TMO decisions and benefit of the doubt

SOmething that's been on my mind a bit since the Wales-Australia game, relating to the first half referral to the TMO. For those that can't recall or didn't see the game, the Aussie right winger went to ground the ball tight to the corner flag while Ickle Shane tackled him. At normal speed it was absolutely impossible to tell whether the Aussie had touched the sideline with his back/hip/backside prior to touching the ball down. On review using frame by frame, it looked probable that he did touch the sideline with part of his hip one frame before he grounded the ball (although the image was not absolutely conclusive, because of the angle of the camera looking from slightly infield towards touch.

My thoughts:
1 - Are we getting overly obsessive with the accuracy of the decisions made by the TMO (after all, the game survived perfectly well with just an on field ref for a long time)?
2 - Should such a tight decision have a certain 'benefit of the doubt' go to the attacking side?

I recall a couple of years ago a TMO referral in a rugby league international between England and Australia where England had a try not awarded because in the super slo-motion it looked like the ball was dropped in the act of placing it on the ground - at normal speed it was a perfectly normal grounding, so I suspectt that if you looked at most one-handed groundings you'd see the ball and hand part company for a fraction of a second in the act of putting it down.

My suggestion is that by default the decision should go for the attacking side unless the TMO evidence clearly shows it to be no try

I have seen a league match where a tmo gave a try because of benefit of the doubt, I think it might have been the challenge cup last season

There are two questions that a referee will ask.

1 - Is it a try or not?

2 - Is there any reason I can't award a try?

In the first situation the TMO needs to actually see a try being scored. If he can't, if the video is inconclusive then its deemed to have been held up and its a 5m scrum. The benefit of doubt is with the defensive team.

In the second situation the TMO needs to actually see that no try was scored. So the ball needs to clearly be held up or there has to be a clear knock on. If he can't see anything, footage is conclusive then a try is awarded. Benefit of doubt is with attacking team.

A ref will ask either question to TMO based on what he saw.

In 2007 France won the Six Nations on points difference. In the dying minutes against Scotland they piled in over the line. Craig Joubert asked the second question and a try was scored - France won the Six Nations.

If he had asked the first question, Ireland would have been Six Nations champions.

Its a fine line.

red_stag wrote:There are two questions that a referee will ask.

1 - Is it a try or not?

2 - Is there any reason I can't award a try?

In the first situation the TMO needs to actually see a try being scored. If he can't, if the video is inconclusive then its deemed to have been held up and its a 5m scrum. The benefit of doubt is with the defensive team.

In the second situation the TMO needs to actually see that no try was scored. So the ball needs to clearly be held up or there has to be a clear knock on. If he can't see anything, footage is conclusive then a try is awarded. Benefit of doubt is with attacking team.

A ref will ask either question to TMO based on what he saw.

In 2007 France won the Six Nations on points difference. In the dying minutes against Scotland they piled in over the line. Craig Joubert asked the second question and a try was scored - France won the Six Nations.

If he had asked the first question, Ireland would have been Six Nations champions.

Its a fine line.

Stag - why do we need two different questions ? From your example, the choice of question can dertermine the outcome. I understand you ref - so can you give an insight as to what guidance the ref gets as to how to phrase the question? Thanks.

offload wrote:

red_stag wrote:There are two questions that a referee will ask.

1 - Is it a try or not?

2 - Is there any reason I can't award a try?

In the first situation the TMO needs to actually see a try being scored. If he can't, if the video is inconclusive then its deemed to have been held up and its a 5m scrum. The benefit of doubt is with the defensive team.

In the second situation the TMO needs to actually see that no try was scored. So the ball needs to clearly be held up or there has to be a clear knock on. If he can't see anything, footage is conclusive then a try is awarded. Benefit of doubt is with attacking team.

A ref will ask either question to TMO based on what he saw.

In 2007 France won the Six Nations on points difference. In the dying minutes against Scotland they piled in over the line. Craig Joubert asked the second question and a try was scored - France won the Six Nations.

If he had asked the first question, Ireland would have been Six Nations champions.

Its a fine line.

Stag - why do we need two different questions ? From your example, the choice of question can dertermine the outcome. I understand you ref - so can you give an insight as to what guidance the ref gets as to how to phrase the question? Thanks.

+1. This was a distinction I was only vaguely aware of. Can we have some refs input (including Staggy)?

If the ref thinks a try has been scored and wants to check the he asks "any reason not to award" If he is unsighted or does not know then "yes or no"

Basically the ref will ask question 1 if he hasn't a clue what has happened. He will ask question 2 if he is fairly happy but wants to just be sure. Thats basically all the guideance - how sure is the ref that a try might have been scored. Its subjective.

Personally I think its nonsense and would happily advocate only question either really.

I would like the decision to be made on the ground and the TMO has to find evidence to overturn it as happens in Cricket and american football. Dunno how this would be organised tho

TJ wrote:I would like the decision to be made on the ground and the TMO has to find evidence to overturn it as happens in Cricket and american football. Dunno how this would be organised tho

Is this just personal preference? Is there a reason you'd like this system.

It means if the replay is ambiguous as it sometimes is the decision goes witht eh ref on tehground.

So for example in the vase from Wales Asurailia described above - teh video really was inconclusive so the TMO would say - vidoe inconclusive decision stays as made by the ref ont eh ground - rather than the TMO makig the decison its an appeal tot eh tmo who has to find the evidecne to overturn the decision.

"1 - Are we getting overly obsessive with the accuracy of the decisions made by the TMO (after all, the game survived perfectly well with just an on field ref for a long time)?"

I was on a long haul flight around about the time this article was posted, happily watching a long history of tri-nations games on the inflight entertainer.

I couldn't help but notice that the decisions in some of the great games of history were just absolutely shocking.

Almost none of the points scored in NZ's historic series triumph over SA in 1996 should have been allowed. And these weren't even close calls. Just blatant nonsense.

Players with feet obviously in touch when scoring tries. Ridiculously forward passes, rampant obstruction and flankers not binding to scrums at all, so on and so on. I was quite staggered in all honesty.

It made me realise that there has been an awful lot of progress in official accuracy over the professional era, but an even greater increase in our scrutiny of the calls and demand for precision.

Have to say the scrums worked better though!

miteyironpaw wrote:It made me realise that there has been an awful lot of progress in official accuracy over the professional era, but an even greater increase in our scrutiny of the calls and demand for precision.
Have to say the scrums worked better though!

I couldn't agree more. Most referees now are in much better shape to stay up with the game, are much better trained, and more knowledge of the game than ever before. At the top levels they review their performance, which couldn't, or at least didn't happen not so long ago. Another bit of progress as the game evolved during the professional era.

I think the fact that we are as critical as we are shows that we see so much more on tv and are generally better educated fans when watching live. And for those of us who still play, it doesn't matter - the ref is always wrong when I get pinged for playing the ball on the ground.

Quite often the ref has seen the grounding before he asked the second question. Stag, if I remember correctly in that game the ref was right there and saw the grounding but wasn't sure if something had happened beforehand. With the way players are trained to dive on the ball to hide it from the camera, it's highly possible/likely that the ref can see from a better angle. If the question was just yes or no we would have a lot of fair tries not given due to the question. Any ref asking the second question when they haven't seen the grounding should be 're-educated'.

miteyironpaw wrote:"1 - Are we getting overly obsessive with the accuracy of the decisions made by the TMO (after all, the game survived perfectly well with just an on field ref for a long time)?"

I was on a long haul flight around about the time this article was posted, happily watching a long history of tri-nations games on the inflight entertainer.

I couldn't help but notice that the decisions in some of the great games of history were just absolutely shocking.

Almost none of the points scored in NZ's historic series triumph over SA in 1996 should have been allowed. And these weren't even close calls. Just blatant nonsense.

Players with feet obviously in touch when scoring tries. Ridiculously forward passes, rampant obstruction and flankers not binding to scrums at all, so on and so on. I was quite staggered in all honesty.

It made me realise that there has been an awful lot of progress in official accuracy over the professional era, but an even greater increase in our scrutiny of the calls and demand for precision.

Have to say the scrums worked better though!

Don't tell me you suddenly only realised this on your long-haul flight?

Happy New Year!.... Wal

Yep. To be honest, for some reason I was labouring under a rose tinted view of rugby from the early days of professionalism. It seemed that the decisions were largely fairer and that the game was better all round for including rucking, the odd punch up, and scrum sets that didn't provide ample time for a tea break. I was actually stunned at how dated the TV coverage looked for matches at around 2000, and also how the commentary teams of the day *didn't* spend 60 minutes griping about the refereeing. They just seemed to call it as the ref did and got on with it. Maybe it was the absence of Brit commentators on the coverage, not sure, I have nothing to compare it to, or maybe it was just a happier age.

Another thing I have noticed re TMO's is they are asked to comment on a number of additional incidents other than grounding.

I have seen them asked to comment on foot in touch, ball going over the dead ball line, knock ons and did the ball go between the posts.

Have the rules change to widen their remit - any ref know ?

Geoff I know they can comment on kicks at goal, ball going over the dead ball line and foot in touch in act of scoring a try, they can talk about knock ons in goal.

Grounding is only part of what they can do. They can talk about who punched who provided it happended in goal.

I have seen a knock on inside the 25 being called by a TMO as a reason for a try being disallowed.

Happened in our home game to Scarlets last year. It was an accurate call but did not go down well with Scarlets supporters.

I didn't have a problem myself

The fact is all the examples I mentioned have occured in televised games in the last 12 months that I have seen.

geoff998rugby wrote:I have seen a knock on inside the 25 being called by a TMO as a reason for a try being disallowed.

Happened in our home game to Scarlets last year. It was an accurate call but did not go down well with Scarlets supporters.

I didn't have a problem myself

The fact is all the examples I mentioned have occured in televised games in the last 12 months that I have seen.

I remember that it was correct decision but wrong process. Should be worth pointing out that TMOs are (for some bizarre reason) all locals.

So for example in Munster v Treviso the other night, it was a local Munster referee who was the TMO.