The RCT made it through to the Champions Cup quarter-finals in spectacular fashion. The final score was 28-27 against the Stormers, despite being two players down towards the end of the game. The Varois thought they had done enough by leading 28-20. However, a late try by the visitors in the 77th minute changed everything. On the final play of the match, the South Africans believed they had scored the winning try. The referee initially said no, but the TMO confirmed it, with Charles Ollivon at the center of a defense that some disputed.
“Not a try” decision on the field: where it all begins
Before going to the TMO, the referee made his decision on the field: not a try. This is where everything starts. Since the TMO protocol came into effect, the role of video assistance is not to replay the entire action but to focus on “clear and obvious” incidents, those “unlikely to be judged otherwise” according to World Rugby guidelines. The referee remains the main decision-maker, with the TMO assisting rather than substituting.
No conclusive evidence, the on-field decision stands
In essence, if the images do not definitively show that the ball was grounded, the referee’s initial decision remains unchanged. That’s exactly what happened. The TMO can intervene on the grounding of the ball in-goal or on an infringement related to the try, as stipulated in Law 6.15/6.16. But without clear and indisputable proof, the on-field decision cannot be overturned based on an impression. No clear image, no try. The logic is cold but consistent, which is why the Stormers’ try was not awarded at Mayol Stadium last Saturday.
Ollivon in-goal: a legal defense
The second point of debate was Charles Ollivon’s defense on the final play. The Stormers argued he was not on his feet and therefore could not defend. This is an incomplete interpretation of the rule. Law 13.3, regarding players on the ground without the ball, clearly states that it applies “in the field of play,” not in-goal. World Rugby explicitly clarified this during the July 2022 law review: the restriction does not cover actions in-goal. In-goal, a defender can also position themselves under the ball carrier to prevent the grounding. That’s what Ollivon did (very well). His actions did not allow the TMO to overturn the referee’s decision of no try.
“Held up”: when the ball is dead
The third angle is Law 21.16. If the ball carrier is held up in-goal and cannot ground or play the ball, the ball is declared dead. No try. This was the scenario in this case. Law 21.10 also specifies that defenders can strip or knock the ball back when a player reaches out to ground it. They cannot kick it but can block it. Ollivon was within this legal framework. The South African protest, understandable as it may be, does not hold up from a regulatory standpoint. Toulon won through the pain, with 13 players against 15 towards the end of the match. But on the final play, both the referee and the rules say the same thing.
