Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Nigel Owens highlights the crucial factor in Scotland no-try decision

By Josh Raisey
Nic Berry/ PA

The television match official has been part of rugby for over two decades now, but there have been few, if any, calls in its history as debatable and crucial as the one at Murrayfield on Saturday.

ADVERTISEMENT

With Scotland trailing France 20-16 in Edinburgh, they produced a pick-and-go barrage on the French line in the final play of the game. Lock Sam Skinner burrowed his way towards the line, ending up near the whitewash with a melee of legs and boots around him.

Referee Nic Berry deemed the lock to be held up, but sent the decision to his TMO Brett Cronan, who, after minutes of deliberation, decided to stick with Berry’s call, meaning France held on to the win and pandemonium ensued online.

Video Spacer

Scotland fans react to dramatic finish in the Six Nations to France

Finlay was on the ground at Murrayfield to find out what the fans thought about that tight finish between Scotland and France.

Video Spacer

Scotland fans react to dramatic finish in the Six Nations to France

Finlay was on the ground at Murrayfield to find out what the fans thought about that tight finish between Scotland and France.

While this is a decision that will be debated perhaps for the rest of the Guinness Six Nations, or maybe even beyond, former referee Nigel Owens cleared a few things up this week on his show Whistle Watch.

The refereeing centurion specified that Cronan’s job was to find enough evidence to overturn Berry’s initial decision of no-try, not whether he thought it was a try or not. That is the fundamental part of the entire exchange between the referee and his TMO, and may provide some clarity to aggrieved Scotland fans.

Match Summary

3
Penalty Goals
2
1
Tries
2
1
Conversions
2
0
Drop Goals
0
125
Carries
89
3
Line Breaks
3
12
Turnovers Lost
15
5
Turnovers Won
5

“Was it a try, yes or no?” Owens said.

“What’s important to remember here is we have an on-field decision by the referee. So, if the referee has a gut feeling or believes he’s seen what has happened, he’ll give his view.

“So in this instance, he knows the ball is over the line and he knows that it’s held up. And therefore the question is ‘my on-field decision is no-try because I believe it to be held up.’

ADVERTISEMENT

“If he wasn’t sure, because he hasn’t seen it, the he could have asked ‘Is it a try, yes or no?’ Or if he had felt ‘I’ve got a grounding, but I just want to make sure nothing else has happened,’ then he could have said ‘my on-field decision is a try.’

“It’s important to remember the contribution by the referee. So in this instance, the question from the referee to the TMO was on-field decision no-try, which means the TMO, looking at all the available angles that he has, will need to have evidence, clear evidence, to show otherwise to overturn that on-field decision.

“Just remember, not only is this a difficult decision, it’s a high-pressure decision as well because you know the outcome of the game is inevitable here. So it’s added pressure, it’s a big, big decision to make. So you have to be clear to get it right.

“TMO in this instance felt that he didn’t have enough clear evidence to overturn the on-field decision, and therefore it remained with the on-field decision as a no-try.

ADVERTISEMENT

“There’s no question to ask is it over the line or not? Because we know it’s over the line because the referee has already inputted that. That’s why the TMO is not looking at that, because we know it’s over the line.”

Related

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

LIVE NOW - Singapore SVNS Day 1

Fresh Starts | Episode 3 | Cobus Reinach

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

The Breakfast Show | Episode 7

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 10 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

24 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING New Zealand U20 score in dying minutes to draw with South Africa U20 New Zealand U20 and South Africa U20 draw
Search