What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

by **LondonTiger** Sat Mar 23, 2013 12:53 pm

Anyone watching the Reds/Bulls game who thinks that was a tackle deserving a YC?

Shocking call by the TMO which could cost the Reds dearly.

by Portnoy's Complaint Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:29 pm

In the Embra v Ulster match last night there was no TMO.
Unbelievable!

by HongKongCherry Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:36 pm

Some things never change...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yRM46g0Mp4

by ScarletSpiderman Sat Mar 23, 2013 2:30 pm

The two that realky wind me up are when they go to the tmo for every try regardless to check the grounding, or when they seem to forget about the tmo and seem to just guess.

by doctor_grey Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:05 pm

That Jonny try was a gift. Don't think anyone really thought it was good. But a gift to a great.

But in general, I think TMOs do get it right and improve the game. Sadly, they are human and get it wrong from time to time (just like everyone who disagrees with me).

I do agree that referees go to the TMO a bit too much. However, I think we are better with them and, in general, am OK with things as they are.

by EnglishReign Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:16 pm

The recent Bath v Glos game was a joke for TMO decisions, it was called upon every 5 minutes. The ref then saw the play from just one angle on the big screen and made his decision based on that alone, no actual TMO input.

At least use it properly.

by doctor_grey Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:19 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Anyone watching the Reds/Bulls game who thinks that was a tackle deserving a YC?

Shocking call by the TMO which could cost the Reds dearly.

I recorded the match but haven't watched yet. About how far into the match????

by SecretFly Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:49 pm

uh oh!!! TMOs now can't see what they see? And they're looking at exactly what we see (TV coverage and slow-mo)?

I do think we're coming to a stage when matches will have to be decided by voting as so many of us now see bad eyesight as being a plague on the game. The ref needs a TMO to make tough decisions...and now??? the TMO needs an assistant too? How many levels of eyesight are we going to need before we're satisfied?

If there was a speed camera system developed to measure a game precisely, at a much higher speed than a human eye can work at, I guarantee you there'd still be some of us questioning the programming of the system and being absolutely certain we saw something the milisecond system missed.

by **Biltong** Sat Mar 23, 2013 5:55 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Anyone watching the Reds/Bulls game who thinks that was a tackle deserving a YC?

Shocking call by the TMO which could cost the Reds dearly.

I you thought that one was a shocker, have a look at the yellow card the Bulls got.

by thebluesmancometh Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:35 pm

Biltong wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Anyone watching the Reds/Bulls game who thinks that was a tackle deserving a YC?

Shocking call by the TMO which could cost the Reds dearly.
I you thought that one was a shocker, have a look at the yellow card the Bulls got.

That yellow made me die a little inside this morning. Yes he clearly lifted him, but as soon as the guy went horizontal he was brought to earth with such ease both players helped each other up off the floor didn't they???!! I coulod understand the ref not catching it properly and wanting to check, but to watch the replay and decide he deserved to be in the bin? Joke!!

Any see the 2nd half, I missed it. Genia and Cooper were looking very sharp and dangerous first half weren't they...? Sad

by logie28 Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:47 pm

Guys you should know there has been a change in the perception of what constitutes a dangerous tackle. Refs and citing officers have been directed to view any tackle that results in a players legs reaching the horizontal as illegal.

I know this sounds harsh, but the players have been informed of this and it will result in players having to change their tackling technique to prevent innocent intended tackles becoming illegal ones. This directive will result in a lot of very unlucky and harsh cards, with a lot of unintentional 'lifting' happening due to the motion of the ball carrier rather than the tackler doing anything wrong, basically the laws of physics, but this is why these decisions are being made, IRB directives

by thebluesmancometh Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:50 pm

logie28 wrote:Guys you should know there has been a change in the perception of what constitutes a dangerous tackle. Refs and citing officers have been directed to view any tackle that results in a players legs reaching the horizontal as illegal.

I know this sounds harsh, but the players have been informed of this and it will result in players having to change their tackling technique to prevent innocent intended tackles becoming illegal ones. This directive will result in a lot of very unlucky and harsh cards, with a lot of unintentional 'lifting' happening due to the motion of the ball carrier rather than the tackler doing anything wrong, basically the laws of physics, but this is why these decisions are being made, IRB directives

Well I might just invest in a tag making company now then...

by doctor_grey Sat Mar 23, 2013 6:56 pm

OK,
just went back and looked at both tackles with the yellows. The commentators thought both yellows were the wrong call. And, I agree. However, by the way Rugby is being officiated today, I understand the calls. Not just caution first, but ultra caution first. Shame. I would prefer a little more independent judgement.

The first (Reds yellow) was clearly closer to a yellow, but it did appear the tackler tried to put the player down in a reasonable way. To be fair, there was a moment when it looked the player was being brought down head first. The second, as the commentators said, was just an out of control tackle. And didn't remotely appear to drive the player down head first. It was posterior first, to be fair. My first impression was it was not yellow at all.

by **LondonTiger** Sat Mar 23, 2013 10:12 pm

Biltong wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Anyone watching the Reds/Bulls game who thinks that was a tackle deserving a YC?

Shocking call by the TMO which could cost the Reds dearly.
I you thought that one was a shocker, have a look at the yellow card the Bulls got.

I thought the bulls one was worse. It did not deserve a YC but as it was worse than the Reds then the sinbin was only option.

by yappysnap Sun Mar 24, 2013 6:39 pm

The Bulls one could have gone the other way as the Reds player tries to jump in to the tackle by hurdling the man!

Both decisions were shockers though and came from a ref sticking to the very letter of the law and not the concepts behind it. Basically he's a new Craig Joubert and I'm sure we'll have him in some high profile International games soon as the IRB seem to love this type of box ticking, zero original thinking ref.

by **LondonTiger** Sun Mar 24, 2013 7:49 pm

I have to say i disagree with the YC just given to Ashton - referred to TMO. While I agree I do not believe he intended to hit the man with a stiff arm to the face, the execution of the tackle was so bad that for me it should have been red.

by TJ1 Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:14 am

Any clips? I did not see the game however the rules on tip tackles are clear and not as expressed in this thread I believe. From the sound of things the yellow is inline witht eh directive. Red might have been harsh

Law 10.4(j) reads: Lifting a player from the ground and dropping or driving that player into the ground whilst that player’s feet are still off the ground such that the player’s head and/or upper body come into contact with the ground is dangerous play.

A directive was issued to all Unions and Match Officials in 2009 emphasizing the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance towards dangerous tackles and reiterating the following instructions for referees:

- The player is lifted and then forced or ‘speared’ into the ground (red card offence)

- The lifted player is dropped to the ground from a height with no regard to the player’s safety (red card offence)

- For all other types of dangerous lifting tackles a yellow card or penalty may be considered sufficient

Regular directives to Unions, Match Officials and Judicial Officers have been issued to reinforce the IRB’s zero-tolerance stance regarding dangerous tackles and the promotion of player welfare.

by **LondonTiger** Mon Mar 25, 2013 2:22 am

For me the first YC in Reds/bulls game saw the player lay the opponent on the ground as I would my kids when they were little. Even at full speed it looked slow motion. The tackled player reached out his hand and allowed himself to be helped down.

One other the player was righted and brought down feet first - yet still carded.

The application of the directive in these cases has made it obvious that if you make a tackle that sees a player lifted you will get a YC no matter what you then do with the opponent. It seems they are reading the third part of the directive as:

- For all other types of ~~dangerous~~ lifting tackles a yellow card ~~or penalty~~ may be considered sufficient

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:03 pm

The Scottish forwards, instead of putting the ball down, held it up off the ground and pushed our men bodily over the line and secured the touch. We admitted the try because they assured us it was a fair try according to Scottish rules. At any rate, the honour of scoring it belonged to the whole Scottish front rank though it was Buchanan who actually grounded the ball and so had the distinction of being the first player to score in an international. W. Cross kicked the goal and in those days a goal was the vital score

27 March 1871: The first ever international game

http://www.rugbyfootballhistory.com/timeline1870s.htm

Corinthian attitudes in those days before the kerching sullied the sense of sportsmanship.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Mar 26, 2013 9:47 pm

Well, they had no referees then, the captains decided.

If I remember right there was an incident in one game and relations were broken for a couple of years. On resumption of hostilities refs were introduced.

by Portnoy's Complaint Tue Mar 26, 2013 10:19 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Well, they had no referees then, the captains decided.

If I remember right there was an incident in one game and relations were broken for a couple of years. On resumption of hostilities refs were introduced.

They should have had a ref in my first ever competitive event LT. I had my thumb on the egg in the egg and spoon race at infants' school and I won.

My mum was pleased for me. But even at that age, I knew I cheated even though the rules weren't explained beforehand, I inherently knew.

And I guess, pretty much everyone does.

It's how you internalise/justify/rationalise it that counts I suppose.

by Sponsored content

What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?

Re: What is the point of the TMO when they get it so wrong?