TMO's powers

First topic message reminder :

Anyone who has just watched the Wales - Scotland game will know what I'm on about. The Scottish break, the pass to Hogg who touches down and scores on his debut... All looks fine, until Romaine Poite who must have been some 25-30m away from Hogg, and could only see his back, calls for a knock on.
As the TV pictures showed there was clearly no knock on and it was a 100% legitimit try.

Surely at times like this when the ref is so far away from the action, and unless he was blessed with x-ray vision, could never see the ball it would make sense to check with the TMO?

I feel the time has come for the IRB to extend the powers of the TMO, and allow him to adjudicate on crucial decisions such as this.
(I'd also like the IRB to fire Romain Poite from their rosta of referees )

Rory_Gallagher wrote:And why wouldn't they be able to? So if a referee is unsure about a knock-on/forward pass, he isn't able to consult the TMO? Who made that rule up??

The current law states the TMO can only be used in the in goal area.

So what does a referee do when he is in doubt? Give it anyway? If he is in doubt as to whether or not a pass was forward, or if there was a knock-on, I see no reason as to why he cannot refer to the TMO.

The rules say he cant?

Surely the benefit of the doubt must go to the attacking team, ridiculous call, Poite is a crap referee.

gowales wrote:The rules say he cant?

Which is why I am questioning that ruling. Why is that rule there?

The law says he can't, he has to make the decision himself, and if he isn't sure he is supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. He didn't.

He said he was sure and that was his decision. On looking at it post match, I can't see how he could be so confident.

rory, I think the reasoning by the IRB is time constraints and the question of how far back do you go.

Monty,

What are you talking about. If the ref thinks the player knocks it on then its a knock on. I do agree that he is a crap referee though.

Rory,

Who knows man. I guess the argument is that it could slow play down and take away powers from the ref.

Well there are lots of reasons Rory.

The most important one being that we don't want the match to last a week.

The authority of the ref is very important in rugby. Everyone on the pitch has to agree that his word is the final arbiter during the game and I think we just have to accept that.

iso wrote:Is this another of those thinly disguised "Wales never win they just get too many points" threads?

Not at all.

It's a why do Wales always win by getting dodgy refereeing decisions going their way thread.

What ever, Scotland didn't win. Fair & square.

Well, Wales were definitely the better team 15 on 14, and 15 on 13. But 15 on 15 Scotland outscored Wales and dominated the first half.

HERSH wrote:

iso wrote:Is this another of those thinly disguised "Wales never win they just get too many points" threads?

Not at all.

It's a why do Wales always win by getting dodgy refereeing decisions going their way thread.

What us? !

I was saying i think it was during the RWC the the TMO, should be called upon more often, especialy in situations like today when the Ref did not get a proper look, and to be effective.

Ref thought he saw a knock-on.... and that's all he felt he needed. They judge on knock-ons all day, why should he have felt a need to have a second opinion on that one simply because we all felt it was an important one to get right? In truth, they're all important to get right but the ref decides on all of them nonetheless.

It was cruel fate but................... well we know about decisions that are cruel.

SecretFly wrote:Ref thought he saw a knock-on.... and that's all he felt he needed. They judge on knock-ons all day, why should he have felt a need to have a second opinion on that one simply because we all felt it was an important one to get right?

Because that superposed 'Knock on' happened in a most crucial part of the game, in the act of a player scoring a try. Therefore it would make sense to check it.
Simple really

The TMO does not have the authority to decide on a knock on unless they are in the in goal area.

Cymroglan wrote:The TMO does not have the authority to decide on a knock on unless they are in the in goal area.

[quote]

But could the Ref not ask the TMO, was there a knock on in scoring that try? YES NO.

GLove39 wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Ref thought he saw a knock-on.... and that's all he felt he needed. They judge on knock-ons all day, why should he have felt a need to have a second opinion on that one simply because we all felt it was an important one to get right?

Because that superposed 'Knock on' happened in a most crucial part of the game, in the act of a player scoring a try. Therefore it would make sense to check it.
Simple really

Didn't I just say why should the ref feel obliged to ask for a second opinion simply because it was a dramatic moment in the game? I'm not saying he was right or wrong or that I'm glad Scotland didn't get it or hoped that they might. It's not an opinion I'm professing, it's saying that in the course of the game, the ref's duty is to call on knock-ons. To him it doesn't matter where the knock-on comes, or where the audience are in the drama of it all. He's making his judgement. Cold and clinic as you please - his judgement.

If we want him to go to the TMO when it suits us, maybe we should accept that others will want him to go to it when it doesn't....meaning if the ref had missed the knock-on that happened when the Scottish were so close to the Welsh line, wouldn't the Welsh be saying that he should have gone to the TMO?

The ref made a mistake, and yes, the game's conclusion might have been different had he made the right decision but he was never going to ask for the TMO's opinion because it was outside the TMO jurisdiction; so it's a little pointless saying he should have.

so shuld th eTMO have ruled on the knock on at the end of the first half when scotland were camped on the line and its a clear hands in the ruck from Jenkins?