I haven’t read your article mate because the point you’re trying to make is nonsense.
A knock on isn’t foul play.

Time to educate yourself Geoff – nowhere in the article I’ve argued a knock-on is foul play. That would be foolish.

What would even be more foolish, is to repeat a view which has already been proven wrong.

In fact, the logic is very simple. The first offence was the foul play, and the second offence was the knock-on. And the TMO Protocols allowed the TMO to call play back to the lineout for the foul play.

The bit that may be challenging for you to understand, is that given Barnes called “no knock-on” during live play, the only way Foley could inform Barnes that advantage for the foul play could not be applied, was to tell Barnes that it was indeed a knock-on. Very simple logic indeed.

Lastly, in response to my article, Grumpy shared a link to a recording of the complete game.

At the 1h25m15s mark of this recording, Barnes explained to Ardie:

“I agree with you that he’s played the man in the air. Ok, so that’s the first offence. But then it’s hit your hand and gone forward, so it’s a knock on. So it’s no try, but it will be your penalty back on the lineout.”

Time to face the uncomfortable truth Geoff, and to stop spreading misinformation.

😂

Trouble was, the law as it stood permitted the TMO to rule on matters up to two phases back from a try being scored, not the four phases that occurred in Paris.

Geoff, it seems to me you still haven’t read my article where I’ve explained how the TMO in the final was entitled to call play back to the lineout. The key message is:

From page 5 of the TMO Protocols in place at the WC final:

At any stage of the game (i.e., not limited to within two phases prior to a possible scoring of a try) the following items of Law may be referred to the TMO by the TO4, but should be before the start of the next phase of play.
Law 9: Foul play
All clear and obvious acts of foul play

It all started with Eben playing Brodie in the air (foul play), followed by Ardie’s knock-on a second later, so advantage couldn’t apply.

In summary, at the time the Formal referrals of the TMO Protocols did indeed apply to two phases before a try is scored. However, page 5 of the TMO Protocols specifically notes for foul play the limit of two phases WOULD NOT apply.

I suggest you read my article and the many comments in response, as it clearly demonstrates the TMO did not ignore the law and made their own judgement.

In fact, I think if someone continues to ignore page 5 of the TMO Protocol in place at the time of the last WC final, one is spreading misinformation re the law and TMO’s.

Given the abuse directed at TMO’s and referees, and to ensure accurate and responsible reporting, I think key storytellers such as yourself should stop spreading misinformation re this TMO intervention.

It is true there are some countries still practicing stoning.

Given one of the reasons for a stoning is presumably to act as a deterrent, I must apologize. I should have said, as a figure of speech, Folau’s original social media post seems like a modern day stoning to me.

And it is true the NT use the words you quote, and in context:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who will judge the living and the dead, and in view of His appearing and His kingdom: Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and encourage with every form of patient instruction.

Now. I’m not convinced a social media post is a good way of teaching, or to reprove, or to rebuke, or to encourage with every form of patient instruction.

In fact, in my mind his social media post is leaning towards a form of judgement, rather than teaching.

And the best Teacher said Do not judge, or you too will be judged

Given the New Testament moral law of

Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her

Folau’s original social media post seems like a modern day stoning to me

I think it is unfair to make continual comparisons with Cane. He was caught completely off guard by one of those little Springbok wingers who turned 90 degrees and ran into a retreating Cane

Jesse Kriel 1.86m / 6.1f
Sam Cane 1.89m / 6.2f

Apparently every inch counts

Interesting to note the newly worded TMO Protocols (effective Jan 2025) says very much the same thing as the TMO Protocols applying at the time of the WC final:

OLD
At any stage of the game (i.e., not limited to within two phases prior to a possible scoring of a try) the following items of Law may be referred to the TMO by the TO4, but should be before the start of the next phase of play.
Law 9: Foul Play
All Clear and Obvious acts of Foul Play

NEW
The following may be reviewed at any stage of the game, since the last restart and before play restarts again:
Live call permitted scope
Law 9: Foul play
Dangerous play where the outcome would only be a Penalty

Not sure if you like the new wording more?

In any event, both wordings would allow the TMO to call play back to the lineout for Eben’s foul play, with advantage not available any longer when Ardie knocked on.

Time to end this nonsense of a disallowed try misinformation story.

No footnote mate, just the last page of a 5-page document that very few journalists and commentators have ever reviewed. Have you read it yet? If you do, you will notice there are three sections, formal referrals, live referrals, and the last page which clearly notes the two-phase restriction does not apply to foul play. Not rocket science if one actually takes the time to read it.

Geoff, it seems to me you still haven’t read my article where I’ve explained how the TMO in the final was entitled to call play back to the lineout. The key message is:

From page 5 of the TMO Protocols in place at the WC final:

At any stage of the game (i.e., not limited to within two phases prior to a possible scoring of a try) the following items of Law may be referred to the TMO by the TO4, but should be before the start of the next phase of play.

Law 9: Foul play
All clear and obvious acts of foul play

It all started with Eben playing Brodie in the air (foul play), followed by Ardie’s knock-on a second later, so advantage couldn’t apply.

In summary, at the time the Formal referrals of the TMO Protocols did indeed apply to two phases before a try is scored. However, page 5 of the TMO Protocols specifically notes for foul play the limit of two phases WOULD NOT apply.

I suggest you read my article and the many comments in response, as it clearly demonstrates the TMO did not ignore the law and made their own judgement

In fact, I think if someone continues to ignore page 5 of the TMO Protocol in place at the time of the last WC final, one is spreading misinformation re the law and TMO’s.

Given the abuse directed at TMO’s and referees, and to ensure accurate and responsible reporting, I think key storytellers such as yourself should stop spreading misinformation re this TMO intervention.

Cheating in sport can be a tricky construct. A fencer secretly using a buzzer to simulate hits on target? Sure. A swimmer doping? Absolutely. A rugby player pulling an opponent back by the jersey? Not really.

Mmm, makes me think of a wing trying to run around a prop, chasing their kick with no other defenders in sight, but the prop then grabs the wing’s jersey. Not really cheating? I’ve always thought cheating is about getting an unfair advantage – perhaps my dictionary is just a bit outdated.

You’re wrong and Smith’s try was a fair one

These are strong statements, but not backed up by any sound argument! (perhaps yet?)

If you are saying the try was a fair one as the referee missed the knock-on, you must be ok with that forward pass in 2007 too?

or

If you say the try was fair as page 5 of the TMO Protocol did not allow the TMO to call play back to the foul play at the lineout, I would genuinely like to hear your interpretation of page 5 of the TMO Protocol.

Google informs me the meaning of fair is:

without cheating or trying to achieve unjust advantage

Referring then to the try as fair (after a clear knock-on) seems to me as somewhat of a creative mental leap!

Nevertheless, looking forward to your explanations and arguments backing up your strong statements!

I’m optimistic that someone who makes comments about the fairness of a referee’s call, will also read relevant articles to gain a fair understanding of Rugby’s laws and protocols.

One can only hope …

Rocky, I suggest you review my article, and also the responses in the comments section, which provide a detailed analysis and explanation as to why page 5 of the TMO Protocol actually allowed the TMO to call play back to the lineout in the 2023 WC final.

Another week, another wrap from Geoff, but sadly, no insightful comment re page 5 of the TMO Protocol yet. Which made me think about the phrase “in due course”. It can be a very convenient copout, isn’t it? But then I reminded myself that there are many first-class comments at the end of my article, and it will take some time to review and absorb all this information. No worries mate, take all the time you need.

😂

So I am going to respond to you in due course

Noting my article was published in September, and we are now in December, take all the time you need bro.

A word of caution though – both my article and the comments section provide a very detailed analysis of how page 5 of the TMO Protocol was correctly applied.

I therefore suggest you put aside some quality time to work through this information. Fingers crossed your response will be worth the wait.

Colvin, my article is about the legitimate TMO intervention, not the Boks. LOL

But even when they couldn’t intervene they still did (Aaron Smith in the WC final).

Geoff, I suggest you read my article where I’ve busted this myth – page 5 of the TMO Protocols allowed the TMO to call back play to the foul play at the lineout.

No worries, apology accepted

Timeline of articles published at NZ Herald:

1 Sep, 2024 03:33 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: Springboks’ bench power home to deny All Blacks

2 Sep, 2024 09:39 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: Ellis Park haka response under scrutiny

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

Piru’s comment earlier today:
Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Yeah right

mmm, makes me think of the saying, none so blind as those who will not see

The timeline at nzherald.co.nz

1 Sep, 2024 03:33 AM
match report
Headline: All Blacks v South Africa: Springboks’ bench power home to deny All Blacks

2 Sep, 2024 09:39 AM
article with headline
All Blacks v South Africa: Ellis Park haka response under scrutiny
quoting MacKenzie’s response to a question about the fireworks, noise and flyover, interview held the evening after the game

3 Sep, 2024 03:20 AM
article referring to the apology that was issued on the Monday
Headline: All Blacks v South Africa: South Africa Rugby sorry for haka disruption at Ellis Park

Piru’s quote
Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Yeah right

“//https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/alert-top/526788/all-blacks-ellis-park-haka-response-under-scrutiny” target=”

Interview after the game on the Saturday
Journalists writing articles date stamped Sunday
Apology made Monday

Seems like a patchy memory to me.

Actually SA apologised before anyone from NZ had said anything.

Piru, you may want to reconsider your comment – Damian McKenzie is widely quoted in NZ media as saying something, and several NZ journalists then wrote articles, including one with a statement there is a question over whether what transpired was respectful well before the apology was made.

Don’t rewrite history mate.

Comparing
It’s mean to restart play. (note the full stop)
and
The purpose of a scrum is to restart play with a contest for possession after a minor infringement or stoppage. (note the with)
created a bit of confusion on my part, sorry mate, I didn’t get the impression you’re already familiar with the law.