Try or no try - The TMO and McCaw
Decisions are referred to the television match official because they are too difficult for the referee to make with confidence. Some of those referred to the TMO remain difficult. Some of them are found inconclusive. What about the case of Richie McCaw’s try against South Africa at the FNB Stadium on Saturday?
Was this one not inconclusive? Does the benefit of the doubt go with the attacking team?
Let’s quickly recall what happened. The All Blacks attack going right. The ball goes from Piri Weepu to Dan Carter who gives to Cory Jane. Jean de Villiers with backing from Pierre Spies has Jane covered but for some reason Bryan Habana comes in on Jane, leaving McCaw an overlap. The big, strong man makes for the corner as Habana chases and De Villiers and Spies cover across. De Villiers tackles McCaw as the All Black captain plunges for the line. McCaw grounds the ball in in-goal. His feet end in touch. The referee refers the incident to the TMO who is a South African. The referee asks: “Try, no try?”
First – inconclusive. The term is used when the TMO cannot see if the ball was grounded or not. In this case McCaw clearly grounds the ball correctly. That is conclusive. The TMO does not have to decide whether the player was infield or not but just if he was in touch or not.
Second – the benefit to the attacking team does not exist.
For a referee – and the TMO is a referee – to make a decision, the evidence of his eyes must tell him that what had happened was clear and obvious. There were two possible reasons not to award a try in this case – McCaw was in touch before he grounded the ball and McCaw did not ground the ball.
The TMO started with the foot in touch. He is a methodical man and started from behind to see if McCaw had gone into touch before he grounded the ball. Gone into touch would have meant that some part of McCaw’s body, for example his foot, had touched the touchline or the ground beyond it. If it had merely been in the air, he was not in touch.
If his foot had touched ground in touch, whatever happened afterwards was irrelevant.
If his foot went into touch after he had grounded the ball it did not matter that his foot had gone into touch.
The best view would have been from behind had the foot not been cut out of the picture. The problem was when you could see the grounding, you could not see where the boot was and when you could see the boot, you could not see the grounding.
To make a decision that the foot was out it needed to be clear and obvious. It was not clear and obvious.
The TMO then shifted up to the grounding. It was clear and obvious that the ball was correctly grounded.
The TMO then reported to the referee about the possibility of a foot in touch, which was the only reason not to award the try: “There is no clear evidence that the player was in touch before he grounded the ball and so you may award the try.”
And so the referee awarded the try. And so the All Blacks drew level with the Springboks.
