The Elephant in the Corner

The TMO is about to be used in the Currie Cup as a trial run for wider usage NH is trialling it next season I understand.TMO will be extended to knock ons ,forward passes,foul play,and cynical professional fouls etc.The tech nology is there and perhaps it makes sense to use it more widely.BUT it opens a can of worms too.Just look at the number of comments about the TMO getting it wrong now it will be much more so
then.Time taken will be extensive to the more incidents reviewed the more stop start it becomes,also you have the need for a neutral TMO ref.
any thoughts?

Got a link to confirm exactly what the TMO is going to potentially be called upon to deal with? I don't like the idea at all, I know the game become more and more...accountable (?) has to happen as professionalism increases, and the money poured into the game similarly goes up. But I like how natural the use of the TMO is at present: there is always a natural break in the game when the ball goes over the try line in a potential 'try scoring incident', whether it's held up, knocked on or scored. If he's going to have to review knock ons that are missed by the ref, how does this work? An appeal process?

Can see how foul play can be dealt with, because at present the ref will let play go on before calling it back when he receives a flag from his touch judge. Again, allows for the natural break in play. This is all speculation until I know exactly what the TMO is going to be employed for though.

Link

Having watched a few of the S15 games recently, the TMO has actually brought even more inconsistency somehow.

It's just in the build up to a try by the looks.

Not sure about this one, usually I'd welcome an advancement like this as it'd mean the right decisions are made. But over the years, there's been too many strange TMO calls, and now they'll be given 10x more oppertunity to see things that did/didn't happen.

This may be silly, but how about two TMOs in separate rooms. Both need to give it the green light before a try is given.

I was watching the game from yesterday the Sharks v the Cheetas. Theire was an incindent when one of the Sharks looked like he knocked on before scoring a try. The Ref and the Linesman said it came off his knee.
If you llooked carefully it could of been a knock on.

But the commentator dissay the TMO was being trialed in the lower league games to dicuss sutch as this.

So in this type of situation it could be the difference/ especialy in a tight game when their is only 3/5points in it, it could the difference between winning and losiing.

So maybe not a bad thing.

The problem lies within the laws and how they are interpreted.

The double movement law seems to have become a real issue recently in the Super 15.

biltongbek wrote:The problem lies within the laws and how they are interpreted.

True, and probably ignoramous fans like me that don't know the rules well enough that kick up a fuss when apparently dodgy decisions are made, like the 2 shunt double movement tries against the chiefs. The refs boss says they're ok, so can't really argue with him.

Think you're right biltong.

EBOP, I also don't like those double shunt movements, I always understood momentum can "glide" you over the line, not another push by someone else.

Chiefs were hard done by in two successive games.

Actually biltong, Bray said in this article today that the Ellis try this week shouldn't have been a try.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10819835

Another thing, refs and TMOs get so much stick these days because of the technological advances. The guy running down the line with his camera strapped to him, super slow mo, dozens of cameras around the stadium etc. Everything gets picked up and skytv show replay upon replay that just shows the ref up. Back in the 80s, refs awarded tries, and we'd be lucky to see 2 replays of anything. Sometimes no replay if it was a bad call.

Anyone who see any of the TMO awarded "tries" in this weekend SXV will be cry into the cornflakes about this new move.

I have no links,just things i`ve read at Planet Rugby or in the press.When there are controversial incidents leading to scores or not as the case may be.We have the debate for foul play or whatever in the build up and depending on who you support.Why did`nt the TMO pick that up or the TMO saw that but isn`t allowed to comment.Television pundits all know better than the Refs with endless replays to support that case.Are the TMO cameras the same ones the Tv are using?or are they positioned differently.to take a case in point. Player A is going for the line,Player B is moving into position to tackle.BUT Player C shoves this player into touch[B].Now Player A has been tackled/lost the ball in the breakdown area but wins for want of a better word a penalty.That act wins the game maybe even a RWC final.Now go back a bit the attacking team has taken a player out off the ball to my mind that is a penalty offence.That predated the winning move it was cynical and blatant the officials missed it.The TMO being all seeing saw it but did nothing not allowed to.NOW if the penalty had been given to the defending team.Kick to touch clears lines and they then WIN.
Con troversial you bet but it happened in a match I watched recently,I did`nt support either team involved.BUT had I then I would have been steaming because the wrong side won on that incident.
The TMO is there for good or ill your damned if you do,or you don`t .In many ways it was better that the TMO never existed and the men on the field decided the game.Eventually you will get to the stage when Captains will have theright of challenge as in Grid Iron football noone wants that[at least I don`t].
The recent cases of whether momentum or a team shove was involved in tries is merely a variation.On rabbiting and to be pedantic" the Deans try"incident in 1905.Did he score?was he tackled short?or was he dragged back into the field of play? they still argue that after 107 years.For me the problem is the TMO is now[or will be] ineffect the Referee.His decision is FINAL[as it should be]NOT being constantly undermined by so called experts in the Studio stirring it.In a match versus some one can`t remember who versus the AllBlacks Dallagio was the commentater .In a Scrum AllBlacks won the ball against the head.Day glo`s comment "The Ref got that one wrong,wish I could see it again" TV obliges with a replay DAYGLO "oh well he may have been right[grudgingly].The point being the REF was right it does`nt need every pundit rubbishing his every move.
The REF on the field is the final arbiter in conjuction with his assitants,they are human.They will make mistakes but I bet despite what we think not as many we think he does if the match goes against our team.We wuz robbed is the oldest excuse in the book and I have said it many times too,.BUT I`m not a fully qualified International Ref and only have a rough idea of the working knowledge of them as most here.

Seems like a worthwhile initiative to run as a trial. By trialing these kids of things we get to see if they help or not. If they do - great. If they don't - then we eliminate or scale back and trial again. A sound and rational approach. And at the right level, too.

The only area I don't like (from the linked article from Sport 24) is this:
"TMOs can be advised on infringements by the team that scored or touched down, as well as if a try has been prevented from being scored"
Teams should never be in contact or advise a TMO. Otherwise, let's give it a go and see what we learn.

The Dagg try was just plain poor eyesight. He'd clearly lost control of it. Its as though the TMO was looking at the foot on the sideline first and already decided it was a try without checking the placement. Terrible decision.

The two vs Chiefs tries are subject to interpretation though the second it wasnt convincing he'd actually even got the ball down, let alone in a double movement. Sometimes they just have to make the call. I dont think anyone watchging the 10 replays could decide one way or another correctly.

As the Chiefs said, they shouldnt have put themselves in those positions in the first place which in fairness is correct.

With these new rules (TMO) as -will have. will it be as now when the TMO can only judge on something when ask too by the ref?

Or will the TMO beable to call the ref in his ear piece and say ref, that is a forward pass, knock on, lost forward, WITH OUT the ref asking for assistance?

Rory_Gallagher wrote:The double movement law seems to have become a real issue recently in the Super 15.

A lot of problem is that some commentators do not know the laws. For example "was there double movement?" and "was there downward pressure?" is both things that they pondering on the commentary when both of these law comes from rugby league and not rugby.

Once a player is tackle he is entitled to play the ball immediately and one interpretation is if he move his body to play the ball it's ok. I remember this interpretation being publicised by the IRB referees chief when Dylan Hartley was award the try against the all blacks after move his body to reach the line. And on my second other point no downward pressure is need to score a try if the player is in possession, only if he isn't. But it never stop the commenator going on about it when the try is be reviewed. So sometime the TMO decision look confusing when is not.

For example, one rugby website is upset about a try award to Israel Dagg and they publish the comment "It's almost as if each replay further induces a desire to find justification to give the try. In some cases, like Israel Dagg's “try” against the Force, the TMO seems to almost develop a mindset of: "I know he has lost control of the ball in scoring but did he get downward pressure at one stage". "

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/our-experts/7282810/Simple-remedy-to-Super-Rugbys-TMO-fiasco

And there they miss the point that Dagg did not need downward pressure on the ball, they then question the other try and suggest "There's a simple solution. If a ref isn't sure and wants to go to the TMO, he simply asks "try, or no-try?". Forget the request for a double movement, "

But the issue wasn't about "downward pressures" or "double-movements" in the second case, was just about was the ball held up? and you can see in the very slow motion replay that the ball was graze the line and for me its a fair call by the TMO to award the try because at that point is a matter of opinion and the opinion that counts is from the TMO! is why we give him the job after all. 20,000 fans think it is a try and 20,000 fans think it isn't so someone have to deciding. And this fellow unfortunate will be call into question whichever decide is come to.

Sometimes you wonder if the TMO isn't an elephant in a corner with fat fingers pushing the wrong button.

I'll admit I only know the rules based on watching the game and from commentary, but with the double movement thing, if you're tackled on half way and on the ground and you wriggle forward, is that a penalty? I've seen players penalised for this, probably not releasing.

Yes EBOP I share a lot of frustration about it. The problem is the interpretation now is first thing that HAS to happen is "tackler rolls away". So when he does that, the first instinct to the ball carrier is that he is not tackle anymore so lets play on. But he have to remember to play the ball immediately.

So in open playing it make some sense. But near the line is a lot of confusion if the tackler should delay some to protecting the line or risk roll away and let the player with the ball reach out to the line.

Which make my second point arriving. Why all this scrutinising what happen in a meter to the line when so much more laissez faire attitude taken in the open field? Is some double standard. And is also true that EVERY centimeter gained to score the try is as important as the last.

Makes sense AWoP. Near the try line and open play have different stakes. But near the try line, you should have one shot at hitting the line when on the ground with the ball, not an extra few few seconds to hold onto it and wait for that shove from behind. TMOs are looking at where the ball finally ends up after the player has held onto the ball for much longer than what is tolerated in open play. Sure, there's issues with momentum to consider, but that should be clear.

These things go on all the time in open play is my point and I don't see why we want different rule for near the goal line. Should be one rule for all the field.

All the time tackled player cribs the extra inch and tackled player get a shove from arriving forwards at the ruck. So who cares if it happen close to the goal line?

Was there not a try disallowed during the Six Nations when a player was held on the tryline preventing him from scoring?

I seem to remeber something like that.

Anyway, I think there should perhaps be a clearer stipulation as to what is a double movement and what not.

When in play the tackled player must be released to place the ball(commonly known as the second movement) if there is no daylight he gets a penalty rewarded tohis team.

When the same scenario occurs just short of the tryline, the same law should apply. But obviously as it is so close to the line most defenders will not release and the reality is everyone dives of their feet then, the defenders tokeep the ball off the ground and the attackers to get the ball down.

In my view it is porbably fairest to award a scrum 5 attacking feed.

When the ball is over the line that is what currently applies, ball is called held up and attacking team scores a try.

The only questinable thing is the second movement, but what constitutes a second movement when there are a number of players on the ball, remeber this is not momentum coming into play, it requires a second shove or placement by the attacking player.

In my view unless the tackled player's arms are free to place the ball, it cannot otherwise be seen as a second movement.

Logic tells me if three guys have hands on the ball or arms of the attacker, he cannot make a visible second movement, unless he is either assisted by a fellow team mate, oralternatively has to wrestle his arms or ball free before dotting down, now that in my view is a third movement, and not second.

So again scrum 5 attacking team.

Some would see it as a cop out Bilton. Others would see it as good game management.

Quick whistle, "Its trapped in there boys, scrum 5".

I like it. Its transparent, its fair and it ensures that there isn't a cockup in a 7 pointer decision.

When the ball is over the goal line then all the ruck rules not applying any more. So in the "held up" nobody has to roll away and any number of movements are acceptable by the ball carrier. Is that not true red_stag?

red_stag wrote:Some would see it as a cop out Bilton. Others would see it as good game management.

Quick whistle, "Its trapped in there boys, scrum 5".

I like it. Its transparent, its fair and it ensures that there isn't a cockup in a 7 pointer decision.

Well that is mythoughts exactly. If it is always going to be contentious and considering over 70% of Super Rugby matches this season have ended within a score, it is best to take the controversy out of the equation, there is no problem if there is aclear second movement only in my view.

I want to see the best team win by playing to the laws of the game. Nothing worse than seeing a team lose because of a missed forward pass or similar. Let's help the officials with tech because they need it.

I think the problem is that the technology can't be perfect no matter what we do, well until we can literally fill the stadium with camera and video!.

I'd like to see the reff given more of say and just to make the decision based on his gut feeling.

englandglory4ever wrote:I want to see the best team win by playing to the laws of the game. Nothing worse than seeing a team lose because of a missed forward pass or similar. Let's help the officials with tech because they need it.

Somehow the schadenfreude from 07 doesn't make me entirely believe you mate. Must depend on the team!

Lyndon Bray said in an interview the other day that the TMOs don't view footage on the latest 52 inch HD flat screen, but rather on small monitors. Thought that was odd, but he reckons the image is clear. TMOs must have squinty eyes.

disneychilly wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I want to see the best team win by playing to the laws of the game. Nothing worse than seeing a team lose because of a missed forward pass or similar. Let's help the officials with tech because they need it.

Somehow the schadenfreude from 07 doesn't make me entirely believe you mate. Must depend on the team!

So EG4E must be happy to see Wayne Barnes get demoted

Oh, has he? What a shame.

anotherworldofpain wrote:

disneychilly wrote:

englandglory4ever wrote:I want to see the best team win by playing to the laws of the game. Nothing worse than seeing a team lose because of a missed forward pass or similar. Let's help the officials with tech because they need it.

Somehow the schadenfreude from 07 doesn't make me entirely believe you mate. Must depend on the team!

So EG4E must be happy to see Wayne Barnes get demoted

No mate. They are all doing the best they can but some do it better than others.

Hands up who have never ever seen the NZ side score tries after giving a forward pass. Over the years Sky could show an hour long documentary on the illegal tries scored by NZ alone IMO. (Must go now)

You're right EG4E, every team has-we got lucky in HK with one McCaw scored from for example. But you said there was nothing worse than a team lose because of a forward pass. I'd say the consequences of that pass were greater than any consequence of any where NZ profited.

I for one hope Barnes gets better and rejoins the panel.