WATCH: Lealiifano uses loophole to prevent TMO revision of try

so even the TMO does not know the LAW ??? that is a concern isnt it? and as u say they was wrong on 2 counts - the strip and review. that is pathetic. now what will the teams do ? can someone make a complaint ? i knew the strip thing was wrong , since it was one decision talked about so much at world cup - particularly becoz it was SBW :) so it escaped me that 2 phase thing. the tv company's shud give more clear sound of those exchanges. at least this one was audible . the euro final u could hardly hear what they was talking and with nigel owens' accent ... duh :P

The try scored by Alaalatoa should not have been overturned in my view for 2 reasons: - - I don't always agree with commentators but on this occasion they were right. The ball was clearly and obviously stripped from Fardy's possession. When the ball is stripped it is most definitely not a knock on. The law is quite clear about this. What the TMO said was simply ridiculous. He said whilst it was stripped Fardy did lose it forward. As the commentators said it can’t be both - it is one or the other. - the other reason is that it was outside the officials authority to even review the potential knock on as it had occurred more than two phases back from the try being scored. So they had no business to be even looking at it.

this is only one controversy in that match. the other was the so called knock on. now i am sure there was an incidenrt in world cup where SBW was involved , when the ref ruled that a STRIP IS NOT A KNOCK ON. now in this match the tmo and ref ruled a strip is a knock on. can any expert in this site tell me which one is it ??? also i was listening with sound reduced. did i hear the tmo and ref say differnt things. - tmo saying its a strip so not a knock on and the ref saying yes its a strip and so a knock on ?

Hoffman has made some terrible calls and awarding a try to soon has been a problem of his in the past, if there is any doubt he needs to check , he has a habit of assuming and therefore ruining game with his poor refereeing.

hard to totally obstruct, he just has to drop back and drop kick it

If the first option were used, it would remove the chances of selective replays (at least on that aspect of the officiating - you could still see it happen during a general break in play, like what happened with that Messam high tackle in SA a couple o years back), I guess.

Jerry What about the TV influence outside of the judiciary panel - will this unnecessary intrusion, fall into any of your points above?? Perhaps, the first point???

That is my main concern, having players being able to rule the shots over the officials undermines the integrity of the game. Whatever the solution it needs to be made impartial and consistent.

yep. 2nd scenario is unnecessary and a source of problems get rid of it. on field refs (or even tmo if they want to do it that way) should be able to tell pretty much immediately if a review is necessary or not. main ref should already be checking with all his touchies before awarding

It actually did happen in the Tahs v Cheetahs game last week. Cheetahs players were advancing on Foley in his conversion setup while they appealed for a TMO replay. (Which eventually happened and ruled no try). I'm sure they would have obstructed him if he attempted a conversion of any sort.

Yeah, basically they need to do one of two things to fix this loophole. 1 - Make it so once a try is awarded, it can't be reversed. This may lead to refs being gunshy, but presumably it will only matter if there is a valid reason to over-rule a try. 2 - Make it so the try can be reviewed even after the conversion. Obviously there needs to be some limit as to when you can't review a try, but take it out of the control of the scoring team as to when. Eg - make it 1 minute from the time the try was awarded. One or the other, they need to make it so a kicker/team can't game the system and prevent the officials from making a call. I'm not really bothered which of those

Absolutely ridiculous to have TMOs meddling when they haven't been called for anyway. It's basically a mutation of cricket's No-Ball Review and Recall Syndrome.

Very smart by Leila, had the Tahs shown the same foresight last week they would have picked up a bonus point. It might be cynical however it's in the rules so do it if if means securing a BP.

This is going to lead to defenders obstructing the mark so that a review can occur. This is going to result in a lot of gamesmanship. That loop hole cost the Rebels a bonus point. Better to have a challenge system like in cricket.

I would be happy with that Brett. I'm all for cutting back on the TMO thingee actually. It has got all out of control. Referees have almost reached the point that they are reliant on it.

There was a game in Europe where the ref went to the TMO after the conversion was kicked wouldn't be surprised if Nige was refereeing

Yes but there are 2 different scenarios are there not? Try is scored - try is not awarded at this point - referee signals time off - officials check coverage - decision made try or no try. Try is scored - try awarded - time is still on - conversion can be taken - from replays officials decide to have a review - referee signals time off if the conversion has not been already attempted - decision made try or no try - time back on. 2 quite different scenarios. So your "easy fix" appears to invoke the first scenario. That is to say no try should be awarded immediately. Time should be off until they decide if a review is necessary. In which case a conversion can not be taken until time is back on.

i agree. like clarke said pretty obvious we'd end up here when they made it that way in the first place (typical irb 's amateur roots)

Quite probably, Clarke. But it will be the fault of the extension of the protocols, if that point is reached. I have no issue with the human element to it. Refs can and will make mistakes, we all know that. So once the try is awarded, then just let that be that..