Is the TMO no longer required?

[suckerforred]

A couple of thing from the laws that we need to keep in mind in this discussion:-

6.A.4 The duties of the referee in the playing enclosure
(a)

The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match. The referee must apply fairly all the Laws of the Game in every match.​

6.A.5 Referee altering a decision
The referee may alter a decision when a touch judge has raised the flag to signal touch.
The referee may alter a decision when an assistant referee has raised the flag to signal touch or an act of foul play.

6.A.6 Referee consulting with others
(a)

The referee may consult with assistant referees in regard to matters relating to their duties, the Law relating to foul play or timekeeping and may request assistance related to other aspects of the referee’s duties including the adjudication of offside.​

(b)

A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices. If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving a try being scored or a touch down, that official may be consulted.123​

The official may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.
The official may be consulted in relation to the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.12
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.
The official may be consulted if the referee or assistant referees are unsure when making a decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.
(c)

A match organiser may appoint a timekeeper who will signify the end of each half.​

(d)

The referee must not consult with any other persons.​

http://www.irblaws.com/?law=6

I agree with most of the points made. Why ask for a TMO decision if you are not going to rely on it or consider it? And yes the question needs to be clear as to what the Ref wants to see.

But don't doubt for a minute that the Ref has the power to, and in some cases will, over rule his assistants (touchies or TMO) if he does not agree. And he has every right to do so.

 

[Mank]

My view is that anything that tries to make fairer calls is good. I do not like Barnes' style, but in this latest case he got the call correct. The ball did appear to go backward out the hands. Once Barnes had seen and decided on that he took responsibility as the sole judge of fact, we got the correct decision and the game resumed more quickly. I don't see a big problem there.

 

[Bairdy]

If the ref wants to take ownership of an inconclusive decision, ala Steve Walsh when he first set the precedent for using the big screen to overrule a TMO, what's wrong with that?

 

[gel]

The rugby league World Cup had the TMO talking through his decision whilst watching it. At first I was interested, but then it really did start to sound quite contrived like the contestants on game shows these days who are told to talk their way through their answer.

I hope rugby doesn't go that way.

"OK Wayne. You have asked if it was a forward pass. Here's my thoughts... Well, first I got up and had a piece of toast. Then I brushed my teeth. Then I went to the store to buy some fish..."

The drama should be the game, not the TMO. I would be fine if it was gone altogether.

 

[Braveheart81]

I agree with most of the points made. Why ask for a TMO decision if you are not going to rely on it or consider it? And yes the question needs to be clear as to what the Ref wants to see.

I think the referee always needs to ask for the TMO to make a decision and not just ask for replays because if the referee doesn't feel they have a good enough view on the big screen after watching it all then the TMO has to be ready to make their call.

It seems like the method being used is for the refereee to ask for the TMO and if after watching the replays they are happy that they can make a decision on their own then they interject before the TMO makes their call.

I think the timing is important because if the referee lets the TMO make their call first, that needs to be the call that is used. I don't think the referee can overrule at that point.

 

[terry j]

The rugby league World Cup had the TMO talking through his decision whilst watching it. At first I was interested, but then it really did start to sound quite contrived like the contestants on game shows these days who are told to talk their way through their answer.

I hope rugby doesn't go that way.

"OK Wayne. You have asked if it was a forward pass. Here's my thoughts. Well, first I got up and had a piece of toast. Then I brushed my teeth. Then I went to the store to buy some fish."

The drama should be the game, not the TMO. I would be fine if it was gone altogether.

yeah, but league needs any drama and interest it can find so why not

at least in out code the drama IS in the game

 

[gel]

yeah, but league needs any drama and interest it can find so why not

at least in our code the drama IS in the game

Hope the upper echelon of power remember that.

 

[Muttonbird]

It seems like the method being used is for the referee to ask for the TMO and if after watching the replays they are happy that they can make a decision on their own then they interject before the TMO makes their call.

I think the timing is important because if the referee lets the TMO make their call first, that needs to be the call that is used. I don't think the referee can overrule at that point.

This is exactly my problem with this new directive.

It's sloppy.

Although it will never be admitted by the IRB, I think we all suspect refs use "make-up" calls within games in order to redress their mistakes (some more than others, Wayne Barnes, cough). This new interjection directive gives them another tool with which to achieve that. In Jo'burg we even saw Owens use the interjection directive while reviewing the Matariwa clean-out of McCaw's head. Should have been a YC but Owens laughed it off partly to right the perceived wrongs at Eden Park.

 

[Mank]

In Jo'burg we even saw Owens use the interjection directive while reviewing the Matariwa clean-out of McCaw's head. Should have been a YC but Owens laughed it off partly to right the perceived wrongs at Eden Park.

For the record, this is incorrect.

 

[Muttonbird]

Another week, another howler from the ref/TMO. This one clearly showed there is a hierarchy amongst refs and TMOs and Jaco Peyper is not high on that list.

I'm talking about the Brown try in Dunedin of course. Regardless of the final decision (I've seen worse), it was the unholy shambles as to how it was arrived that made me mad.

You've got some refs (Owens) ruling these TMO encounters with an iron fist and using the big screen to make decisions while pre-empting and batting away anything the TMO has to say. Then you have the opposite, Peyper, meekly offering a suggestion, not backing it up with what he saw on the screen, and folding in front of a tyrant TMO in Ayoub.

Before anyone says I'm having another whinge, I prefer the second case, it's the inconsistency that is annoying. Ref gives up the right to make a call when he refers to the TMO, surely.

 

[ChargerWA]

You were ahead of the curve on this one Muttonbird. I agree with your premise, piss the TMO off and if the referee needs to see a higher definition view of the footage he can run to the sideline and look at a screen setup there (as already done in basketball).

Or alternatively they can transmit it to a tablet linked with the feed and the assistant ref can run it out to him.

95% of the time they will be able to make the call off the big screen and even if they do have to run to the sideline it will take less time than it currently takes while the referee and TMO confuse each other.

One person in charge, as it should be.

 

[Mank]

Disagree.

 

[Nelse]

It was my understanding that pretty much all decisions regarding the officiating of the law was ultimately up to the referee. In that he can choose to listen to the TMO or not. I've seen plenty of times where the touchie (assistant ref) will call something like a possible forward pass or offside, and the ref, having seen it also, will say that he believed it fine, and overrule the touchie. I don't see why it would be different from the TMO

You have to remember too that the referee as his own view and memory to go on. We can't see exactly what he saw, neither can the TMO and that refcam doesn't show the best picture, so what he sees on the big screen may just put beyond doubt a decision the ref was already coming to. The TMO should be used as advice and extra information for the ref to make a decision. I hope they never go down the route of League where the TMO is essentially the emperor's thumb up or down and makes a spectacle of it.

 

[Scoey]

The touchie is an "Assistant Referee" so his role is to assist the referee (obviously) and hence can offer his opinion to the ref but can be freely over ruled. The TMO is a Television Match Official. No idea if that gives him equal clout as the referee but perhaps his role should be downgraded to one of an assistant referee?

 

[Mr Pilfer]

The decision was an absolute shambles. I am hoping that it was just poor communication between the two of them and that Ayoub does not honestly believe that the ball does not need to touch the ground to be a try.
I think Peyper needed to question Ayoub again and confirm "did you see the ball touch the ground" but I think the problem is that the referees can feel pressure to make the decision as quick as possible and not drag it on.
I also think the decision not to give the try to McCalman was pretty soft. If you slow anything down to ultra slow motion then it will always look worse than it is.