Is the referee the only referee?

As a youngster playing in the 1970s there was only one source of adjudication and that source was the referee. The referee was the sole judge of the application of the laws and of time. There were sometimes touch judges, their remit being limited to whether the ball/player was in touch, where the resulting lineout should occur and whether the ball was thrown in straight. In all 3 cases the ref could over-rule them. Some refs were very good, they didn't always get it right but if they had a feel for the game then we all enjoyed it. Others should never have been let near a field, but the common factor was the players typically accepted the decisions in good grace (usually much much better than spectators/supporters) and respect/enjoyment were maintained, especially over a drink afterwards.

Moving forward a few years and the touch judges powers expanded, they could advise upon foul play, and then knock-ons. Personally I think this was a good thing as they only advised and some games were more like skirmishes, the ref had no chance of seeing everything that was going on.

Next timekeeping was removed from the referees remit to make life easier, the ref just calling time-off or on again as the injured were fixed up.

Technology then allowed for the introduction of the 4th match official. The guy who knew the rules but couldn't run the ength of the park. Every team has suffered with tries being incorrectly awarded against them, this at least tried to resolve some questions. They still get it wrong, but not too often, probably 95%+ of decisions are correct. With the TV audience listening to the conversations though (good for transparency but not always good) the ref now has a "get out of jail card" and will always take their recommendation. If they don't want to hear all thoughts they ask a specific question (e.g. was the corner flag touched before grounding) indicating they wish to hear of no other factor.

So yesterday (SA v NZ) we had the 4th offical offer to give advice about a pre-line infringement. That was outside their remit (equivalent to inadmissible evidence in court), the referee could have said no, however an attempted try was refused due to a certain forward pass almost on the line which both Referee and Touch Judge had missed.

Again every team has suffered tries being awarded against them that shouldn't have been, because of forward passes, off-side at cross kicks, obstruction, wrong ball being used for a quick lineout, etc. The question is how far do we want to spread the decision making. Do we leave it for the Referee to define what they want to hear through limiting questions, or do we say no any infringement that the 4th official spots can be reported, in effect the 4th official becomes an active referee for most/all tries? And what happens where there is a clear grounding so the referee does not call upon the 4th official? Does the 4th official become routinely consulted or do they just butt in on the headphones to say - don't award the try because.... We now expect every decision to be perfect because of technology, so the refs feel for the game and the player's and spectator's attitude towards them changes (we no longer forgive honest mistakes).

The specific discussion of yesteray's incident is taking place on another thread, don't replicate it here, it is the principle I'm commenting upon not individual incidents (except where good examples for points of view).

Which direction do we think the refereeing of the game should progress in? Do we want the 4th referee to continually advise the referee of all things they see whenever they've occured? Should we reinforce the referee's position and say, you can ask for advise but you are the sole judge. Is it better for the game to have multiple eyes on all aspects of play or does it muddy the waters and disable a referee from making decisions in the spirit of the game?

I would like to use the follwing example if i may.

A referee askes the TMO to adjudicate on try no try.

The scenario is a player is tackled short of the try line, he has one immediate move to plae the ball either over the try line or back to his supporting players.

He effects a double movement, now it is clear to us all he start that double movement before he crosses the whitewash.

Hence his act of scoring a try starts before the whitewash is crossed. No Try

Another one, a player dives for the try, he start the dive before he is over the white wash. His ACT of scoring the try start a few meters before, he knocks the ball or loses the ball in the dive. The referee asks the TMO to confrim the try. The TMO replies the players lost the ball forward. No Try

In the same area NZ yesterday had their player recieve a forward pass in the exact same area as the above two examples.

sure if the forward pass happened 40 meters back a TMO would not see it as part of his role as they don't play video 40 meters back. But when it is right there and obvious for everyone to see, surely there should be no issue.

I personally think that we should be moving away from putting pressure on the referee or giving more responsibility to others. The laws should put the onus on the players and up for them to play the game not the referee to ping them constantly.

See what you are saying biltonbek, in effect you are defining where the area of final momentum for the try as being part of the act of scoring, which is logical and that solution would certainly be very workable. I like that you've tried to define the boundaries.

Playing Devil's advocate here a minute, the final action to score the try could take place a long way further back. For example the unopposed run in for the Welsh try against Ireland where the wrong ball was used, or the many instances where a final pass to the winger was made 40 yards before the try line but there was no left to tackle them. In either case the final unlawful action took place well before the try line but as there was no cover it was as if being in that 2 yard area before the try line.

MBTGOG, that's a nice world of honourable people but do you think that Cowan would have stood up yesterday and said "sorry I took the ball off a forward pass"? Or indeed anyone else from the many other instances. I agree we need to maintain respect and tolerance for the referee (it is being eroded), I guess one of my points is that by saying all these people are watching then nothing should now be missed so we actually become less tolerant of mistakes than we were when it was down to one person (mistakes were easily understood).

Boston Exile wrote:MBTGOG, that's a nice world of honourable people but do you think that Cowan would have stood up yesterday and said "sorry I took the ball off a forward pass"? Or indeed anyone else from the many other instances. I agree we need to maintain respect and tolerance for the referee (it is being eroded), I guess one of my points is that by saying all these people are watching then nothing should now be missed so we actually become less tolerant of mistakes than we were when it was down to one person (mistakes were easily understood).

I'm not talking about players owning up.

My suggestions are more along the lines of making the scrum more black and white so that the referee's interpretation doesn't have such an impact on the game. Same with making less offences penalties, where reasonable, so that the referees aren't having a massive effect on the game and it's the players actions that the game is about.

Couldn't agree more about the scrums, the time wasted there is a joke, they should be much faster and less fraught. What I think you are suggesting is similar to how we played maybe 25 years ago. The referees are under so much scrutiny in the professional games - I wouldn't want to be one now.

MBTGOG wrote:I personally think that we should be moving away from putting pressure on the referee or giving more responsibility to others. The laws should put the onus on the players and up for them to play the game not the referee to ping them constantly.

Munsty, not sure that's relevant to this particular discussion? Thing the OP was asking about the potential advantages/disadvantages of expanding the remit of the TMO?

Boston Exile wrote:See what you are saying biltonbek, in effect you are defining where the area of final momentum for the try as being part of the act of scoring, which is logical and that solution would certainly be very workable. I like that you've tried to define the boundaries.

Playing Devil's advocate here a minute, the final action to score the try could take place a long way further back. For example the unopposed run in for the Welsh try against Ireland where the wrong ball was used, or the many instances where a final pass to the winger was made 40 yards before the try line but there was no left to tackle them. In either case the final unlawful action took place well before the try line but as there was no cover it was as if being in that 2 yard area before the try line.

Hi as i suggested the examples used was at the try line. There has been some debate regarding this in the past, and the referee should not be able to ask the tmo to go back, as there could have been 7 breakdowns before the try.

Whereas in the examples I used are all at the tryline and within 5 meters.

AsLongAsBut100ofUs wrote:

MBTGOG wrote:I personally think that we should be moving away from putting pressure on the referee or giving more responsibility to others. The laws should put the onus on the players and up for them to play the game not the referee to ping them constantly.

Munsty, not sure that's relevant to this particular discussion? Thing the OP was asking about the potential advantages/disadvantages of expanding the remit of the TMO?

"Which direction do we think the refereeing of the game should progress in?"

This was the bit I picked up on,

In relation to the TMO, I would only give him remit to adjudge on the in goal because how can you decide definitively after that how far can you go back to decide what was important in the try?

I personally am happy with the current rules as they stand.
I do not think that the forward pass should go into the terms of reference of the TMO, my reason for saying this is that he only has available to him the placement or angle of the camera.
This is different to say an issue as to whether a player knocked a ball on or whether it was touched by an opposition player, slow mo is excellant for clarifying such situations.
The only ones qualified to advise a referee on a forward pass is the assistant referee who can by running the line, be in line with the pass.

For me it is important the the referee gets to the right decision, it is the same with cricket, you have a tv umpire and if the technolgy can show the correct outcome use it, players careers are on the line, the human factor already allows for enough incorrect decision

The Referee is the SOLE Judge on the field,yesterday the TMO ruled on something outside his purview.BUT it is a matter for the IRB to sort out the quibbles.
It was on a forward pass,the TMO ruled on,IT was palpably forward,the decision was made.NZ management had no problem with the decision.
Why all the quibbles over a technical matter it is for the IRB to look into it in future end of story.