his forearm, so no try.
I think he would have made a better job if he had just tried to drop on ball after it hit the post rather than trying to control it, but no doubt there will be other opinions that disagree with this part.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Over the hill and far away
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
Exactly soLE18 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 22, 2017 8:56 pm The sequence was, ball kicked, hits post, Smith is following up ball jumps up hits his leg, ball goes forward and hits Smiths forearm, ball goes forward and hits ground, Smith dives and then just gets his fingers on ball!
No knock on off his leg, clear Knock on off his forearm, so no try.
I think he would have made a better job if he had just tried to drop on ball after it hit the post rather than trying to control it, but no doubt there will be other opinions that disagree with this part.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
Nope.
Check again on the full match videoat 32 minutes in.
He makes contact with the thigh to keep the ball going forward.
The first contact with the arm is his elbow/forearm exerting downward pressure on the ball. That in itself is enough for a try. As it is he maintains contact with the ball, his arm rolls along the ball until he has his hand on it. From when he makes contact with the ball that contact is maintained throughout the grounding. It's actually nicely done by Smith.
The TMO states "he is not in control, that ball has gone forwards". He gives no further information.
A reminder of the grounding rule:
(b) Player presses down on the ball. A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive.
No mention of control, just downward pressure with the arm.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
I thought it went forward off his leg, below the knee, he may have touched it with his left arm/hand but to me it wasn't clrear and obvious so in my view a try should have been awarded.
Nowadays referees decide matches, players by how much.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
He did knock it on with his forearm onto the grass before finally touching it down.
Clear and obvious is a woolly term when it comes to a knock on but if the 4th official is convinced he saw it come into contact with the players arm, the ball go forward and hit the ground then it has to be a knock on.
Clear and obvious I suspect more refers to the direction of the ball - was it passed or travelled forwards - in this case there was no doubt about the direction.
The only way that could have been given as a try would be if the video didn't clearly show contact with his arm, which unfortunately it did.
Rather different to the England try where far too much time was wasted checking if Young's kick had gone into touch.
None of the angles showed the ball in contact with the touch line. Close but none of the views showed the ball as being out. A fag paper or a foot is irrelevant. The touch judge was perfectly positioned and he was satisfied.
Clear and obvious is a woolly term when it comes to a knock on but if the 4th official is convinced he saw it come into contact with the players arm, the ball go forward and hit the ground then it has to be a knock on.
Clear and obvious I suspect more refers to the direction of the ball - was it passed or travelled forwards - in this case there was no doubt about the direction.
The only way that could have been given as a try would be if the video didn't clearly show contact with his arm, which unfortunately it did.
Rather different to the England try where far too much time was wasted checking if Young's kick had gone into touch.
None of the angles showed the ball in contact with the touch line. Close but none of the views showed the ball as being out. A fag paper or a foot is irrelevant. The touch judge was perfectly positioned and he was satisfied.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
The question is did he knock it onto the grass or press it. One means contact is lost, the other not.
Sorry if I am being anal about this, I just find it interesting! I don't think the TMO's comments made sense re: control. If the grounding is:
(a) Player touches the ground with the ball. A player grounds the ball by holding the ball and touching the ground with it, in in-goal. ‘Holding’ means holding in the hand or hands, or in the arm or arms. No downward pressure is required.
Then it makes sense to discuss control. Because if you are holding it you have you to continue you to hold it while you ground it. Hence "losing control" would be a legitimate reason not to give it. It's not uncommon for the ball to slip or spill from the hand whilst attempting to ground it.
But in this case Smith never attempts to gather and hold the ball. If the ball is loose or kicked through you don't have to gather/hold you just have to press down - the (b) in the law. I'm sure if it was a hand on the ball rather than the forearm the TMO would have given it. But the rule clearly states the arm is OK.
-
- Gold Member
- Posts: 1132
- Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 9:18 am
- Location: Over the hill and far away
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
Ourla, I think we should all consult an optician. You think you see the ball in contact with the ground when his arm/elbow make Contact with the ball. Several others don’t see that from the same footage.
If Smith thought he had grounded it at that point why did he then ground it again with his hand?
Knock on, no try, all day long for me.
If Smith thought he had grounded it at that point why did he then ground it again with his hand?
Knock on, no try, all day long for me.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
So, first things first, whether the ball is on the ground or not seems to be significant because ther law states "A player grounds the ball when it is on the ground in the in-goal and the player presses down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of the player’s body from waist to neck inclusive." Although I am sure I've seen tries scored where the player has slapped down on a bouncing ball - so I'd like to know whether "on the ground" means literally that. Or is memory gone has well as my eye sight... allegedly
Anyway, I thought the ball was on the ground but admit at the split second of contact it may have been slightly off. Would probably have to go through slowly frame by frame. It wasn't clear and obvious to me it wasn't. As I say I watched it again several times, with all the slo-mo replays.
His arm effectively rolled over the ball. I think he was instinctively trying to get a mitt on it. You can see he's consciously trying to get his arm down it. Arm because of his body position and the situation/bounce of the ball. The forward momentum of him and ball creates the natural roll down the arm and then he just holds it for a fraction with the hand.
As I said earlier I'm intrigued by the TMO's use of the word "control". Maybe there is a directive or understanding of the rule that makes this significant even though it is not written in the rules.
Googling I found a similar debate not too long ago on another forum
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
This may explain it
It seems there is a directive that says control is important
It seems there is a directive that says control is important
Personally I think "control" is pretty hard to define but eh ho.And that’s from the mouth of Joël Jutge, the former Test ref and current head of European match officials, who explained away the phantom score to L’Equipe.
Referring to World Rugby’s recent refereeing cabal in South Africa, he said: “We met in Stellenbosch last June and we instructed international referees to take account of the notion of ball control and not just contact between hand and ball
“In the case of Rémi Lamerat, the ball was released, even if there was contact with the little finger.”
This “notion” was news to Loose Pass. We’ve examined every piece of World Rugby correspondence in our inbox and we’ve trawled their entire site, and we still can’t find any mention of this change anywhere, let alone any detail.
But there’s a perfectly reasonable explanation of this, too.
As Jutge explained: “No doubt we have not communicated enough on this subject – this is often a problem of ours – but this directive has been applied since the meeting in Stellenbosch.”
So there you have it! All this from the organisation that has vowed “to make the game as easy to understand as possible for players, coaches, match officials and spectators”.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
I don't really get why there is an argument about this, I don't think it was a try because the ball roll forward with his elbow before he grounded it with his hand. There is no need for this argument, we got the 5 points while Sale only went away with 1 try-scoring bonus point so for me there is no issue about the disallowed try.
Formerly of Burbaaage (not Inkleh), now up north at uni
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
The reason for not giving the try was "he is not in control of the ball, it's a knock on". I have no idea why this was said as that isn't a law. There just has to be downward pressure with the arm or hand. It looks to me like there was downward pressure with his arm, so a try should have been awarded.
Re: Matt Smiths disallowed try
It's not an argument, it's a debate.
The law says you can ground the ball with your arm, which afaik includes your elbow.
Imagine there was no penalty advantage or that we didn't score from it. Imagine that we had lost the match by less than a score. Would you want to debate it then?