Is the TMO no longer required?

[Muttonbird]

This is the crux of the issue. New laws are trialled at lower levels. However the use of the TMO is not afforded this luxury because at lower level they do not have the facilities so they have to be trialled at higher levels which in some instances, depending on scheduling, could be test matches.
Unfortunate, but I cant see any other way.

Good point Baldric. Just that the release by Twitter of significant changes to the Laws of Rugby hours out from two major test-matches takes some getting used to.

 

[Mank]

I believe close inspection of the Louw pass would show it to be forward. In real time it was flat enough and that's the footage Owens based his decision on. The Beast lead with his shoulder but Owens had to be lenient given what had happened after Eden Park. He even gave Matariwa a pat on the back afterwards which was weird.

The hit on McCaw aside (because the political implications affected Owens' decision there), I would like to have seen the Louw pass go to the TMO without Owens interjecting. The Nonu non-try was inconclusive but he also pre-empted the TMO's decision.

I'll go back to the original question, if the referee is going to call off the big screen, then why have a TMO at all?

Because there is a place for both. I would like to say I don't know why you're making such a big deal about this, but really, I think I know why.

 

[Rob42]

Good point Baldric. Just that the release by Twitter of significant changes to the Laws of Rugby hours out from two major test-matches takes some getting used to.

Wow. That's a significant change to the Laws? How do you feel about southern hemisphere forwards first trialling the new scrum laws in test matches, then?

 

[Rob42]

I believe close inspection of the Louw pass would show it to be forward. In real time it was flat enough and that's the footage Owens based his decision on./

If close inspection is required for a forward pass, then I think the TMO/ref on big screen review should let it go. It is so hard to accurately judge a forward pass from a replay, the TMO should only penalise the most glaring examples.

 

[Bullrush]

If close inspection is required for a forward pass, then I think the TMO/ref on big screen review should let it go. It is so hard to accurately judge a forward pass from a replay, the TMO should only penalise the most glaring examples.

It looked to me to go backwards out of Louw's hands so it was fine in my book.

 

[Muttonbird]

If close inspection is required for a forward pass, then I think the TMO/ref on big screen review should let it go. It is so hard to accurately judge a forward pass from a replay, the TMO should only penalise the most glaring examples.

The TMO on that occasion, Graham Hughes, didn't get a chance to "penalise" anything. Owens referred it, made his own decision and then told Hughes what he should be thinking. Would Hughes have reviewed the pass in slow-mo a couple of times if he'd been allowed to, or given the time to? He's got all the tools to do it calmly and dispassionately so yes, I think he would have. Also, how forward does as pass have to be? You seem to be suggesting a little bit forward is ok.

Really, it was only a few matches ago that the TMO was brought in to help with field of play decisions, now they've changed it again and seemingly without much consultation. For me it highlights what a disorganised state the game's administrators are in.

If they are going to have a live discussion between ref and TMO straight after close calls then they'd better keep it private before releasing the final decision and not continue with this sloppy debate to a world-wide audience.

 

[Rob42]

/Also, how forward does as pass have to be? You seem to be suggesting a little bit forward is ok.

Really, it was only a few matches ago that the TMO was brought in to help with field of play decisions, now they've changed it again and seemingly without much consultation. For me it highlights what a disorganised state the game's administrators are in.

/

What I'm saying is that a fixed camera, usually on the half-way line, is not a good way to rule on forward passes. If the ref is happy with the pass, he should tell the TMO that, because the ref should be in a better position to rule on it.

This change brings more power back to the on-field ref, and lessens the chance of poor communication between ref and TMO leading to an error. That makes it a good change. I don't think we know how much this was discussed between the administrators and the refs before it was implemented - I'm sure the refs weren't notified by Twitter.

 

[Muttonbird]

Agree with what you say about ruling forward passes from a fixed camera but often the ref and his assistants are in no position at all to be making the call neither.

It just so happens the Louw pass was just about dead on half way which is maybe why armchair critics like myself feel confident in making a call.

At the risk of borrowing from NFL and their micro-managed spectacle of a game, the officials there discuss the decision in private then release that decision to the live and TV audience at the same time.

 

[Braveheart81]

It just so happens the Louw pass was just about dead on half way which is maybe why armchair critics like myself feel confident in making a call.

Using a line to help judge a forward pass is really not a good idea in my opinion. If anything, it will just provide a distraction.

The only relevant part of the pass when judging whether it is a forward pass is the first foot of travel really.

 

[Rob42]

/
At the risk of borrowing from NFL and their micro-managed spectacle of a game, the officials there discuss the decision in private then release that decision to the live and TV audience at the same time.

Perhaps I'm just being contrary, but I also disagree with this point. I actually think it is better for the spectacle of the game, and for the accountability of the officials, for us to hear the discussion. The less we hear of the officials, the more we will be left to speculate, and that won't be helpful for anyone.

 

[Braveheart81]

Perhaps I'm just being contrary, but I also disagree with this point. I actually think it is better for the spectacle of the game, and for the accountability of the officials, for us to hear the discussion. The less we hear of the officials, the more we will be left to speculate, and that won't be helpful for anyone.

True story.

Longer periods of waiting while the referees discuss things in private will just result in the viewers listening to Marto speculate for longer.

Everybody loses in that situation.

 

[boyo]

They could be discussing their dinner, beer, etc.

Who knows?

 

[Muttonbird]

Perhaps I'm just being contrary, but I also disagree with this point. I actually think it is better for the spectacle of the game, and for the accountability of the officials, for us to hear the discussion. The less we hear of the officials, the more we will be left to speculate, and that won't be helpful for anyone.

There's that but in NFL the final decision relayed to the audience comes with a detailed explanation and controversy is not allowed to develop.

Our game is a different game but one which seems permanently in the throes of change. Little things borrowed from other games might improve our game though.

 

[Muttonbird]

Anyone know whether Joubert used the TMO or big screen during Bledisloe 3? NZ being what it is, and Dunedin being a small town in NZ, I'd imagine the big screen at Forsyth Barr isn't big enough to be making decisions from.

 

[Muttonbird]

It will be interesting to see what the refs will do this weekend re making their own decisions from big screen evidence.

You know what I think? I think most refs will follow the logical and professional route and ask for a decision from the TMO, wait quietly for that decision, then use it to make an informed ruling. However, there are one or two show pony refs who will think they are so good they can make it up as they go along.

 

[Muttonbird]

***UPDATE***

Hmm. There seems to have been another live discussion incident last night. Clancy led the TMO by the hand in saying, "there's obstruction, but not enough obstruction". TMO then announces, "I have a decision" before summing up, "I agree completely".

Amateur hour at the IRB as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Rob42]

***UPDATE***

Hmm. There seems to have been another live discussion incident last night. Clancy led the TMO by the hand in saying, "there's obstruction, but not enough obstruction". TMO then announces, "I have a decision" before summing up, "I agree completely".

Amateur hour at the IRB as far as I'm concerned.

I've disagreed with your previous points Muttonbird, but have to agree that this example was a mess. Once Clancy asked the TMO for a decision, he should have shut up and waited for that decision. What if the TMO had said "actually, I think it was obstruction"? A mess.

The on-field ref needs to either ask for a big screen review, for him to make the decision, or ask the TMO for a decision - not have a little bit of both.

 

[cyclopath]

Actually, my biggest problem is the statement that there was "obstruction, but not enough obstruction", which, coming from Clancy or TMO is just absurd. If they said "yes" or "no", I have no issue with the process. Obstruction exists, or it doesn't.

 

[Muttonbird]

I've disagreed with your previous points Muttonbird, but have to agree that this example was a mess. Once Clancy asked the TMO for a decision, he should have shut up and waited for that decision. What if the TMO had said "actually, I think it was obstruction"? A mess.

The on-field ref needs to either ask for a big screen review, for him to make the decision, or ask the TMO for a decision - not have a little bit of both.

Can't see a TMO ever disagreeing with or over-ruling a ref, or a ref allowing it for that matter. That is the problem with this new directive, the TMO is now obliged to agree with the ref.

 

[Dan54]

Of course the TMO has to agree with ref, he only has powers to advise ref, not overule him. I have absolutely no problem with Clancy seeing it on big screen and then making decision and taking TMO out. In saying that I not saying Clancy was right or wrong in decision he made, but he was the ref so if he can see it clearly on big screen HE should make decision noone else!! I think amateur hour would be ref saying I can see clearly what has happened but I want you to make call to save my arse if it wrong!!