Saracens
A lawyer writes; and without submitting a fee note!
Graham, anything else?
By Neville
June 15 2014
The opinion of your "Learned" solicitor adviser follows. I hope it's of greater merit than a recent attorney general's opinion about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in a Middle Eastern country!
" A couple of weeks ago Saracens were deprived of a try upon the intervention of a television match official."
The try was awarded by the referee JP Doyle and, as we know, Graham Hughes the TMO intervened to ask the ref whether the latter would like to refer the scoring pass. The ref’s reply was "should I?"and, upon receiving an affirmative response, duly referred. The try was disallowed and there is no doubt in this writer's mind that the pass was forward.
So was the decision-making procedure correct? Can a referee reverse the awarding of try on the intervention of the TMO?
In my opinion, he cannot. In my opinion the TMO acted ultra-vires his powers. Or as lawyers say, he cocked it up. Let me explain why and remember this is simply an opinion of a solicitor and that for every legal opinion there are three others that are different, and on the same bit of law too.
Law 6.A.6 of the International Rugby Board (IRB) laws is the law which sets out the circumstances under which the referee can reverse a decision of this type:
If and only if a touch judge raises flag to signal touch or an act of foul play can a referee reverse a decision to award a try which he has already given. That law, the only one which governs the situation that faced Mr Doyle a couple of Saturdays ago , could not be clearer
Much confusion has arisen over the ambit of the law immediately following which unsurprisingly enough is 6.A.7.
But the entire thrust of that law is that it applies only in circumstances where the decision to award a try has NOT YET been given. Let me give you an example:
The operative subsection for us is b iv. This can apply in two ways. Firstly the referee can ask the TMO for his opinion about whether an offence had taken place leading to a try. I suspect that must include whether a forward pass happened. So when Owen touched down, but before the try had been awarded, Doyle could have asked Hughes to have a look at Alex's final pass.
Also, by virtue of the TMO's power derived from subsection c to recommend a review, Hughes could have intervened to ask to be allowed to review the pass, but he could only do so before the try had been given. He wouldn't have had long but he would have managed it.
There is absolutely nothing within this law that gives any match official the right to intervene in any way shape or form after a try has been awarded.
For me this is a straightforward matter of interpretation. The first law, referred to above, sets out the entire conditions under which a try, once awarded, can be chalked off
There is nothing within the second section that makes any reference whatsoever to that. It makes no attempt to alter that or add to the circumstances pertaining in 6.A.6. They are separate not conjoined laws and neither depends upon the existence of the other for its validity.
I submit that if the IRB wanted to make any alteration or addition to the remit of officials to chalk off tries that had been awarded they would have made an alteration to 6 A 6.
Had the IRB said in 6.A.7 that intervention could occur "at any time" that would have been ambiguous but would have given those who would grant the TMO powers to intervene after a try had been awarded an argument.
Had the IRB said in 6.A.7 that intervention could occur "at any time including after the award of a try" that would have been determinative of the issue. They would presumably then felt the need to alter 6.A.6 to reflect what would be a genuine Sea Change.
But they didn't do either of these things and 6.A.6 stands untouched and by itself as the only law determinative of who can and in what circumstances affect the awarding of a try after the event.
In my opinion, any suggestion that the IRB has somehow given directions which alter this is junk. I simply don't believe it; or if it did happen it proves my point that Graham Hughes acted outside the limit of his powers. The IRB would be cravenly providing ex post facto justification for a wrong decision. And, is it not odd that the suggested amendment to the laws is still not up on the IRB website?
I believe, further, that Hughes knew exactly what he was doing.
It only remains for me to deal with the reference to the protocol. You'll find that at 6.A.7.c. Ah, actually, no, you won't. I'm quite wrong about that. If you click on the link to find the protocol you get referred back to the the laws themselves and you end up back at 6.A.7. The protocol in any event, whatever it is, only relates to the manner in which review takes place and not the circumstances in which it would be requested or suggested.
In conclusion if I am right it is clear that we were robbed at HQ a couple of Saturdays ago. Full Marks to Saints who are Champions, but their title is tainted by patent illegality on the part of Graham Hughes and weakness on the part of JP Doyle (surely one of the 2 knew the rules!)
I go so far as to say that Hughes actions were “apparently mendacious."
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
Stumbleupon15/06/2014 13:19
Whether it's publication leads to a stream of lawyers coming on here to offer pro bono advice remains to be seen!
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:07:10:14:37:19 by Darraghgirl.
Neville refers to 'after a try has been given', but 6.A.6 is not confined to try-awarding situations. It refers to all decisions that a referee has made; it's title is "REFEREE ALTERING A DECISION".
Neville's stance would mean that a TMO could not intervene to change any decision after it had been made by the referee. that is clearly not what the IRB intended, nor does it reflect current practice.
I didn't read law, but I did read maths. This is called reductio ad absurdam!
It's a long time since Sports network paid anything!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:16:10:06:25 by TonyTaff.
1) What exactly is your point? and
2) What difference does it make since no process or forum exists for you to test your Opinion?
Even dogs eventually stop chasing their tails. Has Neville any plans to try to emulate these lesser forms of sentient life?
"Your days are numbered. Use them to throw open the windows of your soul to the sun. If you do not, the sun will soon set, and you with it."
-- Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor 161-180 A.D.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:15:15:57:07 by Paul Flatt.
You can see him mulling it over in his own mind; perhaps he asked the TJs for their opinion, perhaps not. Barnes was on this side up with the play and he thought the pass ok in real time otherwise i'm sure he would have said so
There was plenty of time for Hughes to stick in his opinion before the try was awarded
More to the point, even after two weeks, does it matter?
No, the try was not given.
Neville has taken the time to write this, for which we are all grateful.
Regardez mon visage. Suis-je bovvered?
Top of the League 2014-2015 Season
Talking to Ralph on the big, white, telephone.
Regardez mon visage. Suis-je bovvered?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:15:21:53:31 by Convex Hull.
Or
A lawyers response to unjust criticism.
my thanks to Tony for his views.
Nothing that he has said causes me to alter anything that I have said.
after all a try is a decision.
Tony's point about it clearly not being the intention of the IRB to prevent TMO intervention after a decision has been given would only be valid if he could point me to the law which mandated it.
He hasn't done so presumably because it doesn't exist.
in any event imputing intention to any organisation is a corporate psychological matter with it is as well to be careful. Even mathematicians and lawyers should steer clear of that I would respectfully suggest.
Is it current practice that TMOs intervene after decisions have been awarded? I don't know. I can't recall any off the top of my head but then age has the power to whither memory.
Even if such practice exists it is against law 6.A.6.
and any protocol which might seek to add to such a law has not been printed on the IRB website either and so doesn't exist
even if such intention exists it would have to be reflected in the law and it is not.
So I don't resile from my position.
I studied law and I study philosophy. I think II am right Tony and suggest in all humility and respect that you can only claim a reductio if your premises are sound.
I think I demonstrated to my own satisfaction at least that they aren't
As to those who ask what is the point of this navel gazing I agree with those who underlined the fact that we have to keep this site alive. The article is only produced in response to a request for articles.
I don't have the ability to comment on a rugby match because I get to into it whilst it is going on. The last time I provided a report was on the Parker pen match when we 157 three or something. I couldnt write fast and watch the game!.The report depended upon people around me giving me dictation about what was happening on the pitch!
So the only thing I can offer is something like the above and I make no apology for doing so and thank those who have pointed this out to my detractors
The other point to make is that contentious sporting decisions are validly the stuff after the event discussion.
People still talk about England's third goal in the 1966 World Cup final. It's part of the culture of sport to discuss matches after the final whistle. Such a discussion does not consist in an attempt to change the result.
As to those who would be abusive they know what they can do. abuse can never be part of a discussion and I note that those who abuse offer nothing but bile. There is no contribution to the debate, no attempt unlike Tony to engage with me. Their contributions reflect an inability to think.
I'm not a libel lawyer but I seem to recall from somewhere that if the statement is true it cannot be libellous.
In my opinion the statement is not libellous in any event.
if any of my my legal colleagues who reside in this parish know some libel law my question is, is it possible to libel someone on the Internet in an article which is published on a site like this that is not on the front page of the Times or somewhere like that?
finally Tony my fee note is in the post
Incidentally,my son has just graduated in Philosophy and is now about to take a Law degree so I now look forward to a lifetime of fee notes being in the post!!
signed
Wolpack Mozart's Dad.
Wolfpack I wish your son all the very best. He and I have followed more or less the same route although in reverse if you see what I mean. It's a very interesting job, being a lawyer to put it mildly but stressful in the extreme as many jobs. If I were he and I am my time again I would go into corporate work or tax where there is real money to be made acting for the filthy rich.
I was principled and went to work for people and I'm still in that work loving it but unable to retire until my mid-60s.
I wish him all the very best because times are far harder for lawyers than I ever thought they would be.
Ed Griffiths was quite right I agree with you.. Current practice is a mess and no one seems to know the rules apart from the lawyers
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:16:11:49:28 by Neville.
Nothing is therefore been lost by any mis-reference
if the referee is the sole arbiter of fact that relates to fact alone, obviously. By definition it doesn't relate to laws and it certainly doesn't allow the referee to rewrite them especially on the intervention of someone who has no right piping up at that point anyway
and it seems to me that the referee is no longer the sole person to determine what is fact and what is not. The TMO determines fact whenever he decides to get involved, which he can before decision is made, and if he's asked to by the referee in advance of the ref making his decision
so I disagree with you on that point
This is not the first decision this season that may have been altered by TV coverage on the 'Big Screen'. I have forgotten the game but a player was heading to the touch line after a yellow card ruling when the ref took a look as the TV company showed the incident again. The ref immediately changed his mind and sanction by deciding on a red card. Was he entitled to do this? Who knows, but I did state here at the time that it was a dangerous precedent. Imagine a game between a British club and a French club, in France, covered by French TV - which incidents are going to shown repeatedly on the big screen French misdemeanours or British ones?
I tell you what mate, as well,this thread has unjustly receive more comments of one kind or another than the normal match report. And that notwithstanding the excellence of our match reporters.
Perhaps I will do another report if requested on the reason why Northampton's final try should never have been awarded
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:16:15:16:23 by Neville.
Rucky knows it ain't over 'til it's over.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014:06:17:05:06:56 by Rucky.
Quote:Why just the final try? What about Burrell's after the forward passNeville
Perhaps I will do another report if requested on the reason why Northampton's final try should never have been awarded
Quote:Neville
I'm a Clinical Negligence Lawyer!
That's not a typo is it Neville? shouldn't it start Cyn...
<<ducks>>
Quote:Rucky
Had written a long and ranting post in protest to the OP. Have since realised I can't be bothered.
Why protest about Old Peculier?
It's a long time since Sports network paid anything!
Rucky knows it ain't over 'til it's over.
JP was the sole arbiter of fact - he chose to listen to the TMO in order to ensure that the try did not stand - in order to ensure fair play.
Its a bit like a patient goes to his GP and says I have this lump, GP says no worries, NEXT. Patient see's nurse on way out of surgery and nurse says ooo you have a lump. Nurse then see's GP and says patient X has a lump what about an MRI scan to see if its malignant? GP says ooo okay - etc..... Patient saved, clinical negligence lawyer cut out of a large fee..... all happy fair play is resumed....
If you are interested I suggest you broaden horizons a little and sign up for a course
this may help the perceived rose tint to dissolve.
There is advice and instruction from the IRB that he can intervene, in the absence of inclusion in the IRB law book this is sufficient as an 'in-season' ammendment.
As for the Nurse, no Law says she can intervene either.....
for what its worth Rugby was the winner at the final! the slightly better team won!
every game must have its rules or as we call it in this game laws.
If we don't adhere to the laws in rugby there is potential for anarchy.
that is why rugby and all other sports are played in accordance with appropriate rules. If there were no rules there will be no sport in any form that we would recognise.
I refer to my article
The referee is no longer the only arbiter of fact. If the TMO tells the referee what has happened he has decided what is and what is not but this isn't really the point of my article
Society lives by laws too and some of those laws protect patients from some doctors. A clinician has to be grossly negligent before they will ever be liable. The case has to be proven to in excess of 90% whereas normal negligence not involving clinicians is on balance of probabilities. 51% in other words
That is absolutely correct. Doctors are provided with form of protection far greater than that provided any other professional or person and you find very few claimant's clinical negligence lawyers who have any issue with that at all
The example you give and I don't know whether you're a doctor isn't a helpful one for the reason that Phil has pointed out.
your comeback doesn't help either because the nurses under a professional duty to act in the best interests of the patient. There aren't any laws relating to this but a professional duty is as close as we get. It's close enough.
also in your example any GP failing to examine for a lump or dismissing it as nothing if found does run the risk. If she is saved by the intervention of a nurse and that's good all-round.the main benefit of courses to the patient who is either reassured that is lump is say cartilage and therefore of no concern.
Alternatively the lump may be something that needs investigation.
There are very few GPs who wouldn't refer in the situation that you mention
And please don't run away with the idea that we earn big fat fees.the press want you to believe that for reasons which I don't need to go into but it simply isn't true. In clinical negligence a very high proportion of cases which are investigated, and investigation means outlay sometime significant outlay by the firm instructed, are not pursued.
The successes which are far far fewer than in road traffic cases-don't get me started on those!-Pay for the failures. Except they're not failures. Someone who's had a genuine problem and an issue has come to a lawyer like me who has investigated it and been able to advise them that they don't have a case and has been able to provide reasons why.
That is why few of us retire early!
Waldo you are responsible for this!
I mean if it was on the patient's finger then however delightful the nurse you'd have to be pretty strange etc
Now if the lump was situated on other areas of the body why then
More Saracens headlines
- END OF SEASON POLL AT LAST
- PWR Semi Final and Final 2025-26 Report
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Report
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Preview
- MARK McCALL, AN APPRECIATION
- Saracens Women v Exeter Chiefs Women PWR Semi-Final Report
- Exeter Chiefs v Saracens Premiership Report
- EXETER v SARACENS: please post match related content here
- SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Saracens latest threads
- END OF SEASON POLL AT LAST
- End of Season Poll (finally) #1
- Writing articles for the Sarries page
- More Game Time
- PensionBee Now main shirt sponsor?
- 26/27 fixtures
- PWR Semi Final and Final 2025-26 Report
- Champions Cup group 26/27
- New photo for the Sarries message board
- Saracens Women v Ealing Trailfinders PWR Final Report