Jerome Garces

First topic message reminder :

Regardless of any result he's been involved in, I do not see the rationale in appointing this guy to lead the final.

He regularly refs one team out of the game, and can be random about breakdown and set piece decisions...

My favourite would've been Barnes, up there with the very best imo, however we know why that can't happen, however before Garces I'd have preferred...

Poite
Owens
Peyper
Or Gardner.

Hell, I've been very impressed with Berry in this tournament!

What do we think?

Guiding principles
• The TMO is a tool to help referees and assistant referees. The referee should not be
subservient to the system. The referee is responsible for managing the TMO process
• The referee is the decision-­­maker and must remain in charge of the game
• Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality
• The application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent, protecting the image
of the game.

First bold broken because the referee isn't making any decisions, just waiting for the TMO to. Didn't spot the offense.
Second broken because it required multiple slow motion replays.
Third broken because it's not consistent and wouldn't have been picked up anywhere else.

Scottrf wrote:"Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality"

If it requires multiple slow motion replays, surely this requirement isn't met?

It took me multiple replays, but it might just be they know the rules and make the judgement quicker and better than me.

We could have VAR instead.

Scottrf wrote:"Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality"

If it requires multiple slow motion replays, surely this requirement isn't met?

Why?

miaow wrote:

Scottrf wrote:"Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality"

If it requires multiple slow motion replays, surely this requirement isn't met?

Why?

If it's clear and obvious it's easy to see. Although I thought that point was clear and obvious.

What does that mean? Easy to see?

miaow wrote:What does that mean? Easy to see?

NUUURSE

Just trying to make sense of what you're suggesting. Getting rid of slow motion in replays? Yeah?

miaow wrote:

Scottrf wrote:"Any relevant information taken into consideration must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS and in the
context of materiality"

If it requires multiple slow motion replays, surely this requirement isn't met?

Why?

Surely it is the slow motion replays that make it clear and obvious. Clear and obvious is personal and subjective anyway. Now I have seen it, it looks clear and obvious to me each time I watch it. At the time it didn't

miaow wrote:Just trying to make sense of what you're suggesting. Getting rid of slow motion in replays? Yeah?

Checking for specific offenses only would be a decent start. That or ref the rest of the game, including forward passes, crooked feeds/lineouts, off feet at rucks, high tackles etc.

Which specific offences? Isn't that what they already do?

Are we also now talking about the TMO used for foul play, or in the act of scoring?

The TMOs inconsistency and over usage (just like VAR) is not making sport better.

I am not going to get into the argument as to if it should have been allowed or not, but if it has to be "clear and obvious", they should be able to pick it up in the first replay at worst the second. Anything that requires more than that is clearly not "clear and obvious" by definition and should stand.

It's like the refs asking "is there any reason why I cannot award the try", it's a cop out, ask "check if it was grounded" or "did the ball go forward?". Not did I miss something?

That's totally crazy. So first 2 replays the foot isn't clearly in touch, so try is awarded...then 15 seconds later we get a slow motion on a third angle where the foot is in touch...but, oh well, no try, too late. You obviously take each decision as it comes - clear and obvious is a hangover from the amateur days. People get too hung up on it. How about 'fair and accurate' and use the tools we have to meet that?

Far too much reactionary backlash against referees an TMOs and the laws itself going on. As I said, if there is a decision in the final this weekend where England get screwed over and the TMO isn't used to check/pull it back, you'll all be livid - and rightly so.

TH, instead of perptual outrage, suggest a better protocol.

We're yet to hear one.

People get hung up on it because that is what the laws say.

There is no problem with the Laws, it is the way they are used, as I said if it takes more than two replays, it isn't clear and obvious and the refs decision should stand. It's simple really, its us human beings that mess it up.

Its consistency of approach and consistency in understanding of what the laws mean by clear and obvious. To me they should be favouring the attacking team if it's a close decision.

Owens is apparently injured, so whoever suggested Garces was last man standing may be correct

LondonTiger wrote:Owens is apparently injured, so whoever suggested Garces was last man standing may be correct

He's probably jet lagged from all those Emirates flights he takes in the ad breaks

LondonTiger wrote:Owens is apparently injured, so whoever suggested Garces was last man standing may be correct

That might be mental health/stress related as well. Big pressure on the final, and the way we talk about referees etc. - he's been very open how the last RWC impacted on him. Puts things in perspective how we, as fans on the sidelines, speak about referees and the impact we can have.

Right. I found the clip and I've taken some screen shots.

Here's where we start. I've labelled some body parts for clarity:

Points to note:
1) The lower hand is definitely George's - look at the thumb
2) Equally, the top hand on the ball is definitely a New Zealander's - I think that's Retallick - because you can see the continuity to his upper arm, and you can also see that George's left arm is up and bound because you can see his armpit.
3) No-one else apart from Vunipola is anywhere near the ball.  


Here's where the ball is dropped. Retallick's definitely had an influence. But the key thing is that the only hand on the ball at this point is George's - you can just see the edges of his fingertips underneath the ball


And here's the crucial shot:
1) George's hand is the only one on the ball
2) Vunipola is clutching at air - and if you follow the clip through, he waves his arm around the ball but doesn't actually change its path at all. He doesn't make clear and obvious (or fair and accurate) contact until after George has regathered
3) George regathers the ball by using someone's leg. But it's his own leg. He can't - by definition - be in front of himself, and in any case the ball moves backwards.

My view on Jonker's interventions is that:
a) Underhill 1 was arguably a correct decision but was not clear enough to overturn the on field decision, especially if you draw the offside line correctly from Ford. Should have been a try
b) Underhill 2 was correct. Retallick bit in on Curry more than either Curry or Sinckler was expecting, and Sinckler naturally responded by trying to use the gap, but it was definitely an obstruction
c) Youngs was an incorrect decision, and I think this sequence makes it clear.

Garces isn’t good. If I could describe him it would be as Craig Joubert Mark II. Ruined the final.