Noon's non-try
Controversy at Twickenham
The match between England and New Zealand at Twickenham was just four minutes old when the television match official was called upon to give his advice. His advice caused much English grief and consternation.
Jamie Noon burst for the New Zealand line with Rico Gear and then Ma'a Nonu trying to stop him. Noon bounces off Gear and keeps going. Nonu grabs Noon who falls short of the line but his momentum keeps taking him forward and he rolls. (For those who are squeamish, there is nothing illegal in Noon's forward motion which takes him over the line.) He is over the line, the ball under his chest. Chris Jack arrives and drops down, arms around Noon but too late to have real effect, except that he wraps his right arm and hand around Noon's body, seeking to go under it.
Nonu is away from Noon, his right arm extended towards Noon, his right hand and a bit of forearm stretched out towards the ball and under Noon.
The referee was not in a great position as he was not deep in in-goal but in a line along the goal-line from Noon and towards the goal posts. Between the referee and Noon were first Byron Kelleher and then Jack's body. The referee did not have a great view of Noon and his activities.
The referee spoke to the television match official. The referee was French and so was the television match official. Not surprisingly they spoke in French. Unfortunately, the excited BBC commentator babbled on and it was not possible to hear the referee's question, which was obviously important.
The question is doubly important in view of the discussion at the elite referees and referee managers' meeting Lensbury in the week leading up to this match and its incident.
What we do hear is the television match official's reply – in French but translated here:
TMO: "I didn't see the ball pressed onto the ground. Certainly there is a hand under it. I recommend a five-metre scrum to White."
There is a bit more inaudible chat as the commentator, who has not been taught the value of silence, talks on.
TMO: "He got a hand under the ball."
And so it became a five-metre scrum.
What is certain, unless the TMO could see what we could not see, is that it is not certain that Nonu's right hand was under the ball. He has it stretched out and facing downwards, not even turned to cup the ball. Unless it is Jack's belated hand that gets under the ball. But that cannot be seen, let alone certainly.
At the Lensbury meeting, those present – including the French referees central to the Noon decision – discussed the television match official. O'Brien said that it would be possible for the TMO to recommend a try even if "the grounding is not actually seen but is probable". He added: "From now on you will hear the referee ask, `Is there any reason why I cannot award this try?'"
They idea of probability make sense. Time and again referees award tries on the balance of probability. They do not in the case of every try see the actual contact of the ball with the ground and the player's contribution at that point.
Besides that the referee is entitled to award a penalty try on the balance of probability.
Surely, if a player carries the ball and in in-goal has the ball in his possession and the ball is in contact with the ground, it is highly probable that a try has been scored.
That is where the question suggested by O'Brien comes in: Is there any reason why I cannot award this try?
That's what O'Brien says we will hear – but not if the commentator babbles through it.
Presumably, from the TMO's answer, that was not the referee's question in the Noon case. If that was not the question, that would have been a pity and would question the worth of meetings such as the one at Lensbury.
On the other hand the referee may well have been in no position whatsoever to consider a try. Then his question may well have been simply: "Was it a try or not." Then he is asking for something much more definite/conclusive. He wanted everything taken into consideration. It was then, it seems, that the TMO felt he was unable to say that conclusively it was a try.
Perhaps the TMO's answer could still have answered both questions, in a sense, something like: "I cannot see the actual grounding of the ball but the probability is that it was a try, for nothing happened to prevent the awarding of a try."
Perhaps.
Was the TMO perhaps inexperienced? A newboy? Not at all. He has been the TMO in at least eight Tests already.
That said, there may be a case of inexperience. France does not use the TMO in its top competitions, it uses goal judges. That's a good idea and in certain cases may provide better evidence than the camera can because of greater flexibility and manoeuverability. But because France do not use the TMO, the referee may be less used to using it and analysing what is required. The TMO is not a part of his refereeing environment.
The TMO is employed in the Guinness Premiership, but otherwise Europe uses the TMO sparingly while in the Southern Hemisphere it is in regular use and its use is discussed and refined.
One wonders how many people of the millions watching, however biased, believed that Noon did not score a try.
