The final

[J Dory]

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

[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.

[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.

[16th man]

Another angle of the leg drop yellow, which suggests he was very lucky not to get a red.

Looks very much a clearly targeted attempt to put the hooker out of the game.

https://www.reddit.com/r/springboks/s/VtM7Ast8aj

[Puja]

Another angle of the leg drop yellow, which suggests he was very lucky not to get a red.

Looks very much a clearly targeted attempt to put the hooker out of the game.

https://www.reddit.com/r/springboks/s/VtM7Ast8aj

Eesh. I wasn't convinced it was a card on the other angles, but that does not look good at all.

Puja

[morepork]

That is legit stupid, nasty even.

[canta_brian]

Another angle of the leg drop yellow, which suggests he was very lucky not to get a red.

Looks very much a clearly targeted attempt to put the hooker out of the game.

https://www.reddit.com/r/springboks/s/VtM7Ast8aj

I thought the yellow was for a neck roll. Pretty sure that’s what the TMO called it back for.

What was the mitigation that allowed Kolisi to come back? Oh yeah, the presence of another player as part of the tackle. The valgus force to the knee comes as the 2nd Springbok joins the tackle.

Also, the idea behind 8 bench players was to make sure all the front row positions were covered. SA fucked with that protocol to allow a wholesale swap of an entire forward pack to allow them to play the worst brand of rugby possible to win the cup. That they still didn’t have a 2nd hooker on the bench isn’t anyone else’s fault.

[canta_brian]

This is fair I think

[Mikey Brown]

I don’t know why this thread is providing me with so much entertainment.

[Mikey Brown]

Get a grip. What do you think this place is?

[Spiffy]

Get a grip. What do you think this place is?

How do your contributions actually add to or enhance the discussion?

To be fair to Mikey Brown (and others), it's not really much of a discussion. Mainly just variations on the "we wuz robbed" theme. I do understand that die hard NZ fans are disappointed that they lost, but they should also realize that the rest of the world doesn't have the same vested interest, and does not care all that much. Public opinion seems to accept that the game was fairly reffed overall, and that SA nicked a very tight game that could have gone either way.
NZ are a great team that just got pipped on the day.

[Mikey Brown]

Get a grip. What do you think this place is?

How do your contributions actually add to or enhance the discussion?

I could have sworn we were having a conversation about whether the TMO was prompted to intervene at the knock-on like a half a page up from here, before I dared to say that I’d found this thread entertaining.

I don’t know why you’ve got your panties in an uproar.

[J Dory]

Get a grip. What do you think this place is?

How do your contributions actually add to or enhance the discussion?

To be fair to Mikey Brown (and others), it's not really much of a discussion. Mainly just variations on the "we wuz robbed" theme. I do understand that die hard NZ fans are disappointed that they lost, but they should also realize that the rest of the world doesn't have the same vested interest, and does not care all that much. Public opinion seems to accept that the game was fairly reffed overall, and that SA nicked a very tight game that could have gone either way.
NZ are a great team that just got pipped on the day.

Biased prick.

[J Dory]

Fuel for the fire, Cane cited.

[Spiffy]

How do your contributions actually add to or enhance the discussion?

To be fair to Mikey Brown (and others), it's not really much of a discussion. Mainly just variations on the "we wuz robbed" theme. I do understand that die hard NZ fans are disappointed that they lost, but they should also realize that the rest of the world doesn't have the same vested interest, and does not care all that much. Public opinion seems to accept that the game was fairly reffed overall, and that SA nicked a very tight game that could have gone either way.
NZ are a great team that just got pipped on the day.

Biased prick.

Well - you got one of them right