tonights 3rd try!

[cedric rainwater]

the tmo would have quickly solved the dispute but i wonder if the ref is allowed to use him for this case? (al la forward passes)
more questions, should the replay be shown to the stadium? imagine if this was a tight game in a vital match.
i am against any further influence (and flatulence) caused by replays (tmo or otherwise) or we might end up with things like a micro-chip in the ball that senses any forward movement and "pings" loudly like wimbledon.
what about combining the ball chip with boot sensors that detect offside players.
offending players would be immediately 'frozen' by a small but effective electric shock that disabled movement for 30 secs.
or 'smart' boots that would automatically march the offside player backwards 10 metres.
the smart boots, after 3 offences, would automatically march the offending player to the sin-bin for 10 minutes.
any backchat to the boots would be met by large shocks applied to alternate soles, resulting in the player 'dancing' to the sin-bin.

[tragic]

Hmmm... so what would happen to the ref, cedric?

[Burgs]

They would have the "freezer chips" attached to their balls...

Just to clear up, Kaplan couldn't go to the TMO on the lineout as the TMO only has jurisdiction within the in goal area (ie behind the try line)

Sometimes when the suspected infringement is near the try line they will get around it by asking "Is there any reason I can't award the try?", which is kind of what happened against the Crusaders with Sare's try.

Incidents like this provide a reasonable case to use the league system which allows the TMO to review the phases since the previous tackle inside the field of play.

Even if each Captain had one call per match to ask for a revue, it could be vital for the end result in a season as has been seen by the Blues gaining the bonus point last night.

[cedric rainwater]

the ref would obviously have to wear 'smart' boots as well!
the only difference being that the ref's boots would be able to administer a much higher voltage.
the voltage would depend on the extent of his stuff-up.
i'm thinking in the range of 500-1,000,000 volts for last nights ref.
the voltage would be determined by a 'vote'.
every seat (apart from the private boxes, whose inhabitants are too pissed to make serious judgements) will have a small keypad and the crowd will vote on a scale of 1-100.
this percentage would be converted to the appropiate voltage applied to the ref.
can't get fairer than that!!

[Burgs]

I'm tipping the print would rub off the 100 key

[jargan83]

Pretty disgraceful for elite level sport to miss something so basic ( reminds me of the cricket world cup final last ie a simple rule could be overlooked) to let the actual quick throw (not blaming the ball boy) for being allowed, surely the officials wouldve seen the original ball bouncing on the other side of the sponsors signs on that side of the ground. Not that it changed the outcome of the game, but could affect the actual final standings and finals positions due to the bonus point the blues got. "Giteauisgonnascore20" hit the nail on the head wen he said it was a very 2006- esque performace, dropped ball, missed tackles etc

[no.8]

No 8 - nice to meet you last night but I'm afraid you're a little off-whack with your comments....

1. The ball boy did nothing wrong.
2. The touch judge was a muppet as he should've seen that the ball used for the quick lineout was a] not the ball that was kicked out and b] had been touched by somebody else (the ball boy).
3. If there's any doubt, Kaplan could've (should've) gone to the TMO.

Also, the quick lineout was taken about 5m further up the field (ie nearer the try line) than where the ball went out of play.

Burgs - great comment......always play the whistle and don't assume that the officials will make the correct call!

Jedi the pleasure was all mine.

You don't stop until the whistle is blown.
Irrespective of whether the ball was thrown in the wrong place by the wrong person and watched by the wrong linesman - the Western Force guys stopped!
This something that will eventually become second nature to the guys - JM will make sure of that over the next 4 years!

[Sagerian]

shame on the ref for awarding the try, also what was the ball boy thinking, throw the towel at him first then the ball, this free try which led on to a bonus point could have massive implications on the final table, at least sharpie had a go at the ref about the ball that was in play!

If you're out there and you're some 13-14 year old kid and some all black is yelling at you for the ball... you'd give them the ball. The person you didn't blame that you really should is the touch judge, it's his job.

In addition, it's my knowledge of the rules that essentially, if the ball boy is involved at any point, you can't take a quick lineout. The player needs to track down the same ball and throw it in, so also shame on the ref in that case.

Also, as no8 pointed out, the players should have at least been turned around with their heads up. You only get 80 minutes, be switched on for all of it..

[Darren]

From: Planet Rugby

That quick throw-in in law
Friday 04th May 2007
In assessing the referee and the touch judges the assessor will note significant events. There was one when the Force played the Blues at Subiaco Oval on Friday evening.

There are two kinds of significant event - one that affects the score and one that affects the outcome of a match. Ten marks are allotted to a significant event . For a mistake that affects the score the referee or touch judge could lose five marks. For one which affects the outcome of the match he could lose ten marks.

There is no provision made for one which affects a competition.

The one in Perth affected the score but it did not affect the result of the match for the Blues were well on the way to victory but it did help the Blues to get a bonus point and so affected the competition.

It is not a unique event in its kind. But let's look at it first.

Luke McAlister prods a kick downfield to his right towards Digby Ioane. The Force left wing fails to control the ball but knocks it backwards into his in-goal. Her is not under pressure, fetches the ball, runs it out of his in-goal and kicks for touch.

Subiaco Oval is an oval. The rugby rectangle fits into the oval but leaves a fairly large area on each side . That large area has advertising hoardings and so on.

Ioane's kick is not a great one but it goes into touch and over the advertising hoardings into the broad curve of the oval.

As the ball goes bouncing off outside the field of play, Ali Williams of the Blues approaches the ballboy who has a spare ball and the ballboy flips the spare ball to him. He then runs down towards where the touch judge is standing, flag aloft, arm pointing to the Blues whose throw-in it is going to be. Williams throw in quickly to Keven Mealamu who races down the touch-line and dives over into in-goal.

The try is awarded.

Nathan Sharpe, the Force captain, remonstrates with the referee who says to him: "The touch judge is happy that it was the correct ball. I can't overrule if I haven't seen it."

Let's look at what the law says before we rake up a dead cow.

Law 19.2 QUICK THROW-IN

(a) A player may take a quick throw-in without waiting for a line-out to form.

(b) For a quick throw-in, the player may be anywhere outside the field of play between the place where the ball went into touch and the player's goal-line.

(c) A player must not take a quick throw-in after the line-out has formed. If the player does, the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

(d) For a quick throw-in, the player must use the ball that went into touch. If, after it went to touch and was made dead, another ball is used, or if another person has touched the ball apart from the player throwing it in, then the quick throw-in is disallowed. The same team throws in at the line-out.

There are some other provisos which are irrelevant in this case because, while (a), (b) and (c) were all right, (d) was certainly not. It was not the same ball. That makes the ballboy's handling irrelevant as well. It was not the same ball. A quick throw-in could not be taken.

When Williams threw in the touch judge lowered his flag and ran after Mealamu. This is significant.

Law 6.B.5 TOUCH JUDGE SIGNALS

(d) When to lower the flag. When the ball is thrown in, the touch judge must lower the flag, with the following exceptions:

Exception 1: When the player throwing in puts any part of either foot in the field-of-play, the touch judge keeps the flag up.
Exception 2: When the team not entitled to throw-in has done so, the touch judge keeps the flag up.
Exception 3: When, at a quick throw-in, the ball that went into touch is replaced by another ball, or after it went into or it has been touched by anyone except the player who takes the throw-in, the touch judge keeps the flag up.

Exception 1 is all right, exception 2 is all right but exception 3 is not all right.

The touch judge should have kept his flag up to indicate that the wrong ball had been used.

This is one of a touch judge's primary functions - unlike pointing out off-side and forward pass. It is a primary function.

Could the referee have overruled?

Yes.

Law 6.5.B.3 CONTROL OF TOUCH JUDGES

The referee has control over both touch judges. The referee may tell them what their duties are, and may overrule their decisions. If a touch judge is unsatisfactory the referee may ask that the touch judge be replaced. If the referee believes a touch judge is guilty of misconduct, the referee has power to send the touch judge off and make a report to the match organiser.

But to overrule the referee would have had to have seen the error. According to what he said to Sharpe, he had not seen it.

What happened was wrong and will become a cause célèbre - an exam question for referees and touch judges and an instructive illustration for years to come - apart from being a source of embarrassment.

In 1981 France went to Twickenham for the final match of the Six Nations. If England had won they would have shared the championship with France. In that sense it was a decider. France played with the gale in the first half. France led 3-0 when Marcus Rose kicked a clearance into touch, "high into the old West Stand it probably landed in the Royal Box," according to the England captain Billy Beaumont. Indeed the ball was nestling in the lap of Mickey Steele-Bodger when Pierre Berbizier took a quick throw-in and Jean-Pierre Rives sent Pierre Lacans over for a try, which the referee awarded.

Billy Beaumont, now the vice-chairman of the International Rugby Board, recalls in his autobiography: "My dear friend on the International Board, Allan Hosie, was the referee at the time and I made a couple of comments at the time to him about him missing the fact that the French had used a different ball, but in truth they deserved to win
that day."

The Blues deserved to win on Friday night as well.

By the way in 1981 Law 23.B.10 read: A quick throw-in from touch without waiting for players to form a line-out is permissible provided the ball that went into touch is used, it has been handled only by the players and it is thrown in correctly.

It's been around for a while.

[Prop Star]

Its a shame that the last game of the 2007 season should be remembered for the farce surrounding the third try, and not for the papal-esque send off given to Canno at half time....

Top moment for the big man, I'm sure he wont soon forget it, given that he became a father again earlier in the day. Also, nice to see that Canno's Force credentials remained intact, I'm told he split his pants at the end when bending over to put his son down.

Top comedy moment and befitting the Force's perfomance last night, nice to see Digby unlearning everything before he goes home.

[stejwill]

Another issue was Digby turning his back on play after he had stuffed up seconds before. He left the line wide open. A bit like Gits quick tap penalty, then try, last year against Wales.

[Sagerian]

Or like Sam Norton-Knight this year.. Oh, wait a minute.......

[jazza93]

cant beleive it they should have seen that if i did from 100m away surely they saw it from a few metres. cant really blame the ref but the linesman needs to wake up it is mainly his fault.

[Em-Forcer]

The only good that might come out of this incident is that Kaplan should now not worry about booking a ticket to Europe in September!!!! He's a muppet and should never be allowed near a rugby pitch with a whistle in his mouth again!!!

Kaplan... Kaplan... seems familiar...!!! I'm pretty sure he's stuffed up before, when reffing in northern hemisphere. Can't remember the details, just a general impression of groaning if his name's on the sheet.
Mind you, sounds like this fiasco sits squarely on the TJs shoulders...

[tragic]

Kaplan is pretty much disliked most places he goes. I'm told he's not loved in NZ. The Irish are fond of him after he put in a stirling effort for them against England (so, he can't be all that bad, then? )