Wallabies v Fiji
-
Something that impressed me about Fiji was their ability to create extra space and mismatches in possession. Pass and wrap around. If their hands didn't let them down, they probably win by 10+.
-
I haven’t seen the game but have heard reports about a late try for Fiji being controversially ruled out? I haven’t been able to find it on YouTube. What was the situation?
-
An Australian player stepped on the sideline before passing the ball in-field. Fiji eventually turned over and scored in the corner. The play was pulled back to the foot-in-touch after the TMO had a look. Technically the TMO can't go back to beyond the attacking phase (i.e. they can't look at anything prior to Fiji taking possession of the ball). So while it shouldn't have been chalked out because of protocols, it was a fair result in some ways.
-
-
Really makes you think rugby should move back towards the League/cricket model - having captains referral. Instead of the TMO butting in at every single opportunity, make the defending team identify the potential issue and refer it. introduces an element of strategy and takes it back to the more noticeable in-game issues as opposed to zooming in and slowmo on every potential infraction
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Fiji:
I don't think that's exactly true.
If the attacking phase is under two phases (which this was) then the TMO can go back 2 phases
See note at the bottom of the below 2025 TMO protocols
My mistake! So right protocol, right outcome, but killed the vibe.
-
@DurryMexted said in Wallabies v Fiji:
Really makes you think rugby should move back towards the League/cricket model - having captains referral. Instead of the TMO butting in at every single opportunity, make the defending team identify the potential issue and refer it. introduces an element of strategy and takes it back to the more noticeable in-game issues as opposed to zooming in and slowmo on every potential infraction
I don't think this works. It doesn't really work in the NRL when they tried it.
Unlike cricket, the captain doesn't see everything that's going on. How could they make an informed call on the foot in touch call, for example? Or a lineout obstruction if they are standing in the backs?
Rugby is just too technical. If the ref can barely work it out, how do we expect the players to? In cricket it's a pretty straightforward judgement call that the players can get right enough of the time to make the system work.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Fiji:
I don't think that's exactly true.
If the attacking phase is under two phases (which this was) then the TMO can go back 2 phases
See note at the bottom of the below 2025 TMO protocols
Official rugby would make one hell of a confusing boardgame.
-
@barbarian I think thats sort of my point - if its not clear & obvious / egregious then what real impact has it had on the try being scored. If the captain didnt see the infringement, in all likelihood one of his team mates would have. If none of them saw it, and the ref didnt see it, then fair play call it a try.
I think i hold the opposite point of view to you - rugby is so technical and there are so many thin margins and grey areas in calls, that analysing every try to death through slow motion and replays just removes some of the subjective & flowing nature of the game
-
@nostrildamus said in Wallabies v Fiji:
Official rugby would make one hell of a confusing boardgame.
Try holding a flag when a guy jumps in/out of touch and taps or grabs the ball.
So many fucking outcomes.
-
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Fiji:
I don't think that's exactly true.
If the attacking phase is under two phases (which this was) then the TMO can go back 2 phases
See note at the bottom of the below 2025 TMO protocols
My issue with that table is that the touch wasn't part of the "attacking passage of play", it was part of a defending passage of play. So "technically" (yes, I'm being a pedant) that column shouldn't really apply.
-
@Nepia said in Wallabies v Fiji:
@KiwiMurph said in Wallabies v Fiji:
I don't think that's exactly true.
If the attacking phase is under two phases (which this was) then the TMO can go back 2 phases
See note at the bottom of the below 2025 TMO protocols
My issue with that table is that the touch wasn't part of the "attacking passage of play", it was part of a defending passage of play. So "technically" (yes, I'm being a pedant) that column shouldn't really apply.
I think that's the point - you can go back two phases regardless of whether an infringement happened with the attacking passage of play.
Might be misunderstanding you though.
