Are TMOs Ruining Things

[Gracie]

Having watched Scotland v Fiji and England v NZ, as both a referee and a fan I'm left concerned by the role of TMOs. My concern is that it the person in a studio not on the field that is making decisions on an inconsistent basis. Park my partisan head in the Scotland referrals and lets look at the Courtney Lawes decision. If he was offside and he was, then pretty much every breakdown could have been called for the same offence; let along the lack of binding, players going off their feet etc. etc.

For me the TMO role is becoming too invasive - I prefer the on-field ref to get it right/wrong and let the TMO deal with citing type isues.Today, I rather depressingly observed someone in a studio undermine the referee.

 

[mcroker]

I agree with that completely ...

Certainly according to the law, Laws was offside, but no more than was tolerated for both teams at every other breakdown in the game.

JG was also right in front of the breakdown looking at Laws - he didn’t miss it, he thought it was fine in accordance with the standard he’d set all game. I’d say he was surprised with the TMO’s call.

( I am partisan)

 

[Flish]

Put everything back in the refs hands, if sir is unsure about something after a try is scored then sure, let him check, but otherwise play on, he/she already has AR’s to assist, so only go to the TMO if doubt on pitch. Only exception I would give is ‘check,check’ for foul play.

Everything else will be picked apart in anger longer after the game is over regardless, so let’s make the game the best it can be.

 

[mcroker]

I’m fine with TMO/AR for things the ref didn’t see (or asks for help with).

I don’t think either should offer an alternative view/interpretation on something the ref did see.

 

[Pedro]

I think it’s a fine line, but in the SCOvFIJ match, the TMO made two great calls which the on field ref missed (one of which he really should have called himself- he was in a great position and just missed the obstruction as far as I could tell).

 

[Gracie]

I'm fine with the ref asking for a TMO view where they have doubts at a score (provided it isn't for every score) but not for things the ref may have missed . My rationale is that, as refs we all miss things all of the time; every oversight could have consequences, so interuptions should not be reserved just for scores. Any dangerous/foul play should be picked up for citing. Also based upon today's viewing there are significant differences between TMO interuptions

 

[Marc Wakeham]

THe thing ablut the Lawes insident was that it was 100% Material. Yes other players may well have been ofside at almost every other ruck (and England pretty much tested the back foot to the limit) many of these offside were not material. Not only was Laws offside but he was the player who made the chargedown. That must be material.


But, yes the TMO is a very flawed system and needs to be reviewed

 

[L'irlandais]

Without answering your question directly, I would say TMOs are not going away anytime soon.
I think the wording of the LotG needs to be tightened up and by the same token the wording of questions put to the TMO.
The classic one being «*Is there any reason why I cannot award the try?*»
However if that question isn’t put to the TMO, if the man in the middle asks can you see a clear and obvious grounding. WTF? Where did they get that from? Clear and obvious has been use in relation to foul play in the past.
In the Ire v Arg game, CJ Stander was denied an early try by the TMO as he was unlucky enough to be buried under a pile of bodies. Yet there was no reason to suspect that he had been held up.

We need clarity about the role of TMOs and the limits of that role. We need set questions that can be put to this match official. I agree flawed is a good word to sum up the present TMO role.

Question: Do you need to see the ball grounded before awarding a try?
Or does the absence of any reason not to award the try suffice?

 

[Dickie E]

that decision didn't pass the C & O test for me. Try should have stood.

 

[Flish]

Are we not from today in the midst of a TMO protocol trial? From which I quote;

The TMO may be used when the referee requires confirmation with regard to the scoring of a try. Decisions relating to in-goal should be an on-field decision for which the Referee is responsible. The Referee may use his team of 4 to contribute where there is conclusive evidence which will inform the Referee’s ultimate decision.

Did that happen in the England game? Specifically the disallowed try? Pretty sure the TMO made the decision, not the ref? Also I thought they had to follow the Southern Hemisphere protocol where the ref declared an on field decision and then the TMO offers any C&O reasons to change it, was that the case?

More details at https://rugbyreferee.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/TMO_Protocol_Nov_18_Tier1_Hosted_Matches_EN.pdf but it didn’t seem like a different protocol to me?

 

[L'irlandais]

Yeah, but...

• The review of potential “clear and obvious” acts of foul play or to assist in the determination of sanctions for foul play.

Clear and obvious is mentioned several times in your linked protocol, but each time in relation to potential infringements, or acts of foul play. The fact the question has been changed to

• ” My on-field decision is a try, but can you check the grounding”

This completely changes the role of the TMO, he is no longer being asked to check for possible infringements, now he os being asked to confirm the grounding. Is this genuinely what WR intended, when they slightly changed the wording of that question. I don’t think so. The match referee, is saying I am happy with the grounding, is there something else (infringementwise) I have missed. And this plonker is answering I don’t see any grounding.

the logic previously was needing to see a clear and obvious reason that the try was prevented. By asking if there was a clear and obvious grounding, that is changing the current protocol. By what authority does a match referee/TMO come up with his own version of how things are governed. Other than he got confused and asked the wrong question...

 

[Ian_Cook]

Having watched Scotland v Fiji and England v NZ, as both a referee and a fan I'm left concerned by the role of TMOs. My concern is that it the person in a studio not on the field that is making decisions on an inconsistent basis. Park my partisan head in the Scotland referrals and lets look at the Courtney Lawes decision. If he was offside and he was, then pretty much every breakdown could have been called for the same offence; let along the lack of binding, players going off their feet etc. etc.

But how many of those other breakdown offences/incidents led DIRECTLY to a score?Answer, NONE.

For me the TMO role is becoming too invasive - I prefer the on-field ref to get it right/wrong and let the TMO deal with citing type isues.Today, I rather depressingly observed someone in a studio undermine the referee.

I find the idea that the game should somehow allow incorrect decisions to stand because of some antiquated tradition that that the man in the middle is sacrosanct, to be an anathema. Rugby Union is now a professional game at the top level, and such amateur thinking no longer has a place in it - its time Rugby Union caught up with other professional games like Rugby League and Cricket.In both of those games, once the television official is involved, then the decision making process is in his/her hands, and the referee in the middle plays no further part; there is no back and forth discussion. The referee/umpire makes the on field "soft" call, and the television official has to find clear evidence that the soft call is wrong, otherwise it stands. For mine, the top priority is that the CORRECT decision is made - all other priorities are subservient.If a game takes 100 minutes because of delays, so. be. it.!

 

[mcroker]

I thought the correct question if the ref was unclear on grounding was try yes/no.

Has that changed ?

In the case of Law’s offside the TMO played it back/forwards several times in very slow motion which is a bit of a hint it wasn’t C&O

 

[damo]

I don't know what the problem is. Lawes looked well offside and his being offside had a material impact on the game.

Ref wasn't sure so he went upstairs. The ref let the TMO make the call, presumably because it would be hard to see on the big screen.

TMO got it right. Nothing to see here.

 

[Dixpat]

Was the decision correct? IMO Yes

Did they follow protocol to arrive at the correct decision? Maybe not

The thread is entitled "Are TMOs ruining things" and the sense running through the thread is perhaps they are but I find that position ironic as nearly ever thread following an international is debating a ref's decision.

I dislike the intervention of the TMO for everything other than foul play and play in-goal but if the TMO is going to be used in the field of play then I would rather have the correct decision instead of post match criticism of the officials

 

[Ian_Cook]

I don't know what the problem is. Lawes looked well offside and his being offside had a material impact on the game.

Ref wasn't sure so he went upstairs. The ref let the TMO make the call, presumably because it would be hard to see on the big screen.

TMO got it right. Nothing to see here.

Yep, he was offside (even if only by a ½ metre) but he also moved forwards, towards the ball while in that offside position.

IMO, that ½ metre was the material advantage that allowed Lawes to charge down the SH's kick - without it, no charge down, no try - well, not in that way anyway.

And as for bleating about not following TMO protocol, I seem to clearly remember a match last year (the third in a three-match series) where the protocol was not followed. It resulted in an incorrectly cancelled, potentially match and series winning PK in front of the posts. I think you all know what I am referring to.

 

[Drift]

For those people complaining that the decision was "too technical" that's what the role of the TMO is for, to get those techinical decisions right and I thought Jonker made the right call. It was damn close and I was upset at the decision, however it was the right one.

This one thing didn't lose England the match, we were 15 points up against New Zealand and then let them get back into the game. They scored in the 38th minute and what happens next, Farrell puts the restart into touch on the full and NZ apply pressure and take 3 points a few minutes later. Farrell doesn't make that mistake it could have been a very different outcome.

At the end of the day I think either side could have won that game and all credit for NZ to coming back from 15-0 down to win it. Not many teams out there could have done that against England today.

 

[damo]

A lot of people are focussing on the fact that the ref let the TMO make the decision for him as if this invalidated the decision. I know World Rugby has said the referee should be making the call by watching it on the big screen. However, ultimately it's got to be up to the ref to decide whether he wants to make the decision or delegate it to his TMO. He is the sole judge of fact and law on the field, and in my view can decide to listen to the advice of his TMO if he wants to.

FWIW I agree with Ian that placing the decision in the referees hands is a step backwards for the game. As he says, rugby should adopt the league/cricket/tennis model whereby once referred the decision goes into the hands of someone independent.

 

[Dickie E]

For those people complaining that the decision was "too technical" that's what the role of the TMO is for, to get those techinical decisions right and I thought Jonker made the right call. It was damn close and I was upset at the decision, however it was the right one.

was the infringement C & O? For me no ... parallax error, posssible foot in air, etc.

I think these mid-field TMO decisions should be for those howlers that 85,000 people see, except for the bloke with the whistle.

 

[rugbyslave]

I have a question about the offside line in the Laws, where is the offside line if the blue player lying at the bottom of the ruck has his feet facing the opposition goal line and his head and arms his own goal line. The ruck has no blue player bound on the player at the bottom of the ruck. The law should say hind most body part otherwise the offside line would be where the opposing scrumhalf is picking up the ball. (I am not trying to be flippant but people reading the law would interpret it this way).