Fed up with the amount of TMOs!!

Ok, Robbie Diack's try from Friday night for Ulster. Couldn't be much clearer - the only problem - linesmen know there is a TMO now and so don't even bother trying!

1:17 into the video, the ball has been kicked - why is the linesman not thinking about Diack and the crossfield kick?

by the time the camera brings the linesman into view, Diack is already 4 metres ahead, and when the linesman starts moving - its hardly at a speed that suggests he NEEDS to see what happens up there.

So yea... I'm fed up


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3WxSSGaJZE

The Assistant Ref had a better position to call onside/offside than any TV camera in the ground. ARs are useless- they do nothing. I've been watching them ignore crooked throws, offside etc. all season.

At least the TMOs usually get an acceptable result. Plus the clock is off.

Far more time appears to be wasted in re-setting scrums - a point I made in an OP last week.

AR judge if the ball goes over the posts from a place kick. They also hold a flag to show where a lineout should be taken (or near to anyway, if there's a line nearby they go there instead).

Aye, thats what they did when they were still called linesmen. When they were 'promoted' to assistant refs they were meant to start providing help to the referee when he was unsighted or when they were in a better position.

If the ref is looking at the breakdown and the defenders on the blindside are stealing several yards offside in line with where the AR is, you'd think he could at least have a word with the referee!

Similarly for many tries that now go to the TMO the AR is in line with the play and hence in a better position to judge on a marginal forward pass or offside than the TV camera can offer; TV footage is often inconclusive in these tight calls. But we never see them making a call!

Its infuriating.

We had that stupid delay when Gilroy was fouled against Munster.

Rolland had decided on a penalty but appeared to be reviewing over and over to decide if it was a Yellow Card.

Absolutely unbelievable must have been close to 5 mins

I am happy basically with the use of the TMO - its still a question of everyone getting used to it but it leads to more correct decisions.

the alternative would be for the officals on the ground to make all calls and to have an appeal to the TMO available in limited numbers

geoff998rugby wrote:We had that stupid delay when Gilroy was fouled against Munster.

Rolland had decided on a penalty but appeared to be reviewing over and over to decide if it was a Yellow Card.

Absolutely unbelievable must have been close to 5 mins

Seems unlike Rolland to be hesitant on issuing a card

Foul play in a Munster v Ulster game?.... never heard of such a thing.

TMO's are a necessary evil, I myself don't actually see it as a problem unles the TMO takes 5 minutes with the review.

It creates tension and excitement.

But then that's me.

  

2 good replies above from 'IronMike' and 'thebandwagon society'

Biltong wrote:TMO's are a necessary evil, I myself don't actually see it as a problem unles the TMO takes 5 minutes with the review.

It creates tension and excitement.

But then that's me.

I wonder if there is a stat on the number of tries disallowed since playing under the new TMO rules, denied because of an infringement in the build up/forward passes and so on)

One thing I have noticed is that many people are critical of referees who call for the TMO, only to then watch the incident replayed on the big screen and make a decision themselves. To me this seems to be the best approach, the technology is still being utilised, but the referee remains the man in charge. They often seem to make the calls much quicker than waiting for the TMO as well.

The Munster game was the one that really annoyed me- there was 5 minutes for the adjudication on the foul on Gilroy then on the next phase we scored! Perfectly good looking try, and when he went to the TMO again...

Well the mood was rather pished off because after that we had had about 6 minutes of TMO decisions and 5 minutes of rugby.

They should go for more of the 'clear and obvious' stuff. Quick look, another obvious? No, crack on.

One thing that is a slight aside, when did lifting someone above the horizontal become an automatic yellow card? I know lifting someone and dropping (Warburton) or driving them onto their head is a straight red but plenty of times I've seen someone lifted, tipped, tipped back and land on their back...yellow card (apparantly no choice). Has there been another directive from the IRB since the last one just before the World Cup.

geoff998rugby wrote:We had that stupid delay when Gilroy was fouled against Munster.

Rolland had decided on a penalty but appeared to be reviewing over and over to decide if it was a Yellow Card.

Absolutely unbelievable must have been close to 5 mins

Well this is not entirely true, Rolland went back (way back...) to look at the possibility that Trimble had knocked on in the lead up to the penalty. I also think that Dineen may have been yellow carded had he gone with his original feeling but the replay showed Gilroy acting more like a professional diver than a professional rugby player which is why there was no yellow. It works for and against you sometimes.

I think the TMO is being over used, it should only be used for checking the ball has been grounded or if a foot is in touch, I don't like checking for forward passes (every pass is forward in super slow motion HD!) or foul play.

The worst thing about TMOs is that when referees think a try has been scored and would have awarded a try if no TMO was available instead of asking if there is any reason not to award the try as they should they say "Try? Yes or No." Then when no clear image is available a try is not awarded.

The latest irritant is referees who don't listen to the TMO but make a decision based on watching the big screen. Why have a TMO if you are not going to use him? Wayne Barnes is the worst culprit for this.

Typical forum behaviour here. How many posters actually read my OP?

This is not a debate about the existance of TMOs. Its a debate about refs and linesmen (more so) not trying as hard because they know there is a TMO.

It should be used only if necessary. A lineman should be busting his balls and constantly thinking about the game in order to make the right judgemnents and gett himself to the place where the best judgement can be made.

ITS THEIR JOB

The video in the OP shows IMP a linesman who is taken by surprised by the crossfield kick, gets left for dead by a lock, and doesn't run very hard to catch up.

clive,

I believe that its the fear factor. Since we all get to have the benefit of slow motion replays and the internet is the main mode of communication these days, Ref's are afraid to make a decision for fear of getting it wrong and being slaughtered in the media. As a by-product of this, Ref's and AR's are becoming lazy as they do not have to keep up with play as much as they used to.

That said, I do believe that the usage of TMO intervention should be restricted to extremely close calls, not for every incident leading up to a decision. Its being utilised more as to try and disallow tries than award them I feel and that is the frustrating issue I have.

3 incorrect coaches calls,chances are only 2 will be used to keep for glaring error at end,limited time going back,eg 30 secs or 3 phases.
If the coaches didn't see it can't complain if ref didn't. Tmo allowed to call foul play any time.

Thats how it works in american football. Trouble is how does the coach get the refs attention?

clivemcl wrote:Typical forum behaviour here. How many posters actually read my OP?

This is not a debate about the existance of TMOs. Its a debate about refs and linesmen (more so) not trying as hard because they know there is a TMO.

It should be used only if necessary. A lineman should be busting his balls and constantly thinking about the game in order to make the right judgemnents and gett himself to the place where the best judgement can be made.

ITS THEIR JOB

The video in the OP shows IMP a linesman who is taken by surprised by the crossfield kick, gets left for dead by a lock, and doesn't run very hard to catch up.

Maybe some readers got sucked in by the headline?

Point is if youve got the technology, then use it. Sure lots of officials may be confident that they have a good appreciation of an event, however a camera from a different angle has often been shown to pick up something that wasnt visible in the first instance.

The situation is still much preferable than the current situation in football, where half the games seem to have some sort of 'was it a goal or not' controversy!

A few minutes here and there are worth it so we can't complain "we wos robbed".

I do agree in the case you highlighted the touch judge should have been on the ball. The replays I saw didn't really seem to determine whether Diack had started from behind the kicker or not. He was rather Usain Boltesque though and took his chance very well!