Opinions on TMO involvement

[beckett50]

Interesting article from Mike Blair.

Whilst I agree with some of what he says there is much about which to debate.

Any thoughts?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/25435357

 

[leaguerefaus]

I like the idea of the TMO talking through the decision making as seen in super league and the RLWC, or at the very least, explaining the decision he is giving as seen towards the end of the NRL season. Although I suppose this may be impractical if the IRB wants to continue allowing the centre ref to make his own calls from the big screen.

 

[OB..]

It's a starting point using anecdotal evidence rather than an analysis In the NFL the "TMO" (the referee himself, in fact) is limited to 90 seconds for each viewing. Did the this TMO take up 19 minutes, given that the half lasted 59, or were there some other stoppages?

I don't like the idea of the TMO talking through his thinking. What we need is a clear decision with reasons, not the inevitable "I'm not sure about that", "Maybe it is ..." etc.

The TMO was initially much more restricted , and has recently had his remit extended. I think we are still searching for the best balance. I am not comfortable with forward passes being judged in 2D, for example. In theory technology could solve that one: with a chip in the ball you could tell instantly if the pass increased the forward speed of the ball.

I think "on report" is a cop-out, and has the same defect as citing ie the punishment occurs in another game, not the one being played. If it can be sorted out now, it should be.

 

[4eyesbetter]

It's a starting point using anecdotal evidence rather than an analysis In the NFL the "TMO" (the referee himself, in fact) is limited to 90 seconds for each viewing.

They actually reduced the time a while back to 60 seconds; and it is always worth pointing out that in college football (which has more teams, more games, and is arguably more popular in many ways), they use a replay official who does not have a time limit.

(I do think that a time limit is a good idea, on the grounds that you don't have indisputable evidence either way if you can't find it in 60 seconds; but I also think this should be altered slightly because there have been rare-but-often-enough cases in the NFL where there have been two things to review in one play, the referee spends 45 seconds on one incident and then runs out of time to properly review the other.)

I don't like the idea of the TMO talking through his thinking. What we need is a clear decision with reasons, not the inevitable "I'm not sure about that", "Maybe it is ..." etc.

Have you seen it happen? I was skeptical until I watched a couple of RLWC games and it was very helpful to understand the thinking going on. They seemed to have been coached hard never to say "not sure", just keep calling for different angles and then say "ok, benefit of the doubt" at the end if necessary.

 

[winchesterref]

I would limit the replays - no more than say 5. If it hasn't been found/seen/decided by then it is not "clear and obvious"

 

[winchesterref]

In addition, this person on the comments doesn't seem to get it!!

Comment number 44. Maximus
15 MINUTES AGO
I am afraid that after playing rugby for over thirty happy years, the officials have got the forward pass scenario totally wrong. Even at my ripe old age of 66 I can make a forward pass even though my hands are level or looking to be going back. It is so obvious lately when seeing passes sent yards before a marker line and being received yards passed it !!!!

 

[Ian_Cook]

I am not comfortable with forward passes being judged in 2D, for example.

I'm happy enough for them to continue doing this, so long as it is clear and obvious.

The question/protocol should not be "is it clear and obvious whether or not the pass was forward", it should be "the pass is NOT forward unless the video clearly and obviously shows otherwise"

If the TMO is asking for a third look from same/best angle then it is not clear and obvious.

Have you seen it happen? I was skeptical until I watched a couple of RLWC games and it was very helpful to understand the thinking going on. They seemed to have been coached hard never to say "not sure", just keep calling for different angles and then say "ok, benefit of the doubt" at the end if necessary.

I was also skeptical, but it grew on me as I watched it more. Its definitely added value from a fan viewpoint. You don't end up wondering what the Video Referee was thinking.

 

[Dickie E]

I would limit the replays - no more than say 5. If it hasn't been found/seen/decided by then it is not "clear and obvious"

I'm not a fan of artificial constarints. These guys are pros. If they need to have a look a dozen times so be it if it helps get the right decison.

 

[winchesterref]

But if they need to look a dozen times then surely it isn't clear and obvious?

 

[MrQeu]

Sometimes it may be clear and obvious, but the good replay wasn't shown until after 4 or more different angles.

 

[PaulDG]

Sometimes it may be clear and obvious, but the good replay wasn't shown until after 4 or more different angles.

And they're not in control of the replays.

I imagine it's like when someone else in the room has the remote control:

"Can I see that bit again?"

"This bit?"

"No, the bit before that... not that far back..."

"This bit then?"

"No, that's the same bit again. Before it!!"

"How about this?"

"That's a completely different view.. Why can't you just give me the bl**dy bit I asked for!!!"

etc..

 

[OB..]

I remember hearing about one (English) TMO in France who found the technicians could not speak English. :sad:

 

[Jacko]

And they're not in control of the replays.

I imagine it's like when someone else in the room has the remote control:

"Can I see that bit again?"

"This bit?"

"No, the bit before that... not that far back..."

"This bit then?"

"No, that's the same bit again. Before it!!"

"How about this?"

"That's a completely different view.. Why can't you just give me the bl**dy bit I asked for!!!"

etc..

Especially true when the guy who you're asking for the replays speaks a different language to you...

 

[MrQeu]

TV operators do have quite a high degree of importance and the can influence the outcome of the call by both their bias or their incompetence.

I recall a game in the 2010 Basketball World Cup. Host team (Turkey) played Greece in an important game of the pool phase. There was a last second three point shot by a greek player in the first quarter and the refs (quite good ones) decided that it wasn't on time, but they were to review it. They were shown three simultaneous images: one for the clock and two general angles of the game.

Lead ref asked the tv operator to stop the image on the specific moment when the time expired and the specific moment when the bal was released by the player*, but the operator didn't. He tried a couple or three times to make him go frame by frame, but the operator was moving the replay at fast speed and stopped it quite before the time expiring or quite after it expiring and the ball being released. After a minute or so, the ref told him to f off and that the call on the court stood as he wasn't able to get even a glimpse on what had happened.

The next replay on TV was a perfect still of the shot being on time.

After that, FIBA changed their protocols and bought some TV software (actually they bought the software used by the club competitions) and now it's the refs themselves who use the program to decide, changing the angles, moving back and forth, etc.

May rugby do the same?

*Note: in basketball, a shot is good if the player released the ball before the time expires, even if the ball enters the basket after the time expires.

 

[L'irlandais]

I remember hearing about one (English) TMO in France who found the technicians could not speak English. :sad:

When in Rome... it's always useful to have a smattering of Italian. I know you're no monolingual OB.. but the French are notoriously so.

 

[Dickie E]

When in Rome... it's always useful to have a smattering of Italian.

Not sure how this would help??? :italy:

hai gli occhi belli. Posso offrirti da bere?

 

[OB..]

When in Rome... it's always useful to have a smattering of Italian. I know you're no monolingual OB.. but the French are notoriously so.

The TMO and the technicians need first and foremost to be experts at their jobs, not linguists. International TMOs may operate in more than one country. How many languages should they learn?

If necessary there should be an interpreter. It would delay things slightly but at least the system would work.

 

[KML1]

And they're not in control of the replays.

I imagine it's like when someone else in the room has the remote control:

"Can I see that bit again?"

"This bit?"

"No, the bit before that... not that far back..."

"This bit then?"

"No, that's the same bit again. Before it!!"

"How about this?"

"That's a completely different view.. Why can't you just give me the bl**dy bit I asked for!!!"

etc..

Actually that's more or less exactly what happens. Insider view - we sit alongside the producer(s) and that conversation is more or less spot on. Now, the investment has gone into the Premiership and Championship so we have that ability, not all unions/broadcasters can say the same. There's also the small but important point that what I ask for and see, is what the ref on the screen in the stadium sees.

 

[Browner]

After that, FIBA changed their protocols and bought some TV software (actually they bought the software used by the club competitions) and now it's the refs themselves who use the program to decide, changing the angles, moving back and forth, etc.

Hmmnnnnn . . . . .......
Hawkeye for ball going over the plain of touch or the upright,
GPS for ball leaving the hands & unstraight put ins & shove before the ball leaves SH Hands,
ref cam for binding offences, a Ipad for selecting & reviewing camera angles via 360* view technology .........
lets have viewer 'red button' participation voting for Tip tackle beyond horizontal decisions,
telephone votes for replacement usage & timings,
add in mid match trading of players to bring a more powerful centre onto the pitch
and voodoo doll zapping of one opposition player per 10mins where he simulates a hamstring injury & is out of the game receiving treatment ..............
then add teleportation of SBW from the other match that he is participating in at the same time , whenever one of his team are in possession

Now that is what you call technology led entertainment ...... ruggarplaytendoboxfactorshowbiz :biggrin:

 

[Ian_Cook]

When in Rome... it's always useful to have a smattering of Italian. I know you're no monolingual OB.. but the French are notoriously so.

Especially when it suits them!