Close menu

Pro12: Scarlets boss Simon Easterby wants video ref 'clarity'

Last updated on .From the section Rugby Unioncomments15

Scarlets boss Simon Easterby wants "clarity" over television match officials' roles if foul play prevents a try being scored.

The issue has been debated since the Ospreys beat the Scarlets on Friday.

George Stowers has been cited for an alleged high tackle that seemed to prevent Andy Fenby scoring a try.

"There needs to be a bit more clarity on what the referee can ask the TMO [and] what the TMO can actually contribute as well," said Easterby.

At Parc-y-Scarlets on Friday, Welsh referee Leighton Hodges asked TMO Derek Bevan: "Try, yes or no?"

Bevan responded: "He [Fenby] lost it forward, scrum five, defending ball."

Scrum V pundits Stuart Davies, Robert Jones and Kingsley Jones agreed that Bevan could - and should - have directed Hodges to award a penalty try.

Scarlets head coach Easterby, the former Ireland flanker, says the issue is unclear but he also accepts that any change to the policy would need the approval of the Pro12's organisers from Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Italy.

England's Aviva Premiership TMOs have a wider scope to rule on crucial moments in the Premiership.

Easterby is unsure whether the Pro12 needs to follow that example.

But he believes what happened at Parc-y-Scarlets on Friday needs to be reviewed and hopes to discuss it with Welsh Rugby Union official Nigel Whitehouse.

"It's obviously a high shot, but I don't think George Stowers was looking to knock his head off," Easterby said of the incident against the Ospreys.

"I just think he was looking to stop Andy scoring a try.

"Now in the heat of the battle, whether you swing and hit the ball or the head, you're looking to prevent a try.

"I think if Andy hadn't been hit in the face, he would have put the ball down and scored.

"We've lost out in that incident. We can't do anything about that, but what we can do is prevent that from happening again whether it's for us or other teams.

"I'm not sure what he can and can't say and that's probably the reason for this conversation because there's no clarity there."

Comments

Join the conversation

These comments are now closed.

15 comments

  • Comment posted by User0572905861, at 20:36 25 Sep 2012

    Sound suggestion by Easterby, he is not shy at making his opinion known a great advocate for Llanelli Scarlets, when an incident of this nature affects a game, his concern is to see this mistake not happen again, a gentleman, a truly great leader for the Scarlets and face I am sure we will be seeing in the highest levels in Rugby Union.

  • Comment posted by Maurice, at 22:58 25 Sep 2012

    At present the TMO can rule on incidents during the act of scoring if the ball is in goal having watched the replay he was in goal and the tmo should have ruled penalty try without needing the expanded rules being tested in the AP

  • Comment posted by User0378885155, at 20:56 25 Sep 2012

    About time there was clarity surrounding the TMO yes it may have been a forward pass but it was a short arm by Stowers which could have caused a lot more damage to the player so the outcome would not have been the same Fenby was lucky he did not get his head knocked off. Lets see what the CC decision is!!!!!

  • Comment posted by loz, at 19:01 25 Sep 2012

    tend to agree that should have been a pen try? but what Scarlets try in the last min by G North? I dont understand why that was given with his body all over the dead ball line....

  • Comment posted by lifelongrugbyfan, at 23:02 25 Sep 2012

    It looked like a desperate tackle to dislodge the ball. Very clumsy, possible Yellow and a Scrum V attacking ball as the outcome. I do not think it was a penalty try as Stowers was in a position to influence the grounding or carry Fenby into touch if the tackle had been lower.

    I'm a Scarlets fan and have to admit that the Ospreys edged the match and the try would not have changed the outcome.

  • Comment posted by Amiga500, at 13:55 26 Sep 2012

    @10

    Absolutely completely disagree Nick.

    Grounding the ball for the try is an important part of the game. There have been numerous try saving tackles and dropped balls before all occurring in the goal area.

    For instance - what about the drama of Wesley Fofana in last years HEC semi-final? Wouldn't have happened with the "touchdown" approach.

  • Comment posted by Callum, at 10:14 26 Sep 2012

    @11, I thought that as well, to be fair in my opinion I agree with Nick below. Its easy to say high when looking at a super slow moe but in the heat of the moment you have to block the takle, he went in, the other guy ducked to ground and so he hit high. Nothing could reall be done unless you want the tackler to jump into the floor with him which could be just as dangerous.

  • Comment posted by Satchmo60, at 23:47 25 Sep 2012

    All for clarity on the rules. Shouldn't this wait until after the hearing on Wednesday. It hints at guilty until proven innocent.

  • Comment posted by Maurice, at 22:38 25 Sep 2012

    the wider scope for the TMO is currently being tested and the AP is partaking in this if it is successful it will be given a wider roll out and should be positive on the game

  • Comment posted by Rugby_Rat, at 20:54 25 Sep 2012

    @1 there is rule that says if you dont cary the ball over the deadball line you can be off the pitch and score the try if the ball is touched inside the goal area.

  • Comment posted by User0152141207, at 19:47 25 Sep 2012

    Yes I agree that the TMO should have more powers, then he would have awarded the forward pass that Fenby received prior to dropping the ball. therefore a try would not have been awarded, penalty or otherwise, and the outcome would have been the same, scrum 5 defending ball. End of!

  • Comment posted by loz, at 12:32 27 Sep 2012

    @4 cheers for that!!

    learn something new every day. BBC commentators assumed it shouldnt have been given.... there again it didnt change the result except gain Scarlets the bonus point.

  • Comment posted by User0983437533, at 21:39 25 Sep 2012

    What the ref actually said to the TMO was 'Question 1. Has a try been scored, yes or no?'. Now this would lead me to believe that there was a question 2 coming, but it didn't. It looked like the refs view was obscured of the foul play, so he couldn't comment on it, but the linesman was right there - why didn't he say something?

  • Comment posted by User0382447369, at 23:05 25 Sep 2012

    anywhere else on the field you would say that fenby ducked into the tackle. the question is, do we really expect stowers to be able to compensate for fenby ducking in the heat of the moment? he actually cocks his arm back before fenby even dives.

    maybe its time we move to the NFL style of touchdown. i wouldnt like that, but currently the attacker will always be at risk when ducking for the line.

  • Comment posted by OnlyJoeQuin, at 10:36 26 Sep 2012

    I wouldn't be rushing into the wider powers for the TMO. I've seen the good and bad in the AP so far. You also raise the spectre of exactly how far back do you go. Equally it gives scope for refs to avoid responsibility for calls constantly going to the TMO.

Top Stories