Six Nations: Referee Romain Poite apologises to Scots over try error
Romain Poite disallowed Stuart Hogg's would-be try. Picture Jane Barlow
IT HAS emerged that French referee Romain Poite apologised to Scotland players for mistakenly disallowing a ‘try’ by Stuart Hogg in Sunday’s RBS Six Nations Championship match in Wales.
The admission has heightened the controversy about the role of Television Match Officials (TMOs) in Test matches, and is expected to lead to calls for the permissible functions of TMOs to be extended.
Scotland, who lost the match at the Millennium Stadium 27-13, had an overlap on the right when Hogh had to dive to catch a low pass. He clutched the ball, got back to his feet, dived over the line and touched down – but was denied the score as Poite ruled he had knocked on.
The matter was not clear to the naked eye, but TV replays showed that Hogg had succeeded in keeping the ball off the ground and in his control at all times, which meant that the score should have stood. But Poite did not allow himself the luxury of TV replays, instead declaring it was no score without recourse to the TMO.
It was the second time in as many matches that Scotland had been denied what they saw as a good try, but the difference was that on the previous occasion the referee had taken the time to send the evidence upstairs to the TV booth. That was against England, when Greig Laidlaw dived over the line and appeared to touch the ball down.
In that case, replays were inconclusive, and the referee was within his rights to rule no try. But on Sunday, there was no such uncertainty: the slow-motion pictures showed that Hogg had succeeded in clutching the ball to his body, and keeping it off the ground and under control until he had touched it down.
There is already ambiguity about the role of TMOs in internationals. They are supposed to come into play when there is any doubt about the validity of a score, but officials can differ in their interpretation of how far back in a move they can go to review the evidence.
Sometimes referees ask precise questions of the TMO, for example whether the ball was legitimately touched down. Sometimes, they pass the buck with a more vague question such as “Is there any reason why I cannot award a score?” That leaves the TMO to decide not only on the legitimacy of the act of scoring itself – was the ball touched down correctly, was the player in touch, and so on – but possibly in other incidents which allowed the score.
Other than a desire to get on with the match, there was no reason why Poite should not have referred the Hogg touchdown to his TMO. It was a straightforward matter, with no extraneous issues, merely the question as to whether Hogg had knocked on just prior to touching down. If he had been in any doubt, Poite should have sent the incident upstairs – why have a TMO otherwise? If he was not in any doubt, Poite should perhaps reassess his ability to referee. The ruling was all the harder for the Scots to take as an apparent Welsh knock-on had gone unpunished right before Nick de Luca was sinbinned. Had Poite blown for that first offence, the professional foul would not have taken place.
Scotland’s next Six Nations match is on Sunday week, against France at Murrayfield. English referee Wayne Barnes will officiate.
Email to a friend
Print this page- Scottish independence: I don’t want ‘separatism’ says Sir Tom Farmer
- Craig Levein insists Scotland will recover from US thrashing
- USA 5 - 1 Scotland: Donovan grabs hattrick as Scots routed in Florida
- Rangers administration: End game nears for fallen icon
- Rangers administration: Duff & Phelps ‘hopeful’ that Taxman will agree to CVA
- Scottish independence: I don’t want ‘separatism’ says Sir Tom Farmer
- Scottish independence: Labour voters ‘will deliver independence’
- Rangers administration: End game nears for fallen icon
- Leaders: Blurred vision on independence
- Rangers administration: Duff & Phelps ‘hopeful’ that Taxman will agree to CVA
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 42 comments to this article
Page 1 of 3
Balders
Monday, February 20, 2012 at 10:56 AMThree cheers for #19 George as you are absolutely spot on as watching rugby now is like watching a poor mans rugby league. Our backs are in the rucks and mauls and our attacking line is often scrum half to second row to prop etc but without the speed and mobility of league players. We must bring back the traditional aspects of the game where both sides must compete for the ball at the breakdown and not as in most cases assume the opposition have the ball and the most important bit is getting the defensive wall in place regardless of what position you are. Then what happens we create little pods that trundle up a metre or two or in Scotlands case lose 5 metres and we have "kicking duels" Its a nonsense they are even making names up to try and make kicking the ball aimlessly backwards and forwards until someone makes a mistake and I played SH all my life all this box kicking and SH running flat across the park is making me cry with frustration and I played at the top level in club rugby for a long time and played week in and week out against our internationalists and the IRB are killing the game. I watched Leeds vs some australian team in the world club game the other night and it was a breathe of fresh air fast and physical with a tremendous atmosphere and I now understand why a lot of people are turning to watch league as our current game apart from the odd game like Ireland Wales is like watching paint dry and Donald Marr did you ever play at a reasonable level as the game is supposed to be a physical challenge and not to be played in a kindergarden
braveheart64
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 11:08 PMjust a couple of questions - pls pardon my ignorance.A few people have mentioned the touch judge McDowall;what has he done to Scotland in the past?Secondly regarding the promotion already of several A team players this season.i have never seen Scott play - given the problems we have had in the centres this season do you see him getting capped before the end of this campaign and if so what would he bring to the party.??
daffy_b
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 09:20 PM#39 - thank you - yes I started playing at school in mid 70's. But to clarify my point (and hopefully in response to your original), as I said the ruck can be very difficult to police (under the current laws), and I for one would not be very happy going back to refereeing full-on rucking (where potentially anything goes) as there is always a possibility that "anything goes" could happen. Whilst the scrum in modern rugby has become a bit of the bane of the TV spectacle as it is constantly being re-set, from a refereeing perspective, although it is much more technical to referee and therefore more laws surrounding it, because it is more static I think can be easier to referee than the ruck, which by nature is much more dynamic with any number of bodies arriving and departing at speed (off and on their feet) with often massive impacts . I completely agree with your point about wanting more flowing rugby (like the old days), and I confess I don't have the solution - but I don't feel that reintroducing full-on rucking is it. I think the advent of rugby league defence coaches into union have stifled the natural flow that Union once had.
George_Haley
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:49 PM#37 – Daffy B – Again, I understand your position but the fact that the Ruck is difficult to ‘Police’ didn’t appear to be your original criticism of my suggestion, nor is it a reason to remove it from the game in my opinion. I wasn’t advocating its return so that I could enjoy watching miscreants on the wrong side of the Ruck being given a kicking. What I really want to see is a set of laws that gives a bit of space on the field and that isn’t the case at the moment. No requirement to commit forwards just means they string across the field, surely I am not the only one that wants to see a bit of open play? Judging by when you started playing I presume you started playing at School, even so if you are still running round with the whistle at a Senior level, well done.
theonepriority
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:28 PMOK...so the Ref apologised for the mistaken knock on. I would like him to apologise for constantly allowing Welsh hands in ruck ,allowing the Welsh to systematicaly lie all over the ball, allowing the Welsh to stand offside at every breakdown (sticking you hands in the air like a ballet dancing hippo doesnt put you back on side or stop you interfereing with play) allowing deliberate knocking the ball down and on when you cant make the tackle, and generaly cheating. Then I would hope that the Scots boys would shake his hand and accept his apology. Until then......I hope Mr Poite and co have several sleepless nights
daffy_b
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 06:06 PM#33 I agree with your points but as I said the ruck is a VERY difficult area to police correctly especially the higher up the levels you go as the players are much more adept at cheating the ref. Rucks at the lower levels are usually a mess due to poor player technique and fitness, and for a ref that also brings its own challenges to police correctly . I'm not sure on the litigation area being the reason for law changes that err on the side of safety, but perhaps there must be some rationale behind it, and perhaps that is why the IRB has introduced over the years the restrictive laws around the Scrum (e.g. CTPE, Spines in line, Shoulders above hips, shoulders and feet in line at engage, all players bound, stationery before engage...ad infinitum) and the laws defining legal and illegal tackles (spearscragtipstraight armhighshoulder charge etc) that in the mid 70s (when I started playing) were often deemed to be OK(ish), but now are illegal. That all being said, the Assistant Referees can also offer the referee assistance in all these situations during the match (it's then up to the ref to accept the help or ignore it), and I don't think I saw much instances of the ARs offering assistance to unraveling the shenanigans in the rucks on Sunday.
ATG73
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 05:45 PMOn a side issue, I wonder where Robbo will play Hogg against the French, at 15 or 13? I would probably choose him at 13 and play Ansbro at 12. Will never happen, but I think it would be the optimal combination of skill, pace and invention. Matt Scott would be the other option at 12, but I don't see him getting a chance.
La Barrière de Senlis
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 05:32 PM#On the brink You are absolutely right! I was screaming front of the TV on that one, after the Welsh back knock on, a yellow card (justified however). The knock on was deliberate, it should have been a penalty. Of course it has changed the game deeply! I think the assistant (touches) referees should be more involved in this kind of action, because it is so obvious that the main referee can't see everything, the game is too fast nowdays, quite easy front of the tv (with the replay).
Jambo 25
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:57 PM32 I din't say that Scotland players were angels. I thought a couple could well have been pinged for a variety of offences. So, incidentally, could a few Welsh players, usually for holding back or tackling off the ball. It's just that I'm getting rather sick of this hear no evil, see no evil attitude to referees. We've had shockingly bad officiating for the past few years in lots of matches, many not involving Scotland or Scottish teams. We saw Pearson and Barnes make a complete pig's ear of one a few weeks ago. We've seen cock-ups in the latter stages of RWC. We've seen muck-ups in the Heineken Cup etc etc. It's not entirely the fault of referees. Players are simply much quicker than they were and are coached how to cheat much more effectively. The IRB have been their own, the referees and the fans worst enemies by some astonishingly silly rule changes Let's try and simplify some of the rules and if necessary expand the role of the ARs, TMOs and possibly introduce specialist referees a la American Football to police the scrums. At present we have a very expensive product, at international level, which can be turned into a farce by poor refereeing.
George_Haley
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:48 PM#30 Daffy B - I understand the point you make about the foul play and the injury being inflicted but how can you suggest that reflects on you as the Referee if up to that point in time you have exercised your authority correctly? I also note your comment about litigation against a Referee, is that the real reason behind the Society insisting in safety first and foremost? But surely that is no reason to reject the idea of the reintroduction of the Ruck. What other aspect of the game do you [or the Society] consider isn’t risk related and a potential source of litigation? A player getting a serious neck injury in a tackle as a result of the opposition player jumping into him as was seen recently in an International? A front row player getting a neck or back injury after the scrum collapses after engagement that you have officiated? There are potentially many more dangerous aspects to the game than the reintroduction of the Ruck and whether it was brought back or not I would suggest makes the Referee no less protected against litigation than at present or for that matter in the past. You are no more responsible for a player on the wrong side of a Ruck than you are of any other area of play, foul or otherwise as I said providing you are officiating correctly.
salad cream or mayo?
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:13 PM31, you amy need to take off your blue tinted spetacles. Yes, the ref was very poor. But we were lucky in many ways - Ross Rennie at the breakdown, and Jacobsen and Hamilton shoulder charging at the ruck. All three couldshould have been sin binned. Poor reffing yes, but not biased.
Jambo 25
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 04:09 PMCan we start off by getting rid of the 'we were rubbish: so we've nothing to complain about.' line of argument. You shouldn't have to be world beaters to get competent refereeing. The fact was that there were a number of decisive decisions to be made in this match and Poite and McDowell made virtually every one in Wales' favour, normally incorrectly. It wasn't just the Hogg 'try' but the Jacobsen 'knock on' near the Welsh line which on closer inspection turns out to be Gethin Jenkins handling in the ruck. At least a penalty (possible penalty try) to Scotland and a yellow for Jenkins. The knock on prior to NDL's yellow may or may not have been a knock on but Wales got that decision as well. We then had Poite's total inability to understand that there is such a thing as off side despite Ford calling his attention to it on numerous occasions We then had his abrogation of any duty to police the break down. Both teams were handling in the ruck but certain Welsh forwards made a habit of 'diving in', off their feet, in a reckless manner to clear out Scottish players or slow down Scottish ball. This si dangerous and hould be penalised at every opportunity. As for the farce of the scrums. Why not do the following. 1) Engage the front rows. 2) Then bring the second and back rows and instruct the put in and push. It cannot be any worse than the farce we have at present.
daffy_b
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:56 PM#28 what about only discovering "the lout" after he has inflicted a serious injury on another player? It's a bit late (and meaningless) then to discipline him as the action has been done and soemone has been hurt. The reason I placed safely in upper case is this is a tenet that is now drummed in to refs from the outset - so has to be a primary concern for them. Yes I agree modern society has made us risk-averse, but better that than a serious injury and a subsequent law-suit against the ref (again modern society) for not "protecting" the players. I think this also is a reason a lot of refs blow straight away when a ruck occurs - better to have a scrum then risk the ref missing something happening and getting the blame later. Every time a player gets injured in a game (minor or not), I am sure most refs would think "could I have avoided that by doing something earlier?" - I know I do - and hopefuly it makes me a better ref next time out..
daffy_b
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:48 PM#27 fair point and agreed - if Poite blew whistle before Hogg touched down - then yes the TMO is out of the picture as the decision had already been taken. I only watched the game in "real time" (was too sickened to go back and re-watch it), so can't argue about when the whistle blew.
George_Haley
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 03:44 PM#23 Donald Marr, Well in my defence I didn’t say they should get a kicking and the game was played for many years with few problems although as I pointed out about Ralston it wasn’t a perfect situation. However the point you made about being on the wrong side of the Ruck in NZ in some respects makes my point. If it were re-introduced you wouldn’t have a situation that seems to be prevalent at the moment of an opposition player getting in the way of quick distribution of the ball. But come up with an idea that gets forwards involved again and stops them spreading across the field and closes the game down. Whether or not my idea was stupid or ludicrous as suggested, at least it was a suggestion, what’s yours? #24 Daffy– As for typing out the word safety in capital letters it probably says more about the society we are now in than anything else. Rugby never was a safe game there is an element of risk in all sports some sports more so than others obviously. However as I mentioned above to Mr. Marr I was not suggesting the reintroduction of capital punishment, neither was I suggesting dirty play. As for your being concerned about players being injured I don’t quite see the relevance of the point. You are there to apply the laws as they stand. If you referee the game properly and there is a lout on the field, you are the Ref. you have much more power in the game today to send him off either for 10 minutes or for good. Surely you should only feel guilt if you had refereed the game badly. I would hope as the Ref you have the knowledge skill and expertise to see a lunatic or lout or whatever way you wish to describe a dirty player and get him off the field of play PDQ.
Page 1 of 3
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.