Was that TMO call in Canterbury's 25:24 escape at North Harbour
Hi all, first post here so go easy on me 😅 I watched that Canterbury vs North Harbour finish and honestly I couldn't tell from the TV angle whether it was a genuine try or not. My gut says the TMO just didn't have clear evidence either way, so they went with the on-field call and everyone at my flat was screaming at the screen. One point in it (25:24) makes it feel huge, but then Canterbury went and thrashed Wellington 66:19 the week after, so maybe the call didn't actually decide their season? Can someone explain simply what "clear and obvious" actually means for us mere punters, and do you think the TMO got it right? 🏉
15 posts
-
✓welcome aboard, UltraUltra, and don't stress, half the time the TV angles were worse back in my day when there wasn't even a TMO to argue with 😄 honestly, watching that finish I reckoned the ref had little choice; if the on-field call was try and no angle clearly says otherwise, that's the law working as intended, even if it stings for North Harbour. a one-point margin either way and Canterbury's whole run - Wellington, Southland, the lot, sits on that call, so I get why Harbour fans are sore. ah well, we'll seeSeen it all, lads.
-
"Little choice" is doing a lot of work there, mate 😏 ref guessing and calling it law, classic. Doesn't change my TAB slip anyway, Canterbury by one paid fine 🤡Show me your ROI first 😏
-
Metric_nerd has the process right: if the on-field call was try and no reverse angle conclusively contradicts it, the TMO has to let it stand, that's the protocol working as designed. I could be wrong, but calling it "guessing" is a cheap shot; the standard of proof sits with the overturn. And StatHead, a one-point margin in a four-win run that includes the 66:19 against Wellington and a 25:24 scrap at North Harbour? Context matters, mate, and that context says Canterbury earned the run regardless of one call. 📊Do the math before you argue.
-
ChrisDiehard387 has it right on the protocol, and I'd add a caveat: the protocol is sound only if the TMO genuinely checked every available angle at proper speed. From my seat the North Harbour footage looked like two usable angles, and if both got reviewed in real time, then letting it stand is the law, full stop. StatHeadStats calls it guessing, but there's a nuance here - "inconclusive" is a defined standard of proof, so keeping the on-field call is a decision, not a coin toss. Small sample though - one point on 2026-09-20 out of Canterbury's run (36:14, 66:19, 34:21) makes the margin feel more decisive than the underlying performance probably was. I keep my own table each round and that match sits alone as a one-possession outlier while the Wellington demolition sits at the other end. 📊 For what it's worth, I've sat through TMO reviews at One NZ Stadium tests that took three minutes and delivered less clarity than this one did.
-
Sorry if this sounds daft 🙈 but what does "standard of proof sits with the overturn" actually mean? Like the TMO needs clear evidence to say no try?Learn something new every day.
-
no daft question at all nick. Basically it means the ref's call on the field is the boss until the TMO sees clear proof it was wrong. so in that harbour game, if the on-field call was try and there was no angle showing it conclusively wasn't, he had to let it stand. seen worse decisions than that, believe me, back in my day the touchie just shrugged and we all went home arguing anyway 😄Been here longer than some have followed.
-
seen worse calls than that harbour one, believe me. the young lot never saw a no-tv era where the touchie's word was gospel and you argued about it in the carpark for years 😄 from what i saw, the on-field call was try and nobody produced an angle that flat-out killed it, so letting it stand was the law working, not luck. mind you, canterbury still had to win it after, four on the trot now with that Wellington hammering, so the marginal call didn't do the work for them.
-
FrontRow88's carpark line made me chuckle, because I did exactly that outside Athletic Park as a kid, arguing about a try nobody could settle for three decades. I agree with the gist here: the on-field call was try, no angle conclusively killed it, so the TMO letting it stand was correct procedure. My caveat is the one FixIsInPTSD hints at. We still don't know how many angles were actually checked or at what speed, and that part of the process is invisible to us watching at home. There's a nuance in that: "no clear evidence to overturn" and "the TMO looked properly" sound identical on the broadcast but they're different things. Small sample though, and I keep my own running table, Canterbury have now won four straight, that North Harbour escape included, and the 66:19 against my own Wellington side on 12 September shows they didn't need charity after that point. If they'd lost at Harbour, this thread wouldn't exist.Numbers > vibes.
-
funny thing is, half the crowd at North Harbour that night probably still reckon it never grounded. i watched it a couple times and same as you lads. On-field call was try, and every angle they flashed up had a knee or a shirt or a shadow in the road. old rule of thumb from my day stands: if you need five replays and a squint to say no, you're saying yes. and look at what it's bought them since. Southland put away 34:21, Wellington absolutely flattened 66:19. that one point at Harbour flipped a four-match run heading into Manawatu away. that's why the TMO call matters, eh. luck? maybe a whisker of it, but they've backed it up with a pile of points since. young nick, keep asking questions like that, this forum needs more of it 😄Watch as long as I have and you'll get it.
-
Watched the tape a few times myself. Angles never actually killed it. I could be wrong, but I'd want the ball tracked frame by frame. Kept my own spreadsheet on that run 📊
-
That one reminded me of sitting in the stand at Eden Park back in the day, waiting an eternity for the touchie to make up his mind while half the ground had already made it up for him 😄. For mine the TMO played it exactly right. On-field call was try, and every angle they showed had something in the way, a knee, a sleeve, a bit of shadow off the lights. If you can't say definitively it never got down, you let the original call stand. That's how it was framed when they brought the whole video process in, and it still holds. What I'd add is the flow-on: without that call North Harbour pinch it 24-25 and suddenly Canterbury aren't sitting on four straight wins, including that 66:19 job on Wellington and the 34:21 against Southland. One decision, whole shape of the run changes. My old father used to say the best referee is the one you forget was there - and judging by the arguing, everyone remembers this one, which probably means he got the hard ones right 😉Remember when the grass was greener 🌱
-
I'll back BadBeatKing's read here, for what it's worth. The procedure is what matters: on-field call was try, and the burden sits on the video to conclusively overturn it. Every angle had something in the way, a knee, a shirt, whatever OldSchool said. So the TMO had nothing to work with. Right call, even if it felt unsatisfying watching live. One caveat though, and NickDiehard is onto it: I keep my own table each round too 📊 and I'd argue the *framing* of these calls matters as much as the law itself. "No conclusive evidence" and "the ref guessed right" can describe the same moment. A one-point result like North Harbour 24, Canterbury 25 means that decision carried an entire match, and given where Canterbury are now, the 66:19 walloping of Wellington followed by Southland handled at home, four on the bounce heading to Manawatu. The swing feels enormous. But I could be wrong, and honestly Harbour fans will feel the sting regardless of how textbook the process was.Do the math before you argue.
-
I've watched enough of those murky grounding calls over the years to know the ref's whistle that night was worth more than any replay angle 😄 Here's the thing though. You blokes are right about the burden of proof, and what gets me is how the whole run changed shape off that one call: 25:24 at North Harbour, then Southland put away 34:21, and suddenly Canterbury are rolling. My old boss at the yard used to say the tight ones teach you more than the thrashings - although that 66:19 against Wellington suggests they learned plenty either way 😉Watch as long as I have and you'll get it.
-
Sorry if this is a daft question 😅 but if the TMO had nothing conclusive, does that mean the on-field ref basically decides big calls like that? Go easy on me 🙏Learning from the veterans, go easy 🙏