Play the game and sort out who really won after...

Anyone else bored of the Refs asking the TMO about  infringements that happened 4+ phases ago? Twice this weekend the Ref has gone to the TMO and rewound the clock to disallow tries.

Would we be as well to play the game and award the win retrospectively? How far is this new TMO rulling going to go?

Don't know the answer. I saw the disallowed one for Scotland off de Luca's break. It was 100% right. Should have been another for the laidlaw snipe but hey ho. 

I didn't see ashtons try for England but had heard it was awarded incorrectly. I have no idea if that's the case but saying hypothetically it is then it is better to getthe decision right. 

Where I think TMO difficulty comes in is when the ref (or the TMO) isn't strong enough to make the call and they just keep bloody replaying it.
The only issue I have at present is when

Standulstermen wrote:Don't know the answer. I saw the disallowed one for Scotland off de Luca's break. It was 100% right. Should have been another for the laidlaw snipe but hey ho. 

I didn't see ashtons try for England but had heard it was awarded incorrectly. I have no idea if that's the case but saying hypothetically it is then it is better to getthe decision right. 

Where I think TMO difficulty comes in is when the ref (or the TMO) isn't strong enough to make the call and they just keep bloody replaying it.
The only issue I have at present is when

...people do not complete their posts!

Surely you're not trying to suggest that England may have got the benefit of a poor refereeing decision for a second week in a row?! There will be outrage if you suggest such a thing! Especially if you try to suggest that perhaps the obstruction that ruled out the Scottish try was not worse than Hartley's "not quite enough" obstruction.

Have to say the TMO in the NZ/France games did a marvellous job. Correctly calling Jane's very close to superhuman effort in the first minute and generally not messing anything up. I thought the referee in question did a fairly good job although I sympathise with the complexity in adjudicating scrums at the moment especially on turgid pitches. I'm not sure you could point a finger when getting those calls wrong.

My bug bear is more the inconsistent use of the TMO. For instance a TMO attempting to give a message to the match referee during the Wales v SA game was ignored apparently because the on field referee could not understand his accent.

Given the minutae of tiny infringements that run constantly in a game - player slightly ahead of a kick, pass that drifts forward or may have been passed forward, little fumble in a ruck, and so on...it seems likely to me that any given play under scrutiny could be called back for SOMETHING. Now if the ref chooses not to use the TMO, then those tiny flaws are ignored...the use of the TMO opens up not just the point in question but a host of other things that might appear at the same time.

I think, as BT has suggested it might be nice if an opposition captain had the option of calling in the TMO a couple of times.

JDV called a TMO decision in Wales 22 that Rolland happily obliged...

Do we really want a referral system, GE?

It works well in cricket, but I'm not sure I'd want to end up with a 'Time Out, Captain Refers Possible Crossing Infringement'.

We already complain that the game doesn't flow enough.

butterfingers wrote:JDV called a TMO decision in Wales 22 that Rolland happily obliged...

Yeah, I was going to mention that. Didn't the ref ask him which number to check (or JDV suggested it anyway)?

Yep he sure dd. That was fairly extraordinary.

It was also fairly classic when he suggested it might take a long time to find the foul play on the video footage because there was no foul play. Very nicely worded.

Cyril wrote:

butterfingers wrote:JDV called a TMO decision in Wales 22 that Rolland happily obliged...

Yeah, I was going to mention that. Didn't the ref ask him which number to check (or JDV suggested it anyway)?

Ye just watched the game, Rolland calls TMO because of a complaint of foul play from PDV, he actually asks JDV for the number of the offender and what he did? second half he teels the TMO to sod off because he can't understand him properly.

Rolland in fairness did a great job at the breakdown, very sconsistent and you know what you get with him, it's everywhere else he struggles, Habana kncks onto Hooks head results in a try, Du Pleesis numerously disengages from the back of the maul then re attaches his arm resulting in a try, the other blonde hooker not only lets go of the maul but does so to slap a Welsh hand away from him before grabbing the maul again, Fourie is 2 yards in front of Du Preez resulting in a try, Paul James binds constantly after he gets set, both looseheands only bind on the arm, Du Preez feeds the scrum as biased as I've ever seen, the hookers raise their studs to hook for the ball, a SA prop gets carded for going down in 1 scrum when it's clear Jenkins is the problem, SA kill a very dangerous turnover ball 2 metres out and noone gets punished, 1/2p gets a penalty while clrearly lying ontop of a SA player...

I could go on all day, and now I think about it he was rubbish and effected the game in a negative way on numerous occasions, if the sign of a good ref is not being seen then Rolland put in one of the worst displays I have seen in a long time!

That said Wales could still be playing and not have scored

I'm not a fan of his interpretation of the breakdown at all. He tends to referee the attacking players and ignore the defenders in most cases. Resulting in far more turnovers and ruck penalties. He also lets advantage from set piece infringements roll on FOREVER and always returns to the penalty when the play breaks down no matter how long it's gone on for.

However, he consistently does this. And we always say we just want consistency.

One thing that would rectify that is the TMO must speak the same language as the ref. Walsh communicating with DaMasco at one stage was a chore. This has been around since the -2009 lions tour when Lawrence and Poite couldn't understand each other.

In fairness if what the TMO wanted to stop the game for was what was replayed by the beeb thereafter he needs a slap too 

I haven't a clue if England benefitted from a decision although judging by the papers today (and I have since seen the Ashton try) I would say  they got quite lucky.

The only thing I will say in Rollands defence is that he stopped to listen but obviously his mic wasn't working right. He said he couldn't hear him.

GloriousEmpire wrote:I'm not a fan of his interpretation of the breakdown at all. He tends to referee the attacking players and ignore the defenders in most cases. Resulting in far more turnovers and ruck penalties. He also lets advantage from set piece infringements roll on FOREVER and always returns to the penalty when the play breaks down no matter how long it's gone on for.

However, he consistently does this. And we always say we just want consistency.

I don't think he gave 1 attacking ruck penalty that wasn't holding on, everything else was defencive ruck penalties. What he does try to do is give players who are off their feet or offside the chance to redeem themselves first, which the players exploit to linger as much as they can. He also allows hands and elbows to touch the floor regularly, which I don't understand because he loves his law book.

Who is the (I think) Irish TMO who sounded bored out of his skull when asked for his opinion?

I'm pretty sure it was the same one for England/Aus and Wales/SA.

'Yeah, I'm listening (yawn). What do you want?'

He was probably thinking the same thing as some people here:  "What the f**k do you want me to look at now that you're too yellow to take responsibility for yourself?  Yes, - that penalty did go over....yes, straight between the posts..... yes, the correct ball...... yes, it was kicked not thrown.... yes, from the right spot...and why the f**k did you have your back to it all?"

All I know is that the supposed time they've taken back on the re-jigging of scrum rules has now been eaten into by the TMO calls.

SecretFly wrote:He was probably thinking the same thing as some people here:  "What the f**k do you want me to look at now that you're too yellow to take responsibility for yourself?  Yes, - that penalty did go over....yes, straight between the posts..... yes, the correct ball...... yes, it was kicked not thrown.... yes, from the right spot...and why the f**k did you have your back to it all?"

All I know is that the supposed time they've taken back on the re-jigging of scrum rules has now been eaten into by the TMO calls.

I think that's additional time on top rather than saving time.

I was just being habitually loose with the lingo there, Cyril. I meant the idea that people tired of all the stops for scrum resets...now people begin to tire at the TMO breaks...

I really hate when a great try is disallowed because a pass is slightly forward. Its happened a good few times.

That must've been how Clancy felt

Cyril wrote:Do we really want a referral system, GE?

It works well in cricket, but I'm not sure I'd want to end up with a 'Time Out, Captain Refers Possible Crossing Infringement'.

We already complain that the game doesn't flow enough.

I'm not sure that Michael Clarke would agree with the part of your comment that I have highlighted, but more of that in a minute.  

The problem with TMO referrals is that a mentality of "If you have the technology available, you should use it", which is a bit like the security services telling us that if you're not doing anything wrong, then you have nothing to fear about them spying on you.  It's a complete fallacy in my opinion.

The trouble is, that the game is rapidly becoming a slave to the technology, where every little incident, no matter how trivial, is scrutinised to the nth level and the game becomes fractured and disrupted to an entirely unacceptable degree.

An old navy chum of mine once said that, in all probability, an entirely legal try has never been scored in the entire history of the game.   I fear he may have been right.

So, what do we do..?  Do we introduce tennis style 'challenges' to rugby..?  Where a captain has the right to formally request a review on, say, two occasions per match.  Well, what happens then, when the captain has used his two challenges and the referee makes a total howler, but it goes uncorrected because the disadvantaged team had no more challenges available.   This happened in the cricket Ashes series last summer, where an England batsman conspicuously edged a ball to slip and was caught.  The umpire said "Not out" and Australia couldn't refer it because they had previously used their challenges unsuccessfully.   How is the technology benefitting the game there..?

Perhaps the review system runs into difficulty because of human nature.   It should be intended to correct grossly incorrect mistakes, but captains will be tempted to use it for more trivial issues.... to obtainn minor advantages in the hope they would lead to bigger gains.  When this doesn't work, the gamble fails and sod, operating under the only law he knows, is bound to cause something bigger to occur later which then becomes the subject of a major controversy.

Increasing reliance on any sort of referral system may solve some issues, but is likely to create others and in all probability, the problems caused with outnumber those resolved.

I won't say the game isn't broke, so don't fix it, but I do think the referral system should be limited as much as possible, and players go back to doing what has served the game well for a very long time, and that is to just respect the referee's decision and get on with the game.  

If it were up to me, I would use the TMO for two things: (1) Line calls, that is, foot or ball in touch or on or over the line for a score.  (2) grounding the ball for a score.

On both occasions the referee should first make a decision before referral and then there should be only one question:   Does the TV evidence conclusively contradict the referees decision.

If yes:  Reversal of decision.   If no:  Referees decision stands.

Anything else that happens in open play is for the referee, touch judges and the Gods of rugby to decide.

The problem I see with saying rugby is becoming a slave to technology is that due to the pace of the game, the intensity of having super athletes playing rugby and the interpretation of laws, the necessity for technology is becoming more and more a requirement to ensure a fair contest.

I like the referral idea because if used in a limited manner it should ensure the correct decision (Not guaranteed though as Poite so ably exhibited with Bismarck's tackle on Carter)

GloriousEmpire wrote:Yep he sure dd. That was fairly extraordinary.

It was also fairly classic when he suggested it might take a long time to find the foul play on the video footage because there was no foul play. Very nicely worded.

I enjoyed that too, a perfect example of how an experienced captain speaks to a ref!

I don't see why the TMO has to wait to be asked. The two dubious tries this weekend, Fourie du Preez's and Chris Ashton's, were both awarded at the time, but why couldn't the TMOs have looked at them even though they hadn't been asked? It wouldn't have taken them long - no longer than it takes to line up and kick a conversion - and then they could contact the referee, who then strikes the try off the scoreboard. It seems ridiculous that we have the technology but can't use it unless the referee lets us.