Are TMOs Ruining Things

[Ian_Cook]

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

Maybe you are getting a different video feed from me.

What I see is White 20 offside, at least a ½ metre, who then moved forward from that offside position to charge down the ball. That is material gain from infriging.

That White 20 was offside was clear and obvious eight ways from Sunday.

 

[Flish]

I’m ok with decision, he was certainly a step in front of all else in the white line, my comment about not following the protocol was an after though and more towards their being a trial in place (one assumes towards making the TMO scenario better all round) so if the trial protocol isn’t properly followed then how can they judge if the changes are a success or not? That’s all.

I wouldn’t actually be against a more RL / Cricket style protocol, if clearly moves everything off field, the current hybrid just seems messy and inconsistent, but doesn’t look like that’s on the radar.

England should have took the points on offer to secure a win, same as South Africa last week, both teams lost in the first 75 not the last 5.

 

[Baylion]

To me it's not C&O that Lawes was offside, considering the ball was out before TJP picked it up

 

[Dickie E]

To me it's not C&O that Lawes was offside, considering the ball was out before TJP picked it up

and with his right foot off ground shouldn't we just focus on his left foot?

 

[Gracie]

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

I understand your point Ian, but disagree. The 'butterfly effect' will often mean that a modest illegal action several plays ahead of a decisive move can result in a score that if it had been spotted would not have happened. In the professional game we all see such incidents (and debate them) regularly, often viewing the interpretation in the eltite level as being very different to the game at grass roots level. The 'correct' decision is already subjective, bringing in the objectivity of a TMO at a broader level can only work if every decison is assessed.

For me, the fallability of the referee, as with the players is part of the game and the TMO should only come into play in very specific circumstances at the request of the on-field referee. If ther is to be a concession, perhaps like cricket and American Football, coaches could have two appeal reviews. If WR is trying to grow its audience and enhance the entertainment value, I'm far from certain a game that runs 100 minutes is the way ahead.

 

[crossref]

I would like to have two more TMOs .. one for each team
So that when an England captain is awarded a second PK 15m in from the touchline and decides to kick for the corner a second time , even though it didn't work one minute ago ...
The team TMO could intervene 'check check check! Owen ? Didnt you mean "posts please ,Sir " '

 

[BikingBud]

Laws was in a position that was consistent with how the referee had applied the offside line all game.

He was not singled out to move back, the referee had observed Laws' position and was, one would consider due to lack of direction, content.

Forensic review will pick up many, many occurrences throughout the game where the decision could be considered marginal or even contrary to the facts as seen in super slow-mo.

The game is not played like that. Laws shuffled sideways, the ruck travelled forward marginally, the scrum half lifted the ball, happens many times in every game. If the tolerance line has been drawn by the ref, in real timed fully within his field of view, then that is where it should stay.

Another area of significant difference between show reffing recently has been the line outs; if the application of the laws in yesterday's game had been the same as the last few weeks, jumping across, interfering, taking the man out etc, then there would have been many more infringements pinged.

The game was what it was, the genie, TMO, is out of the bottle, trying to control that so as not to spoil the game is the extremely difficult part that will not please all of the people all of the time.


BTW - Last week, Farrell should have been a yellow and my thoughts, fwiw, England should not have won last week but should have won yesterday.

 

[Camquin]

Unless I chip a kick off, catch it and run unopposed to the try line, there will have been a marginal call somewhere in the lead up to a try.

Yes Lawes needed to take a step, especially as the ruck was shoved forward by the kiwis.
But he was no more offside than any other back row in every match every week.
Is that what the TMO is for?

 

[belhysys]

if you get the screenshot just before, he is still offside, no left foot ad no pick up.

 

[Rich_NL]

Where's the clear and obvious hindmost foot of the ruck?

 

[DocY]

I’m genuinely surprised this decision has generated so much discussion on here. Other forums where people don’t know the laws (or are just one-eyes), less so, but to me this isn’t a contentious or marginal call and should have been picked up by the AR if not Garces himself.

And if you’re saying “yes, he was offside, but...” then you should take off the rose tinted glasss.

 

[Marc Wakeham]

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).

That's why you can't read the law book in such a literal way. Ask yourself: "What are the laws trying to achieve here?" It might help your interpretation.

Remember, "hindmost foot" was relevant when people used to stay on their feet during rucks.

 

[SilverMoon]

That's why you can't read the law book in such a literal way. Ask yourself: "What are the laws trying to achieve here?" It might help your interpretation.

Remember, "hindmost foot" was relevant when people used to stay on their feet during rucks.

I think the question remains valid and worthy of a succinct answer. Where is the offside line at this ruck ?

 

[crossref]

I think the question remains valid and worthy of a succinct answer. Where is the offside line at this ruck ?

was this even a ruck? The pictures seem to show only NZ players in it - so it was probably a tackle with offside lines.

So the answer is

[LAWS]Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. [/LAWS]

So for England it's a line though the front-most NZ player's foot.

(We can ignore players on the ground, as they are out of of the game)

 

[Zebra1922]

The thing I don't like about the TMO is the focus on 1 or 2 plays from a try only. If you look at every tackle, ruck, maul, line-out in slow motion you will probably see at least 1, and probably more than 1, offences from someone. Now they do not directly lead to a try but they must have an impact on the game overall (for example keeping an attack going, preventing a line break etc.) but these are not reviewed. To me this inconsistency is why I'm not a fan of the TMO apart from possibly to check grounding.

We all know rugby is a complex game with constant offending which we choose not to punish (materiality, flow of the game) or do not see, if we want to use a TMO for everything, go ahead but the first time you do it would be the last game anyone goes to watch. If we're only using it for certain calls there seems an inherent unfairness built in.

FWIW I believe CL was offside, but it was marginal and there would have been at least 10 similar instances in the game (along with the illegal (non) binds at rucks to stop this sort of charge down, not rolling away, off feet, not releasing..............

 

[Marc Wakeham]

I think the question remains valid and worthy of a succinct answer. Where is the offside line at this ruck ?

What is your answer?

Mine is pretty clear from my post (the hind post part of the body, which many not be a foot.).

 

[crossref]

What is your answer?

Mine is pretty clear from my post (the hind post part of the body, which many not be a foot.).

I don't think a player on the ground can set an offside line -- because if he's on the ground he's out of the game.

So it is always a foot.

 

[mcroker]

My issue is that the ref sets a standard thoughout the game through a consistent interpretation of laws, as a community ref I know how much players value that consistency.

In this case IMHO JG set a surprisingly lax standard for offside at the breakdown. Yet on this one (definitely material) breakdown suddenly a different more precise and arguably more correct standard is applied.

I’m tempted to go through the match and find all the other instances where a different standard was applied but life is too short...

I think there are two separate arguments about the current approach

- is consistent interpretation more important than exact interpretation applied when it really matters?

- It the extent to which TMOs are used disruptive to the flow of the game.

...and yes without any shadow of doubt I might well not see the issue if I were not partisan

 

[crossref]

World Rugby backs decision to disallow England’s late try against All Blacks

I haven't actually seen a statement by WorldRugby? has anyone else ? but the Guardian seem to think they know

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2...-world-rugby-tmo-disallowed-try-sam-underhill

 

[Baylion]

was this even a ruck? The pictures seem to show only NZ players in it - so it was probably a tackle with offside lines.

So the answer is

[LAWS]Offside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. [/LAWS]

So for England it's a line though the front-most NZ player's foot.

(We can ignore players on the ground, as they are out of of the game)

[FONT=fs_blakeregular]ffside lines are created at a tackle when at least one player is on their feet and over the ball, which is on the ground. Each team’s offside line runs parallel to the goal line through the hindmost point of any player in the tackle or on their feet over the ball. If that point is on or behind the goal line, the offside line for that team is the goal line.[/FONT]