By Guy_Chev -
May 17th 2009 @ 7:49am
Get a Roar profile
Loading ...Related coverage
Chris Pollock – awful TMO performance
Chris Pollock had what I believe is the worst performance by a Television Match Official ever. How on earth was the try ’scored’ by Michael Patterson not awarded?
And how was the Blues try late in the second half awarded? There was no clear evidence at all that the ball had been put down (and the Blues players didn’t look at all like they thought it was a try).
This was a crucial part of a crucial game for the Crusaders. They needed to win the game to have a chance of making the semi finals. I hope this is raised by the media (and not overlooked because the Crusaders did in fact win).
I hope there will be some sort of review of this performance because, quite frankly, it was appalling. I am of the view he should never be a television match official again, or there should at least be some reprecussions.
I would love for Richie McCaw and Todd Blackadder to be able to say what they really thought of the decision, but in this day and age, they cannot comment on the referees performance.
It also begs the question, could the ‘refs call’ be introduced into union? I have never been a huge fan of it myself, but Bryce Lawrence seemed to have thought that if there was a hand on the ball, it was a Crusaders hand. Pollock said “There is a hand on it, but I can’t tell whose hand it is.” Bryce knew and he should’ve been able to rule on that.
Anyway, appalling display. I never want to see him in charge again.
Going to the Waratahs v Brumbies blockbuster at ANZ Stadium, Saturday 24 April? If you're keen to meet up with other Roarers, register you interest and we'll keep you informed on the place to meet. Register now.
Get Australia's best Rugby opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(7)
Spiro Zavos said | May 17th 2009 @ 5:44pm | Report comment
I agree with this. I couldn’t understand either decision. The first ‘no-try’ decision when it was clearly a try could have put the Crusaders out of the finals, especially when the Blues were awarded a try that should have been, in my opinion, a ‘no-try’ ruling. It was clear that Bryce Lawrence the referee was bemused by both rulings and seemed to want to award the Crusaders their try which might have opened the floodgates against the Blues.
What happens to video referees when they are given over-riding power?
In cricket we had video umpires over-turning umpires LBW decisions, not on matters of fact (which is fine) but on matters of judgement, whether a ball might have carried on and kept low enough to hit the stumps and so on.
And now over a weekend we have had a rugby league video referee make a howler and a rugby union referee make two howlers.
Ell said | May 17th 2009 @ 7:38pm | Report comment
Absolutely agree. Lawrence was clearly unconvinced by the decision of Pollock for Paterson’s try, but unfortunately could not over-ride him. The ref’s call should be used in union, the sooner the better. Asking the TMO if there is any reason “why the try could not be awarded” IS a step in the right direction, but not far enough.
Kaplan got fairly snappy with his TMO in the game following too
zzzz said | May 17th 2009 @ 9:37pm | Report comment
My hunch is that Pollock was well aware of last years’ Crusaders-Blues Tuituvake TMO no-try fiasco, and was going in to bat for the overall historical impartiality of the TMO system. A noble cause no doubt, but the prevailing ethic is to “play whats in front of you” and let bygones be bygones. It’s a tribute to the Crusaders’ grit that their response was to press on regardless.
I would have thought that when it comes to refereeing, consistency is king – in which case Pollock committed the original sin and should be evicted from the garden of Eden Park. More importantly, do we want officials with the power to destroy a game or tournament in a whim, in opposition to agreed-upon common sense?
Why can’t you simply watch a ballgame in the 21st century without being dragged into the politics and economics of it all.
I’ll say it again – zzzz.
sheek said | May 17th 2009 @ 10:21pm | Report comment
It’s like the story of 20 people witnessing a motor vehicle accident, & each giving a different version depending on their location, line of sight, perception, life experience, prejudices, culture, etc.
Amazing we can all see the same thing, but some can come up with other interpretations. Just goes to show that having more officials assist with the adjudicating, doesn’t necessarily help.
More is not always better.
Ed said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:27am | Report comment
Yeah you’re all right. Lets just scrap the whole thing. That’ll solve our problems!
Choppy said | May 18th 2009 @ 11:59am | Report comment
You obviously didn’t see the NRL equivalent in the Dragons v Bulldogs game. That was the most disgraceful decision I’ve ever seen, worse than the Crusaders in my opinion.
Guy_Chev said | May 18th 2009 @ 12:03pm | Report comment
I saw that one too… Just as bad a decision. There’s already an article on that.
But I agree, it was bad.