The final

[morepork]

Oh no it isn't.

[morepork]

Yoor mum is hilarious.

Go on. Send that to the bunker for review.

[Sourdust]

Not quite 2007 forward pass levels of lack of self awareness yet, but not far off.

Exactly that.

There's a difference, in that I'm still laughing about 2007 now, whereas this time I do think they have SOME grounds for complaint; although no more than a losing side often has.

What's changed is that the presumption of All Black perfection has gone, and so now they are increasingly likely (or less UNlikely) to come up against unsympathetic refereeing. In sport as in life; when you've been privileged for so long, any redress feels like persecution.

[Mr Mwenda]

Yoor mum is hilarious.

Go on. Send that to the bunker for review.

She is a good laugh, it's true.

One thing I most admire about her is her positive outlook. She tends not to dwell on the negatives and hates to be a victim. Plenty to learn from her, rackon.

[J Dory]

[shadow=]

Yoor mum is hilarious.

Go on. Send that to the bunker for review.

She is a good laugh, it's true.

One thing I most admire about her is her positive outlook. She tends not to dwell on the negatives and hates to be a victim. Plenty to learn from her, rackon.

Is that why you're such a ray of fucking sunshine?

It's important we argue about the reffing for a few more months, super rugby doesn't start till February.

[Mr Mwenda]

[shadow=]

Yoor mum is hilarious.

Go on. Send that to the bunker for review.

She is a good laugh, it's true.

One thing I most admire about her is her positive outlook. She tends not to dwell on the negatives and hates to be a victim. Plenty to learn from her, rackon.

Is that why you're such a ray of fucking sunshine?

It's important we argue about the reffing for a few more months, super rugby doesn't start till February.

Nah, that's my own work.

[J Dory]

Not quite 2007 forward pass levels of lack of self awareness yet, but not far off.

Exactly that.

There's a difference, in that I'm still laughing about 2007 now, whereas this time I do think they have SOME grounds for complaint; although no more than a losing side often has.

What's changed is that the presumption of All Black perfection has gone, and so now they are increasingly likely (or less UNlikely) to come up against unsympathetic refereeing. In sport as in life; when you've been privileged for so long, any redress feels like persecution.

That is deeper than deep throat part 2.

[canta_brian]

Not quite 2007 forward pass levels of lack of self awareness yet, but not far off.

Exactly that.

There's a difference, in that I'm still laughing about 2007 now, whereas this time I do think they have SOME grounds for complaint; although no more than a losing side often has.

What's changed is that the presumption of All Black perfection has gone, and so now they are increasingly likely (or less UNlikely) to come up against unsympathetic refereeing. In sport as in life; when you've been privileged for so long, any redress feels like persecution.

So your argument is that because you thought Richie McCaw was not supporting his weight once it’s fair for the TMO to only review one side 10 years later?

[Banquo]

My brother in law- expat English, living in and supporting SA these days (pfft) said the atmosphere towards the Boks was very hostile and pretty unpleasant at the final on Saturday; he's a french speaker, so had some choice ripostes for the narked French folk surrounding him.

On the AB's, for all the whining about refs and officialdom, it was still in their hands to win, and they muffed it. Control the controllables an all that. Gutted they didn't win though.

[J Dory]

Agree with Banquo, don't leave it up to the ref and all that, NZ defo should have won that for me, but then I think that about most games they lose. And to be clear, I'm not saying the TMO cost them it, rather, it was there for the taking, even with 1 down for part of the game.

[J Dory]

Ok, rewatching the game for the first time, Shannon Frizzell yellow was hard to see.

[cashead]

Foster's sent WR a Please Explain regarding the officiating, apparently. The key one for me is the TMO's intervention to wipe out Aaron Smith's try. Like yeah, there was a knock-on, but it had happened five phases prior. This is key, because the TMO protocol very explicitly states that they can ony intervene when it's within two phases of the try being scored. It's written there in black and white, plain as day. World Rugby really needs to publicy address this, because it has some serious and significant implications for the game and the TMO's role otherwise. Like, what, from now on, they can just arbitrarily kramer into what's going on willy nilly and ignore the rules that govern their role whenever they feel like it? You make one exception here, then where does it stop?

[Mikey Brown]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

[Puja]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

The TMO can't come in for a common-or-garden knock-on though, can they? I'm with you in that it did look fairly obvious live and I would've been screaming at the television if I were a South African, but I'm fair certain it wasn't correct to come back for it, according to the protocols.

Puja

[UKHamlet]

Found this on Reddit

Rassie's arithmetical strategy

SA beat NZ by 1.

SA beat England by 1.

SA beat France by 1.

That gives you 111.

If we look at the actual scores:

29-28

16-15

12-11

The sum of these scores gives you 111.

[cashead]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

Whether Big Tom BIG TMO BOY The Main Event Foley were to be checking for a knock-on, it still has to be within 2 phases of a potential try being scored. It wasn’t.

And in a tight 1-point game, I find it hard to accept any argument that his interference did not have any impact on the outcome.

[Cameo]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

The TMO can't come in for a common-or-garden knock-on though, can they? I'm with you in that it did look fairly obvious live and I would've been screaming at the television if I were a South African, but I'm fair certain it wasn't correct to come back for it, according to the protocols.

Puja

That's where it's a bit of a mess. You sometimes hear refs asking the TMO to check little things like whether there was a little knock-on they missed, whether someone stepped in touch, or whether a kick was a 50-22. When it is done quickly and with the right result, it can seem an obvious common sense thing to do, but even then it leads to all sorts of questions. Why check that one not the other one you missed? Are you only getting it checked because players or the crowd caused a fuss? Can you just ignore the protocol when it feels right?

I don't have good answers because I can see World Rugby would probably say 'what's all the fuss about, the right decision was reached'. That's not outrageous but I think the delays and inconsistencies just leave people bored and frustrated. A good rugby game has a momentum to it. Between this issue and long advantages, there can be a lot of dead time.

[Mikey Brown]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

Whether Big Tom BIG TMO BOY The Main Event Foley were to be checking for a knock-on, it still has to be within 2 phases of a potential try being scored. It wasn’t.

And in a tight 1-point game, I find it hard to accept any argument that his interference did not have any impact on the outcome.

Cameo explained it better below, but I meant perhaps he was already checking the knock-on anyway. I don’t know what the strict rules are on refs prompting TMOs to check minor infringements/knock-ons, and how long they have to do that, but it seems to be creeping in to the game more and more.

If a try gets scored in that time you’re surely in to a weird grey area, where as you say they’re not wanting to have TMOs go back multiple phases on a try.

I can understand the appeal to check with the TMO as you go, given death threats now seem the norm for not being 100% correct all the time.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

Whether Big Tom BIG TMO BOY The Main Event Foley were to be checking for a knock-on, it still has to be within 2 phases of a potential try being scored. It wasn’t.

And in a tight 1-point game, I find it hard to accept any argument that his interference did not have any impact on the outcome.

Cameo explained it better below, but I meant perhaps he was already checking the knock-on anyway. I don’t know what the strict rules are on refs prompting TMOs to check minor infringements/knock-ons, and how long they have to do that, but it seems to be creeping in to the game more and more.

If a try gets scored in that time you’re surely in to a weird grey area, where as you say they’re not wanting to have TMOs go back multiple phases on a try.

I can understand the appeal to check with the TMO as you go, given death threats now seem the norm for not being 100% correct all the time.

In 5 years we might have AI picking up all errors and infringement in real time . . . in 10 years Skynet will take over

[Which Tyler]

That's where it's a bit of a mess. You sometimes hear refs asking the TMO to check little things like whether there was a little knock-on they missed, whether someone stepped in touch, or whether a kick was a 50-22. When it is done quickly and with the right result, it can seem an obvious common sense thing to do, but even then it leads to all sorts of questions. Why check that one not the other one you missed? Are you only getting it checked because players or the crowd caused a fuss? Can you just ignore the protocol when it feels right?

Bolded part is easy.
Ref/TJ isn't sure if was a knock-on, or a foot in touch, so is allowing play-on whilst the TMO checks on their behalf. Nothing to do with anything retrospective (might have something to do with a player's appeal - but the question is usually pretty-much instantaneous).
If that's the case, and there is cause for a stoppage, it happens once the ref has that information - however many phases back it is.

As for the last question - ref's word is final, so yes.

[oldbackrow]

[
In 5 years we might have AI picking up all errors and infringement in real time . . . in 10 years Skynet will take over

Or in 5 years time we might have no game because who would want to be a ref with all the criticism from every corner, coaches questioning your integrity and Unions blaming you for 'loss of revenue' when they don't win the RWC, even though youre just doing your best. Add in the sacrifices they make and the family make, plus the death threats no one might think its worth the money they get.

[Numbers]

That's where it's a bit of a mess. You sometimes hear refs asking the TMO to check little things like whether there was a little knock-on they missed, whether someone stepped in touch, or whether a kick was a 50-22. When it is done quickly and with the right result, it can seem an obvious common sense thing to do, but even then it leads to all sorts of questions. Why check that one not the other one you missed? Are you only getting it checked because players or the crowd caused a fuss? Can you just ignore the protocol when it feels right?

Bolded part is easy.
Ref/TJ isn't sure if was a knock-on, or a foot in touch, so is allowing play-on whilst the TMO checks on their behalf. Nothing to do with anything retrospective (might have something to do with a player's appeal - but the question is usually pretty-much instantaneous).
If that's the case, and there is cause for a stoppage, it happens once the ref has that information - however many phases back it is.

As for the last question - ref's word is final, so yes.

To my mind Barnes checked with Dickson who said there was no knock-on, you see Barnes looking at him before saying play on, There's no reasonable reason to allow them to go back for a knock-on several phases of play previously, if there's foul play then maybe that should be different, Dickson is not only a shit referee but also a shit referees assistant when he should have been able to pick that up in real time as 95% of the viewers did.

[Puja]

I don't like that we've stopped assuming the refs are human and that things will be missed. Wayne Barnes has apparently received death threats this RWC, he's previously been the subject of one of Rassie's helpful Twitter rants (which is an gilded invitation for the Bok fans to leap in with both feet), his wife hates him refereeing (more accurately the abuse that he gets), and he's a partner in a law firm which would be willing to have him full-time, any time. Now that he's achieved being a RWC final ref (possibly the only Englishman cheering for South Africa in the semi-finals), I wouldn't be surprised if he packed it in, reducing the quality of refs available in the international game significantly, just because fans are being whining dickbags.

That's how we get Karl Dickson refereeing big games people. No-one wants that to happen.

And there it is: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/67297884

Crying shame for the game as a whole to have the best referee driven away.

Puja

[morepork]

That sucks.

Time for an AI ref. Not.

You have to wonder if world rugby are up to this. An out of touch sausage fest doesn't exactly scream innovation and empiricism.

[Spiffy]

Has there been any suggestion of when the TMO started looking at it?

I know you don't want people going back multiple phases once a try is scored, but I don't know if the TMO was already checking the footage when Barnes initially called "no knock-on", because it did look like one.

The Frizzell one is weird. It's perhaps hard to separate from disliking the guy but looked incredibly reckless to me. People called for a life-time ban for Swain's "clearout" on Tupea, but judging intent in an awkward collision like that is tricky.

Whether Big Tom BIG TMO BOY The Main Event Foley were to be checking for a knock-on, it still has to be within 2 phases of a potential try being scored. It wasn’t.

And in a tight 1-point game, I find it hard to accept any argument that his interference did not have any impact on the outcome.

Are you saying that you agree it was a knock on but that it was spotted too late and so the try should have stood? That may be within the letter of the law but would be a very unsatisfactory and controversial way to win a RWC. You win some and lose some calls and just have to accept it. That is the nature of the game. I was quite disappointed when NZ just pipped Ireland and Ardie Savea was not checked for a forward pass, but I'm well over it and could not give a flying fuuuck by now.