"Disallowed" try, a terminology

This is a general post, it is based on comments made about a club game, but I feel it is equally relevant here.

Just finished listening to Brian Moore's podcast, well worth a listen.

Maggie Alphonsi was the cohost and she was brilliant. However listening to the pod, brought up a comment and one of my pet hates. The statement concerned Sarries Vs. Glasgow and related to "Disallowed" tries.

Now the term "Disallowed"  tries was used in a conversation with Wigglesworth, and was used in a tense that suggested the TMO declared rightly that they weren't tries, since the player was in touch.

Now I don't know if I'm being over sensitive about this and it's a complete non story. If that's the case please either ignore or dish out abuse below, but the term Disallowed tries really gets on my goat.

It's not the first time either I remember AWJ being asked about the 2 "Disallowed" tries against Scotland in his post match interview, even though they weren't Disallowed tries since they weren't tries to begin with.

Does this terminology agitate anyone else or just me?!!

Basically please stop saying it's a Disallowed try, because it's not. It wasn't even a try to begin with, so lets just call it a missed opportunity instead of a Disallowed try!

Some are disallowed though now. Too often we see the try awarded, then reviewed and overturned. Now usually the decision was correct, but having been awarded it is fair to say it was then disallowed.

It's an ambiguous term for sure.

For me, a disallowed try should refer to a clear try/grounding that was chalked off for an earlier offence, e.g. blocking.

If the TMO rules something is inconclusive, it's not really disallowed. In the same way if the TMO sees something definitely wrong with the grounding.

I would say overturned would be more appropriate for the situation LT describes.

But I've only reached this conclusion after reading your post. Had never actually bothered me before.

There's a strong correlation between disallowed tries and moral victories. Without disallowed tries being a 'thing' what would the moral victors have to cling on to?!

I just see it as an indication of opportunities created and "disallowed" tries are generally significant try scoring opportunities.

It gives you more of an indication of how a game has gone if you factor in opportunities taken and not.

Stopping a team who has had numerous try scoring opportunities is just as good IMO. It's impressive if you can prevent a team scoring.

You can't praise Hogg for his numerous try saving interventions but on the other hand discount the significant try scoring opportunities of the opposition.

Being clinical is obviously important in rugby. Taking your chances.

I don't dislike "disallowed" try because it indicates a significant opportunity not taken.

Le Roux's mistake on the weekend was a high profile example.

Another example of this was Saracens vs Toulon when a player didn't put the ball down properly (Tuisova) and Toulon lost by 7 points.

Can't remember if it was "disallowed" but it was significant.

For me a disallowed try would be a score that has been awarded and via TMO consultation was chalked off due to some kind of foul play, a block or crossing or such like.

Willie LeRoux's "disalowed" try was a result of him being a giant fudge nut, and hence shouldn't be considered as such.

Likewise as beshocked states Hogg should be praised for his defensive efforts since it was a great effort on both that prevented Sarries properly running riot. These were not disallowed tries, these were great defensive efforts and perhaps slack accuracy from Ashton and Maitland to not get the ball over and down.

These moments however should not be considered disallowed tries because they weren't tries to begin with. I'd personally like to see some kind of distinction.

It's just lazy journalism.

Robbo is right, a try should only be called "disallowed" if the player grounds the ball correctly and then the try is disallowed because there was obstruction or some other penalty offense occurred leading up to the grounding.

If you are in touch or you do a le Roux and drop the ball then no try has been scored therefore you can't disallow something that hasn't actually occurred.

I'd say you're being pedantic Mr Radge but this kind of question is along the same lines as the difference between the ref asking the TMO "Try yes or no" and "any reason why I can't award the try"

The thing is that the game generally stops when a try is suspected to have been scored, even if it was something like a knock on and therefore no try in the end. So the fact that the game has stopped for someone to check for me means that it can be disallowed as the outcome of that checking.

In the Le Roux incident, and others like it, did the referee not stop the game and go to the TMO? By checking and saying 'No Try, knock on' the ref and TMO are, in effect, disallowing it.

Griff wrote:The thing is that the game generally stops when a try is suspected to have been scored, even if it was something like a knock on and therefore no try in the end. So the fact that the game has stopped for someone to check for me means that it can be disallowed as the outcome of that checking.  

In the Le Roux incident, and others like it, did the referee not stop the game and go to the TMO?  By checking and saying 'No Try, knock on' the ref and TMO are, in effect, disallowing it.

Le Roux is a mungo though, he didn't ever score the try so how can it be disallowed?

That's like me saying I'm calling off my engagement to Katy Perry, I can't call it off since she never agreed to marry me in the first place.

She also didn't fall for my traditional chat up line of:

"Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

So overall there are a tiny number of instances where a try is disallowed as you rarely have a try awarded then have a ref change their mind. Last one I can think of is england vs Fiji (was it the world cup?)where May chased back to make the tackle. It's just now used as another way to say it was close and went to the tmo.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:

Griff wrote:The thing is that the game generally stops when a try is suspected to have been scored, even if it was something like a knock on and therefore no try in the end. So the fact that the game has stopped for someone to check for me means that it can be disallowed as the outcome of that checking.  

In the Le Roux incident, and others like it, did the referee not stop the game and go to the TMO?  By checking and saying 'No Try, knock on' the ref and TMO are, in effect, disallowing it.

Le Roux is a mungo though, he didn't ever score the try so how can it be disallowed?

That's like me saying I'm calling off my engagement to Katy Perry, I can't call it off since she never agreed to marry me in the first place.

She also didn't fall for my traditional chat up line of:

"Does this rag smell like chloroform to you?"

What is the TMO checking then?  And what is he disallowing?  The attempt perhaps?  Are you saying it should be 'the attempt was disallowed'?  Seems petty  The fact he checks if it is a try suggests that he could allow or disallow.  Therefore, I think the wording is apt.

On the flip side, a poor TMO (like one of them there Scottish ones ) might have awarded the Le Roux try due to incompetence, bias, blindness, etc.) so if he says he scored a try, when he didn't because he knocked it on, then how has he awarded a try?!  You can't award something that hasn't been done, right? See Jonny Wilkinson's try v Scotland when he had a foot about 10 metres in touched for about a minute while grounding the ball.

Edit: Katy Perry. I you swore blind that Katy Perry accepted your proposal from the previous night, but she was not sure whether you proposed at all because she was hammered or chloroformed up, she might check the video of the night and see no evidence that you grounded your knee (and proposed) and therefore could legitimately disallow your alleged engagement, based on the evidence presented.

I'd be more inclined to ban the word Try.  If you succeed then why is it still only a Try?  

"I scored the blasted thing!"  
"Yes, so I'm awarding you the try"  
"It's not a f**king try!!  I scored it!  I got it, didn't you see the swan-dive???  You couldn't miss it!  It was fecking glorious!"  
"Good try. "

Is it true that the word 'Try' in rugby is a hangover from the olden day rules that grounding the ball over the line gave you an attempt (a try) at kicking points?! So no points were awarded for the grounding part that today is awarded 5 points. Points just came from kicking. If memory serves.

So the term is outdated anyway. Let's campaign for an updated scoring word for rugby. Touch down sounds good to me! Especially if it's shouted by the commentator in a loud, brash American accent.

beshocked wrote:I just see it as an indication of opportunities created and "disallowed" tries are generally significant try scoring opportunities.

It gives you more of an indication of how a game has gone if you factor in opportunities taken and not...I don't dislike "disallowed" try because it indicates a significant opportunity not taken.

I agree it indicates a significant try scoring opportunity but I'd argue it's useless on it's own. in fact, to your second point, I'd go further and say that looking at "disallowed" tries to judge how a game has gone would actually be misleading.

if someone knocks on over the line (a la le roux) or knocks on with the line at their mercy (a la Ben Kay), they were both an opportunity created, but yet only one is talked about as being a disallowed try. Mistakes or foul play happen all over the pitch for the full 80 mins. A mistake over the tryline is not necessarily more significant than a mistake elsewhere, nor is a disallowed try necessarily an indicator of a higher number of chances created.

I don't mind the term, but for me its just the language being used to explain what's just happened. I don't believe it has any worth in judging the game.