Three decisions and a livid coach

Dublin and the TMO

After Ireland had beaten England 19-13, Andy Robinson, the England coach, declared himself 'livid' because of two refereeing decisions and the use of technology. We shall look briefly at the two decisions and at a third.

The Dublin decisions have provoked much response. English supporters are generally angry, Irish supporters dismissive of the anger.

Much of the criticism may have resulted from a commentator's comments. In this case the commentator is a former England player. Interestingly the assistant commentator in the Scotland-Italy match, a former Scotland player, made no pretence of being unbiased. He simply referred to Scotland as "We". Presumably one can assume a measure of bias from some commentators!

We shall look at the incidents.

We shall look at the IRB's protocol for the use of the television match official.

We shall also look at the coach and public statements in relation to this incident and two other incidents.

Later we shall give the stats from the Six Nations matches and the Super 12 matches and have some law discussion from each. There is so much to talk about.

Let's look at the incidents in order.

1. Corry's try

Harry Ellis and Josh Lewsey go cleverly down the blind. Lewsey tackled, England play to Lewis Moody who charges. Moody tackled, England free up the ball. Martin Corry picks up the ball and bolts 35 metres to score a try.

Commentator: "There may have been an 'American-football type' block there."

He is referring to Danny Grewcock's action against Ronan O'Gara. O'Gara ended on his back held by Grewcock, thus creating a gap for Corry.

When Grewcock drove into O'Gara, the Irish fly-half was close to play, close enough to have his hand on Moody's back. O'Gara was certainly a candidate for being cleaned out. That, presumably, is what Grewcock did. Grewcock may have gone on a bit by slipping down and toppling O'Gara as in a tackle.

2. Cueto's 'try'

The referee is playing advantage to England. England get the ball back from a tackle about 14 metres in from touch. Charlie Hodgson kicks a high diagonal kick to his right. Mark Cueto speeds down the tramlines and grabs the bouncing ball about three metres from touch and goes over.

The referee rules that Cueto was ahead of Hodgson when he kicked, that is off-side, and goes back to the original infringement - a knock-on by Ireland and a scrum to England.

3. Lewsey's 'try'

Ireland lead 19-13 with about six minutes left.

England turn a penalty into a five-metre line-out on their left. Steve Thompson throws to Danny Grewcock at No.2. Grewcock catches and a maul forms. England split the maul in two. One part goes infield with the ball and then shifts left towards the goal-line. Josh Lewsey, the England wing, comes into the split part of the maul. He wins possession of the ball.

This part of the maul surges over the England line and then is pushed back. When the ball is next visible to the television viewer, the ball is on the field side of the Irish line - that is in the field of play.

The referee rules that when the ball ended in an unplayable heap, the ball was in-field, that is on the England side of the Irish goal-line and in a collapsed maul. Because it was a maul that had ended unsuccessfully, the ball in the scrum would go to the team that had not had possession at the start of the maul, that is Ireland.

Law 17.6 UNSUCCESSFUL END TO A MAUL

(b) A maul ends unsuccessfully if the ball becomes unplayable or collapses (not as a result of foul play) and a scrum is ordered.

(c) Scrum following maul. The ball is thrown in by the team not in possession when the maul began. If the referee cannot decide which team had possession, the team moving forward before the maul stopped throws in the ball. If neither team was moving forward, the attacking team throws in the ball.

Commentator: "He's not even going to have a look - he can't tell from there. He just can't tell from there. He's not even going to have a look at that. He's wrong."

Commentator later: "I'm still concerned about him not even bothering to review the England grounding or not grounding or whatever over the line. Just to make a decision like that I think is wrong at that stage of the game with the score close as it is."

4. Robinson's say

Andy Robinson had his say: "I'm absolutely spitting. I'm livid. There's two tries we've been cost.

"I think Mark Cueto scored a perfectly legal try - and I think he should have gone to the video referee on Josh Lewsey.

"It is how we use the technology. It is there, and it should be used. I am still trying to work out the Cueto try. I have looked at both, and they both looked tries.

"We are very disappointed, and this will hurt, there is no doubt about that.

"We are upset now, but the referee is in charge and he has called in his way and we have got to be able to cope with that."

5. TMO protocol

The IRB has a protocol - what to consult the television match official about and how to do it. This is what it says:

2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION

2.1 The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

- grounding of the ball for try and touch down
- Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:

* Try
* No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
* Touch down by a defender
* In touch line-out
* Touch-in-goal
* Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
* Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
* Dropped goal.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise (save for the exception outlined above with regard to a SANZAR dispensation).

The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (3).

6. Comment

a. Corry's try

A case can easily be made for a clean-out - if clean-outs are to be a part of rugby. O'Gara was close enough to the action and looked to be taking part or about to take part in the action. That he was eligible for a clean-out was a matter for a referee's judgement. It just shows how knife-edge such judgement can be - the difference between seven points to England and a penalty to Ireland.

It is a decision that could be debated but the balance of correctly seems tipped in the referee's favour.

This is obviously, in terms of the protocol, not a decision which could be referred to the television match official.

b. Cueto's off-side

At half time Andy Robinson hurried to the referee and asked whose decision it was to blow up Cueto.

The referee said it was his decision.

Robinson then told him that the decision was wrong.

Viewing it on BBC television is at best inconclusive. Hodgson was about 20 metres in from the left touch-line when he kicked, Cueto about three metres in from the right touch-line when he ran. If the ground was 70 metres in width, which it is supposed to be. There were 47 metres between where Hodgson kicked and Cueto ran.

The referee was not in the greatest position to judge. He was ahead of Hodgson so that you had a right-angled triangle with an upright of about five metres and a base of 47 metres.

Presumably Andy Robinson would have been sitting on the half-way line. Hodgson was about two metres outside the Irish 22 when he kicked. That would not have given Robinson a good angle to judge whether or not Cueto was on-side when Hodgson kicked. His position was certainly worse than the referee's. He was further back from the incident and further away from Hodgson.

There may be a view, from a camera in the sky, that can show, with lines drawn parallel to goal lines, where Cueto was when Hodgson kicked.

That may well prove that the referee was wrong. It may also prove that the referee was right!

This is obviously, in terms of the protocol, not a decision which could be referred to the television match official.

c. Lewsey in the maul

It is desperately hard to judge from the television, but repeated replays suggest that the ball is not grounded on or over the Irish line and that it is pushed back into the field of play by the Irish, particularly, the efforts of Johnny O'Connor.

The television also shows a referee in an excellent position.

When the commentator says: "He can't tell from there", he probably means that he, the commentator, cannot call from there. The referee may well have been able to see clearly and tell with complete confidence.

Protocol: The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication.

That is what the referee did. He made an adjudication.

He had no doubt that the ball was not grounded over the line. There was no grounding over the line to consult the TMO about.

From watching the incident on BBC television, over and over, there is no evidence to suggest that the referee was wrong.

That may well mean the referee was right!

There is no suggestion that the TMO would have had a better view than the referee. The referee, bending down and peering from close quarters, must have had a far better view than an inflexible camera.

That may be that the commentator and the coach were wrong.

It is at least reckless to sound off in the heat of battle, for those listening in the heat of emotion may also rush to unfair judgement.

7. The coach's say

After the World Cup final, Clive Woodward, the England coach, had critical things to say in public about the referee. Eventually the IRB wrote to the RFU and asked them to tell their coach to tone it down. Apparently that happened.

After Scotland lost to France this year, Matt Williams, the Scottish coach, had critical things to say in public about the referee and the touch judge. Eventually the Scottish Rugby Union apparently wrote to the Irish Rugby Football Union and apologised.

After Northampton Saints lost to Saracens, Budge Pountney, the Saints' coach, had critical things to say in public about the referee. Pountney afterwards admitted his wrong and apologised. He was brought before an RFU disciplinary committee, fined £2,000 and suspended from match-day coaching for six weeks. The decision was made public.

Now Andy Robinson, the England coach, has had critical thing to say in public about the referee. It will be interesting to see what happens.

In all four cases the critical statements were made in public. In the case of Woodward and Williams, the apologies were, apparently, made in private. In the case of Pountney he made his own apology and his apology was made known to the public. If Woodward and Williams were taken to task, such action was not made public. In Pountney's case it was made public.

The IRB is the body concerned with the three international coaches - Woodward, Williams and Robinson. The referees in those matches are appointed by the IRB and wear their colours. Pountney was a different matter. The referee then was an RFU appointment.

The IRB has a code of conduct. Here are some excerpts:

20.1 All Unions, Associations, Rugby Bodies, Clubs and Persons:

20.1.4 shall accept and observe the authority and decisions of referees, touch judges, Match Officials and all other rugby disciplinary bodies, subject to Regulation 17

20.1.5 shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which a referee or touch judge handled a Match

The IRB has definitions:

Person means a Player, trainer, referee, touch judge, coach, selector, medical officer, physiotherapist or any other individual who is or has been at any time involved in the Game, or in the organisation, administration or promotion of the Game.

The matter of public criticism of match officials is a worry in all games. The soul of a game, the inner distinctive beauty of the game, its constitution if you like, is in its laws. The laws in action are the match officials. For all sorts of reasons, from philosophical to physical, the match officials are protected against dissent and public criticism by those officially involved in the game.

Teams do have the means of commenting on referees as they are required to fill in an assessment form after each match. The IRB also has an assessor at each match.

The assessor appointed by the IRB for the England-Ireland match was an experienced IRB assessor - Michel Lamoulie of France.

One should be able to presume that the greater publicity given to the public criticism of match officials by coaches in international matches is not less damaging than the public criticism of match officials by coaches in club matches.