TMO try reviews

Are out of control. Just ridiculous time wasting and over analysis. Ruining the game.

And they always miss the fact that passes ARE actually forward. The AB one to Ranger was tonight and during sxv despite watching it several times come back with ' no CLEAR evidence blah blah...'

Thought Poite handled the South African TMOs efforts to exceed his remit well in the Dunbar try incident

He did. He was excellent. But not all referees will be. And this will bite at the worst possible time. There is simply no need to over scrutinise the actual scoring play and it creates a grating discord against other seminal parts of play that lack the same scrutiny, but that are equally game changing.

GloriousEmpire wrote:He did. He was excellent. But not all referees will be. And this will bite at the worst possible time. There is simply no need to over scrutinise the actual scoring play and it creates a grating discord against other seminal parts of play that lack the same scrutiny, but that are equally game changing.

You gotta love it when tries to get all flowery.

I thought (well as in reported here in france ) that poite had a bad game, at least ruining scotland chances at scrum time?

Hate the new trial rules. Blydi referees going back to check if anyone was fidgeting during the anthems to penalise them. Why are we paying assistant referees if the TMO can now make all their decisions for them?
Go back to the old set up PLEASE!

whocares wrote:I thought (well as in reported here in france ) that poite had a bad game, at least ruining scotland chances at scrum time?

Not really. The scrum was a bit of a lottery (isn't it always) some went against Scotland some went against the Boks (including one where the Scottish tighthead had dropped his bind, was on his knees, and the Beast was penalised for hinging!)

RE: the TMO, I did think he went ridiculously far back looking for infringements. The ref asked him to check a forward pass immediately before the try, and the TMO must have rewound through nearly five minutes of play preceding the try: at least Poite had the good sense to call an end to that

Mr Fishpaste wrote:RE: the TMO, I did think he went ridiculously far back looking for infringements. The ref asked him to check a forward pass immediately before the try, and the TMO must have rewound through nearly five minutes of play preceding the try: at least Poite had the good sense to call an end to that

This is the problem having a HOME official, he also told the ref to give a yellow for a nothing push by Hamilton that changed the game. It is hard enough to win away from home without the TMO being a homer.

I'm not a big fan of TMO's. I think they should be really tightly defined. For me foul play yes, touching the ball down yes. Much else no. Rugby is a game where all sides play outside the boundaries. If we look at every ruck or scrum you'll probably find infringements on both sides. NZ gets a lot of stick for it, but it's no different with everyone else. For example French tactics at the ruck were hugely succussful. In no small part because the tackled player wasn't releases and players didn't support their own weight. That is the way the game was refereed so there aren't complaints.

IN terms of video refs. I think a lot of problems would disappear if the irb published statistics on video referee decisions. If there is a trend (i.e. a bias towards the home team, or a certain country) it show up and the IRB will have to address it.

I think it would be reasonable for the try-conceding team to nominate particular incidents or phases in the lead up to the try that should be investigated, and limit the TMO's remit to that. Otherwise, there looks to be too much avenue for unnecessary scrutiny and slowing down of the game.

If the TMO is to be given extra powers, then the nationality restrictions which currently apply to referees and linesmen must be applied to TMOs.

Not to make too big a point of things (and this is NOT the reason we lost) but in the SA v Scotland match on Saturday, a Saffa TMO blatantly extended his remit to find any possible way to disallow Scotland's tries, only for Romain Poite to ignore him. He then managed to get Jim Hamilton yellow-carded for an open-handed push to an opposition chin which would go unpunished in any other match I've ever watched. Honestly, I've done that myself on a rugby pitch and I'm the least aggressive dude you'll ever meet.

Interesting idea. The NFL idea might work. Allow a couple of challanges per game to go to the video ref. They have to be nominated by a team.

My question is when did the rules on the TMO change, or did they just drift into it..

I thought the TMO could only judge on try line incidents, and then only answer the direct question posed by the ref, who could only ask 1 of two questions:-

1. Is there any reason I cannot award the try

or

2. Is it a try Yes or No


We now get the TMO looking back to see if a ball was forward or knocked on 3 or 4 playes earlier, as well as being asked if a kick went over or not.

I have no problem in the TMO being asked to pass judgement on other incidents, but they need to be detailed in the rules and not open to individuals (refs) deciding to bottle decisions.

Its gone now, that the majority of tries go to the TMO even when the ref is standing right over there. Seems like refs (some more than others) are affraid to make the calls and stick by them.

blackcanelion wrote:Interesting idea. The NFL idea might work. Allow a couple of challanges per game to go to the video ref. They have to be nominated by a team.

NO... that's the slippery slope to "Time Outs".. The refs need to man up more and make decisions and stick to them.

The TMO's should be used only if the Ref and his Linesmen believe there was an infringement but didnt have a clear view. I have no problem in the Ref asking the TMO to check for foul play or score clarifications. But allowing the teams to decide when the TMO is used, is ridiculous and would turn it into "American" style sport, with coaches running up and down the line with Headsets on, trying to stop the game if it is going against them...

sirBiggles - I'm pretty sure it was at the start of this season that the increased the TMOs remit to look at the phase leading up to the score, and foul play.  However, I thought it was literally only the last phase they could consider.  Personally I only want the TMO to be used for grounding the ball, Argentina's second try against England being a perfect example of when the TMO is right to be used.  As others have suggested if you go back far enough you'll find foul play in the build up to any try.

I'd only allow players to request the TMO where there is an accusation of serious foul play.  If someone has been gouging/stamping on someone else's face or similar I'd like to see them red carded and off whoever flags it up to the ref.  But I'd only consider where a red card is justified and would probably have a penalty (for time wasting) against the moaning team if they cry foul play without justification.

Am I right in thinking that TMO's can be from the same country as the home team and in fact often are? If so how can this be right?

The TMO was doing his best on Saturday to disallow Scott's 2nd try. Ref didn't buy it and ignored his calls thankfully.

I'm not sure how it was allowed either, he was clearly biased and trying to infleunce the decisions.

He was nearly as partisan as the commentators !

haha Munkian... Bobby making out how Scotland were killing the game all the time.... something the boks have spent the last 100 years perfecting.

He was ridiculous.

SA TMOs seem to be particularly bad. Real homers.

Exactly, plus them wanting a red card for a slight push to the face

Gouge much ?

The thing which gets me is the intervention with Scott's 2nd try.

Little obstruction yes but the tackle was made anyhow. Wouldn't have made a big if any difference.

The ref played on.... had he listened to the TMO he would have given a penalty to SA in the 22.
Lets say Scott was driven into touch though.... there would have been no TMO, an SA lineout 5 metres out.

The TMO is not a ref just a video official. He shouldn't say oh x and y happened beforehand which in his view was illegal.
If neither the ref or the linesman saw it or they chose not to act on it and wouldn't have done so had a try not been scored/required confirmation then the TMO shouldn't have the authority to confirm anything bar the event of whether or not a try was scored.

TMO's need to be neutral, what happens if England play SA in the final of the next RWC and we have a TMO from England??? What would happen if a result occurred whereby he prevented SA from winning the trophy?

munkian wrote:
Exactly, plus them wanting a red card for a slight push to the face

Gouge much ?

Define 'them' Munkian.
Would that be TMOs, Management, Pundits, Correspondents, Audience, Fans, 606 posters or an imaginary demon?

This is actually something I don't know (which is a very strange feeling! ) but are TMOs actual refs (qualified)?  

I mean, I just tend to gloss over them.... you sometimes hear their names but my brain rarely listens.  But in my lack of interest in that department, I still don't think I've ever heard Rolland or Barnes or Owens chatting to the ref from the TMO position so I assume it's not like an interchangeable position whereby a ref one day becomes a linesman the next, becomes a TMO the next?

Or am I all wrong.  I'm annoyed that I haven't a clue.

[quote="fa0019"]TMO's need to be neutral, what happens if England play SA in the final of the next RWC and we have a TMO from England??? What would happen if a result occurred whereby he prevented SA from winning the trophy?[/quote]

Then I imagine, at the very least, there'd be several threads on 606v2 where Biltong, Mmaaxx and myself complain about how the biased TMO stole the game from the team that, all things being equal and fair, by rights should have won; then perhaps we'd make generalised statements questioning the ability and integrity of English referees....

Secret, fairly sure that they are fully qualified refs as they would need to be in fairness. As for what they have adjudicated on over the past few weeks, this has been happening all season in the Super XV and the Aviva too.

I think the wording is the last two phases before a score and then they can be asked about foul play too. As per the 'old' rules, the referee has 100% final say and Poite gave a perfect example, he was happy with the obstruction issue and played on, just wanted the pass checked. that was fine. The TMO offered an opinion (allbeit one that wasn't sought) on the previous ruck/tackle situation and Poite shut him down.

Also, and this cannot be ignored, I am fairly sure that in stadia where it is available, when the TMO incidents are being checked, the on field refs are now formally able to utilise the big screen themselves. Prime example of this was the Barbarians v Lions match where Steve Walsh caught a reply of Brits hurting his hand on Farrell's face and asked for a replay. he then (in my eyes brilliantly but perhaps wrongly) pnly yellow carded him as he understood that it was a Baabaa's game so making them play with 14 would ruin the entertainment, and then much more crucially, the Lions wanted a Test match not a blow-out so the opposition losing a man would have rendered the exercise completely useless not to mention the risk of uncontested scrums happening if the replacement hooker got injured.

Is this 'new' system perfect? No, but then the 'old' one isn't either. I also really like the idea of forward passes and crossing in the act of/build up to scoring, being adjudicated on.

BY A NEUTRAL TMO!!!!!

I'm glad other people noticed the biased nature of the TMO, i said to my dad at the time that he just seemed to look for any reason to not award a try to scotland.  I think that it should hinge on what the ref asks, if he asked to check a pass, check the pass but if someone is obstructing a player it gets ignored because the ref hasn't asked that.

On the foul play with Hamilton i think that a yellow was fair enough, it wasn't a nudge, it was 2 hands (albeit open) pushing hard into a guys face.  Had they been closed fists it would have done damage and been a red, the fact that they weren't meant it was just a yellow.  NOt sure what Hamilton was playing at either, he had no reason to do that and i thought it was just a stupid thing to do.

Beloved, I get what you are saying, but there is no harm in telling the ref more, he can make his own judgement like Poite, sometimes there might be something the ref missed while asking for a grounding/pass but he could have missed a trip or pull back by an attacking player etc. So the TMO gets a question about a grounding that might be sound but you wouldn't let him tell the ref that a defender that might/would have made a difference was fouled etc? That is as ridiculous as the home TMO trying to ref the game. Poite asked about one thing and then listened to but disagreed with other advice. No harm done, try Scotland.

I agree to an extent debaters, but i think that puts us on a slippery slope where we get TMOs trying to find anything to stop tries being awarded.  A line needs to be drawn somewhere, i originally heard it was only in the try scoring phase, but have seen that be ignored so i'm a bit wary as to where it may eventually lead.

Funny how so much focus is on the TMO. What he did I've seen a number of times this season. Perhaps the talk should be on why Poite ignored another infringement as it was clearly obstruction in the build up to the try. Any other time that happens in a match it gets blown up. He missed it, got told about it by the TMO as it was in the last two phases of play and ignored it. Why have the technology and rules just to not use them? I guarantee that if SA scored similarly the Scots would be shouting blatant obstruction.

MMaxx, he saw it and judged it to be immaterial. The player was tackled by the impeded player, So the obstruction was a very marginal and inconsequential one. He saw it live let it go, and saw the replay/heard the TMO and made his decision. No harm there. he checked the part he was dubious about, the final pass, so he wasn't trying to award Scotland anything, as, if he had been of such a mind, he wouldn't have asked any question in the first place and just awarded the try upon grounding.