New TMO Powers, where do you stand?

So, we have seen the new system in place, what are peoples thoughts?

For me, it was a mixed bag, we saw times when it was legitimately useful in determining the legality of a try (Varndells disallowed 2nd) but also the downsides, of which there appear to be 2.

Firstly, as many feared, referees (read Wayne Barnes) appear to now feel the need to double check everything, part of this is just being overly fastidious, the other is the age we live in and the professional sport rugby has now become. He knows full well that if he goes on what he thinks has happened and it turns out there was a forward pass 10 phases back (is there a limit on how many phases back the TMO can go?) he will get hammered for it in both the press and by the coach whose side loses out. As a result, there is a "the technology is in place so i better use it" mentality which looks like it main become quite a pain for us fans, when every try scored is referred for a few minutes. To me though, the worst part of this was checking tackles and then issuing yellows after seeing a replay. A marginal tackle is always going to look a lot worse in slow motion and, i for one, will get seriously peeved seeing every vaguely dangerous tackle being double checked.

Secondly, i saw this more in the Quins game, the players running up to the ref after a try telling him about all the infringements in the run up to the try that happened 20 phases ago. I feel that the new powers of the TMO somewhat take away control from the ref, in some ways he is no longer the law on the pitch, the TMO is. Healey (although he is an a*se) had a good point, although exaggerated, of why bother with a ref at all, just get a robot to review all the footage and have him do it.

Thankfully, i think after these games some obvious adjustments need to be made and i feel they will. There is a rule in place (pretty sure i heard this mentioned at some point) saying that the players cannot go and tell the ref what he should check for, if this is the case then a penalty should be issued to those who do, regardless of the outcome. This may involve a try being awarded followed by a further penalty against the defence if they had a chat with the ref.

The other thing i would like to see changed is the number of phases that the TMO can go back through. I personally feel that it should be the entire try scoring phase and nothing before, so from the ruck to the grounding of the ball and nothing earlier. The other option is maybe putting a cap on it at around 3 or 5 phases. To me, any longer and it seems like the ref doesn't need to bother paying attention knowing that he can just get the TMO to check everything before and look for his mistakes.

So, how does everyone feel about these suggestions, its quite a revelation in the game and i think it needs to be very closely monitored to make sure it doesn't change the game we know and love too much.

One a happier note, i thought the new scrum system worked much better, hope it continues to do so.

As soon as the Treviranus and Ashton incidents took place i said, penalty yellow card. Barnes was within 10 metres of both, and had a touch judge 10 metres away from the Ashton incident yet both got TMO'd. Refs scarred to make decisions. And decisions took way to long to reach.

All decisions took too long to reach as well. Should have been a lot quicker. The balance between the correct decision from a sporting point of view, and the time taken from the spectator point of view is a fine one.

In theory I thought it was a good idea, in practice it wasn't great. But hopefully it's just a few teething problems.

Londonirishollie wrote:As soon as the Treviranus and Ashton incidents took place i said, penalty yellow card. Barnes was within 10 metres of both, and had a touch judge 10 metres away from the Ashton incident yet both got TMO'd. Refs scarred to make decisions. And decisions took way to long to reach.

All decisions took too long to reach as well. Should have been a lot quicker. The balance between the correct decision from a sporting point of view, and the time taken from the spectator point of view is a fine one.

In theory I thought it was a good idea, in practice it wasn't great. But hopefully it's just a few teething problems.

Agree with this. the main issue I forsee with it is that it will lead to just as much controversy as existed without them. Every decision made (or not missed) will now be met with "why didnt he use the TMO"

I dont really see that it solves anything, unless we are going to review literaly every second of the game, and then still argue if it was a forward pass or not (or if that was a tip tackle by Ferris...)


It also doesnt sit well with me that we are wiping off tries for any minor infraction in the build up, yet the defence isnt similarly scrutinised every time a possible try is stopped. The TMOP was overused under the old system, under the new it will get ridiculous. As a result we will see less tries come winter time ( where theres more scrapping over the try line) and sides will have even less incentive to bother going for them.


Question regarding the system, the ref asks for something specific to be looked at ( eg forward pass) what happens if the TMO sees another infringement, or one that occurs before by the defensive team?

People may not be aware that the Premiership is trialling additional TMO protocols along with Currie Cup in SA.

The other issue is that it is only used for televised games creating even more potential controversy as it is obviously not used for all games

There are cameras at all games for highlights packages at least. Are they not used/usable?

Portnoy wrote:There are cameras at all games for highlights packages at least. Are they not used/usable?

Portnoy,

No at the moment I believe it is only the televised games as there has to be the 'Televised Match Official'.
There was talk about bringing it in for all Jeff games but it meant extra costs for clubs (£350,000 ?) and they didn't want to spend any more on top of the current ref fees.

So at the moment it is only Sky & Espn televised games.

So if you want to slip in a dodgy forward pass make sure you are not on the box!

Thanks Trev, I'm prepared for it to bed down a little before I'm ready to form a considered opinion regarding.

I thought that Barnes was justified in his use for the illegal tackles yesterday.

Mind you I was wrong apparently in my understanding of the forward pass law: I thought that 'momentum' forward passes are not allowed and secondly, that if a ball goes back, then bounces beyond the line of the pass then that's 'forward'.

Portnoy, I am in broad agreement that we need to give it some time before making a judgement on it, but at first glance of witnessing it at a match yesterday, there are some serious flaws to the system that need addressing.

I have been wanting this to come in for a long time to be honest.

Although it is different to what i thought it would be. Surely if the ref is on the spot and spots a forward passs he should blow up straight away, and now wait for a try being scored before having it checked by the TMO.

How far back in the line of play can the ref ask the TMO to check in their is any fowl play? surely it should be on the line of playing advantage, the play goes on for a while and then the advatage is over.

majesticimperialman wrote:How far back in the line of play can the ref ask the TMO to check in their is any fowl play? surely it should be on the line of playing advantage, the play goes on for a while and then the advatage is over.

People dress up like chickens?

If there has been serious foul play i would much rather it was addressed asap rather than by a citing comittee. So I have no problems with it's use there. Players will start to learn that they will be caught, and tacklers will learn that if they aim a tackle atthe upper chest then they are liable for punishment should anything not quite go right.

The issue though LT is with consistency. From where I was sat in the South stand yesterday, I saw 3 tackles that were essentially high, late, shoulder barges, in the Saracens v Irish game.

On two occasions, Barnes went to the TMO and the players, one from each side, were rightly yellow carded. On the third he did not, yet he must have seen the 'tackle' as he was only about 10 yards away looking straight at it.

I am all for the use of technology to assist with getting the right decisions, but the questions have to be answered as to where you draw the line, and how you ensure that it is used consistently.

Touch-line appeals appeal to me in principle. To gain retribution for wrong decisions like 'the hand of Back' Tigers v Munster yeas ago and the wrong ball try for Wales against Ireland.

We only have ourselves to blame for this rule coming in with the amount of moaning we all do when we get a wrong decision go against us, this includes fans, coaches, players, commentators and pundits.

That doesn't mean this rule is perfect as it is, such as how far back in play "is the act of scoring" and how can we speed up the decisions?

Personally i don't blame the ref's for checking everything, they have a hard enough job as it is and we all scream for the correct decision 100% of the time and so that's what there going to give us.

But that's the point Nathan, they aren't checking everything, as I have said above. Three similar tackles, all in front of the referee. Two checked and rightly yellow carded having seen the replays, one not checked, and having seen the replay, on the basis of the other two being yellows, it should have been one as well.

Right it puts refs in the same damned if they do damned if they dont situation they were before , the use of TMOs for groundings was getting ludicrous...now every try is referred as a matter of course.
Another knock on effect of this will be to reduce the amount of flat passing attempted in the game, it doesnt encourage playing on the edges which really is what makes for the best spectacle. Every time theres a try it gets blown up and the archive searched through to desperately find a reason not to give it...it feels a little flat

Ozzy3213 wrote:But that's the point Nathan, they aren't checking everything, as I have said above. Three similar tackles, all in front of the referee. Two checked and rightly yellow carded having seen the replays, one not checked, and having seen the replay, on the basis of the other two being yellows, it should have been one as well.

Barnes claimed to be unsighted/following the ball for the two he referred, whereas I guess he saw the one he did not refer.

It is all a work in progress and teething problems either ironed out or trial abandoned after a year.

You may be correct LT, but that raises two questions.

1. If he was unsighted/following the ball for he two yellows, how did he know that there was something to refer. He must have seen something.

2. On the one he didn't refer, if he saw it, and deemed it as being ok, then that is inconsistent with the other two desicions.


As PSW has said, the referees are still in the 'damned if they do, damned if they don't situation' that they always were, only now we have longer delays in play for footage to be reviewed, and the situation whereby the TMO can go back through multiple phases to the previous restart in order to find a reason not to give a try. I can guarantee you, that if I watched back the same footage that I could spot technical offences by both sides at almost every breakdown, so how far do you take it and which offences does the TMO point out to be penalised?

i see what your saying Ozzy. perhaps for the first two it was a touchline ref that spotted it where Barnes spotted the third one and deemed it ok.

I don't think this rule is to take decision making away from the ref, more if the ref misses something so the third decision may of been inconsistent but i think Barnes was right not to take it up the TMO.

The ref is still the ref.

I was much more concerned by the decision that ruled out a Wasps try at the end of the first half than anything in the second game. Yes there was a forward pass, but a long way before the try was scored.

Barnes did resort to the TMO a lot - but as he was dropped from the elite panel after failing to apply the rules on tip-tackles, it is understandable that he follows to the letter of the law.

LondonTiger wrote:I was much more concerned by the decision that ruled out a Wasps try at the end of the first half than anything in the second game. Yes there was a forward pass, but a long way before the try was scored.

Barnes did resort to the TMO a lot - but as he was dropped from the elite panel after failing to apply the rules on tip-tackles, it is understandable that he follows to the letter of the law.

I don't have an issue with it's use for the Wasps try as it wasn't that far back, same phase? Most importantly it was the correct decision.

belovedfrosties wrote:So, we have seen the new system in place, what are peoples thoughts?

Secondly, i saw this more in the Quins game, the players running up to the ref after a try telling him about all the infringements in the run up to the try that happened 20 phases ago.

One a happier note, i thought the new scrum system worked much better, hope it continues to do so.

This was the most annoying thing that I saw yesterday in the two games.

LondonTiger wrote:I was much more concerned by the decision that ruled out a Wasps try at the end of the first half than anything in the second game. Yes there was a forward pass, but a long way before the try was scored.

Barnes did resort to the TMO a lot - but as he was dropped from the elite panel after failing to apply the rules on tip-tackles, it is understandable that he follows to the letter of the law.

LT, if there was a rules breach (forward pass) then is it not right that this should be corrected? I am not in favour of the increased use of the TMO but if its in there then you have to accept the consequences.
What is more annoying is that the touch-judge saw it but didn't flag it at the time. That would have been a more positive outcome.

In my opinion Barnes always took the TMO route too much before in any case so it was no real surprise he would use it a lot yesterday.

Rava wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:So, we have seen the new system in place, what are peoples thoughts?

Secondly, i saw this more in the Quins game, the players running up to the ref after a try telling him about all the infringements in the run up to the try that happened 20 phases ago.

One a happier note, i thought the new scrum system worked much better, hope it continues to do so.

This was the most annoying thing that I saw yesterday in the two games.

LondonTiger wrote:I was much more concerned by the decision that ruled out a Wasps try at the end of the first half than anything in the second game. Yes there was a forward pass, but a long way before the try was scored.

Barnes did resort to the TMO a lot - but as he was dropped from the elite panel after failing to apply the rules on tip-tackles, it is understandable that he follows to the letter of the law.

LT, if there was a rules breach (forward pass) then is it not right that this should be corrected? I am not in favour of the increased use of the TMO but if its in there then you have to accept the consequences.
What is more annoying is that the touch-judge saw it but didn't flag it at the time. That would have been a more positive outcome.

In my opinion Barnes always took the TMO route too much before in any case so it was no real surprise he would use it a lot yesterday.

Given his history though you can hardly blame him for taking that option over trusting his ARs or his own eyesight. Its called passing the buck, it couldve saved his test career, cost wales a grand slam, kept the all blacks in that world cup, and kept AWOP quiet had it always been in place.
Not that we wouldnt have controversy elsewhere as a reulst of it, and it quite possibly wouldve caused droves of supporters to lose patience with a sport that takes 5 minutes to confirm every score and every tackle.

I do appreciate some aspects of it , and yes in theory its right to get things dealt with ion the field and quickly (especially with new IRB citing rules coming in and new RFU regulations for this season) but it seems that teams who tackle hard and pass flat ( ie play the kind of rugby we want to see) are the big losers in all this, the kind of skullduggery the boring "win it on kicks" teams get up to wont be so easily exposed by the referrals.

I can't see the experiment lasting beyond the end of the season for three reasons.

1. It's only used for live televised games.
2. It's not used for every try in live televised games.
3. Refs will never always "get it right" in any eventuality, because they're no different to the rest of us; less than perfect.

The only purposes it will serve are to slow down the game and remove the right of the referee to be imperfect (like the rest of us).

It's not going to enhance anything, so let the experiment go and move on is my opinion.

I think it was used too much in what little of the games I did see.

I think a challenge system should be in place, similar to what is used in Tennis/Cricket. Give each team 3/5 challenges. If a team suspects foul play, they can use a challenge and refer it to the TMO. If the TMO disagrees they lose their challenge, if it's upheld they keep the challenge.

This would limit the number of referrals to the TMO. It would also stop the whole idea of running up to the ref as the players would go to their captain who has the final say. This would take the pressure off the referee and onto the players/captain - where it should be imo.

At Twickers, I thought it slowed the game down, especially with Wayne barnes in the second game, and I found myself saying oh god, not the TMO again.

PJHolybloke wrote:I can't see the experiment lasting beyond the end of the season for three reasons.

1. It's only used for live televised games.
2. It's not used for every try in live televised games.
3. Refs will never always "get it right" in any eventuality, because they're no different to the rest of us; less than perfect.

The only purposes it will serve are to slow down the game and remove the right of the referee to be imperfect (like the rest of us).

It's not going to enhance anything, so let the experiment go and move on is my opinion.

Didn't I hear say that the process is going to be reviewed after six weeks?

Portnoy wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:I can't see the experiment lasting beyond the end of the season for three reasons.

1. It's only used for live televised games.
2. It's not used for every try in live televised games.
3. Refs will never always "get it right" in any eventuality, because they're no different to the rest of us; less than perfect.

The only purposes it will serve are to slow down the game and remove the right of the referee to be imperfect (like the rest of us).

It's not going to enhance anything, so let the experiment go and move on is my opinion.

Didn't I hear say that the process is going to be reviewed after six weeks?

If Wayne Barnes has its way itll get reviewed every five minutes

Portnoy wrote:

PJHolybloke wrote:I can't see the experiment lasting beyond the end of the season for three reasons.

1. It's only used for live televised games.
2. It's not used for every try in live televised games.
3. Refs will never always "get it right" in any eventuality, because they're no different to the rest of us; less than perfect.

The only purposes it will serve are to slow down the game and remove the right of the referee to be imperfect (like the rest of us).

It's not going to enhance anything, so let the experiment go and move on is my opinion.

Didn't I hear say that the process is going to be reviewed after six weeks?

I don't know about that Portnoy, but a review can't come soon enough for me. Get rid.

Portnoy wrote:Thanks Trev, I'm prepared for it to bed down a little before I'm ready to form a considered opinion regarding.

I thought that Barnes was justified in his use for the illegal tackles yesterday.

Mind you I was wrong apparently in my understanding of the forward pass law: I thought that 'momentum' forward passes are not allowed and secondly, that if a ball goes back, then bounces beyond the line of the pass then that's 'forward'.

If the ball bounces back and goes forward that's not a knock on.

Surely the referee should only be referring it (when it comes to tries) if there is something in particular he's looking for that he's not sure about. It should be a specific "can you check this pass/tackle/ruck/grounding" etc.

Not sure if I like it, but I didn't see it in action (I was playing) so I can't come to too firm a judgement.