Enhanced TMO Powers and Citings

We currently have a trial of an enhancement of the referee's right to refer matters to the TMO during televised matches in the AP and Currie Cup. This includes the right to refer matters of foul play to the TMO during open play, and not just at the scoring of a try. There has been a mixed reception to the trial.

Referee JP Doyle availed himself of this option during this weekend's Saints - Exeter game, after stopping play for a penalty Mr Doyle then referred the previous tackle to the TMO. The tackle was reviewed and Saints' Van Velze yellow carded for a "tip-tackle" - there is some thought that Mr Doyle awarded the yellow card after watching the replay on the big screen, at the same time as 12,000 vociferous Saints fans, without awaiting a recommendation from the TMO.

Subsequently, Van Velze was cited by the independent citing officer, pleaded guilty and was awarded a 4 week rest period.

This appears to me to be setting a precedent in that the Citing procedure is retrospectively overruling the referee, rather than enhancing his decisions. Whilst the citing officer and disciplinary panel have more time to come to a decision, essentially they have the same TV evidence as the ref/TMO team and have come to a different conclusion. If an offece is worthy of disciplinary proceedings it needs to be a red card offence, rather than a yellow, and they decided it was and deserved a fairly substantial ban.

Is this a large step in undermining the most essential Law in the book "The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match."?

The tip tackle is one of those particular sensitive areas - ever since Warburton in the RWC. Unfortunately it's one of the toughest areas to judicate.

There are a few incidents of tip tackles which are tough to call.

one example was Schalk Brits tackle on a Treviso player at VR in the HC - he got sin binned but banned for 3 weeks, should have probably been a red but then again without the TMO it's harder.

You would expect the TMO to get the right decision. It undermines the ref if the TMO gets it wrong.

I do not know why JP Doyle awarded a yellow card. I doubt many people watching the game on TV thought, with the current laws and guidelines, it would be anything other than a red.

Pure and simple Doyle got it wrong. There have been numerouis situations over the years where the ref gave yellow and disciplinary panels have reviewed and upgraded.

what makes this case different is that it appears Doyle got a second look at the incident via the Big Screen and still got it wrong.

LondonTiger wrote:I do not know why JP Doyle awarded a yellow card. I doubt many people watching the game on TV thought, with the current laws and guidelines, it would be anything other than a red.

Pure and simple Doyle got it wrong. There have been numerouis situations over the years where the ref gave yellow and disciplinary panels have reviewed and upgraded.

what makes this case different is that it appears Doyle got a second look at the incident via the Big Screen and still got it wrong.

But the Law says Doyle wasn't wrong, he's not allowed to be "The referee is the sole judge of fact and of Law during a match."

Ok, that Law has been stretched with Citing procedures anyway, but it can be argued that a ref can't judge on things that he (or his assistants) hasn't seen or hasn't seen clearly, so the Citings have previously enhanced his abilities to judge retrospectively. This case doesn't enhance, it overrules.

To be consistent, I can only see that TMO reviewed events should only be cited if they are red cards, or ielse the white card is introduced if Ref/TMO feel they need to make a speedy decision to keep the game flowing, but think more time is needed for an absolute decision.

Didn't the TMO recommend yellow to Mr Doyle in the van Velze case? In which case, does the TMO get censured for a shoite recommendation?

Right the whole point of the TMO reviews was suppossed to be that it dealt with more on the field and reduced the number of citings. If that tackle weas worthy of a 4 week ban a red card should have been given, the mistake is the TMOs not doing his job properly....kind of like Wayne Barnes' touch judges.
I dont really see a problem in that mistake being corrected, but it does highlight that the TMO isnt a flawless arbiter.