Time to get rid of the TMO

Purpose of the TMO is to ensure the correct decision is made. So what was the TMO watching when he awarded Vinupola's try. There is no way in this world could he see that ball grounded. Similarly, how, from the video replay they could say Pape intended to knee Heaslip in the back is beyond me.

In the good old days before TMO there where some howling ref decisions, but it was accepted that mistakes where made and we live by it. We all thought the TMO would resolve these mistakes, but it seems to have gone a full circle, with the Television Muppet Official, making more mistakes than ever. And of course, it's not just mistakes are being made, but the game is slowed up with the ref going upstairs ALL the time instead of backing himself.

Last night in the Wales v Scotland U20 game, the French ref took nearly 3 minutes to ask the question Try or No Try, in his pigeon English, only for the TMO to take minutes to look and then a further 2 minutes replying in French. Why didn't he ask the question in French, instead of his rambling, "err, I, err simple question it is, oui, err....".

If I'm honest, I'm not sure I want the TMO scrapped, as they have made some crucial correct calls which without the game would have had an unfair result. But they are also making some howlers and making a joke if the whole process...

What's your thoughts, how can we repair the process, does it need repairing or should we just scrap it. I'm interested in your thoughts.

it was absolutely clear from the replays that it was grounded, and from the original footage (and real time) it was not at all obvious. No TMO no try, but the TMO giving the try was fine.

Actually, I think the Vunipola decision vindicated the use of the TMO.

At full speed and with a single look I didn't think it was a try.

Seeing the replay (with a good angle) showed Vunipola did ground it and, at the very least, it was benefit of the doubt.

Didn't see the Pape incident. I was flicking channels as the Ireland/France game was pretty dire.

Having said that I do sometimes think (for good and ill) the ref needs to have the courage of his convictions and the TMOs are sometimes over-used. You can't blame the refs though. If you had another option (and had any doubt whatsoever) you would take it.

If you watched closely you could see the ball being grounded.,,,and he did look like Billy V was in control of the ball.

Regards the Heaslip tackle (knee in the back) I am not so sure that it was deliberate.
I actualy thought that Pape slipped as he went in to the tackle.

It is these types of incidents that the TMO was brought in for. that So i say leave the TMO in place.

I've watched the Vinupola's try several times and I don't agree. I dint think it was a try. However, it didn't affect the game result and I don't want this turning into a WUMfest, I was using this as an example of the TMO process and whether it needs to be fixed, etc...

I'm still of the opinion that the ref should take more accountability for the call. I had hoped when they started to show the playback so the ref could see it, they may get more backbone and make the call themselves. Maybe that's the answer. Scrap the TMO but keep playbacks on the big screen, but the ref has to make the call themselves.

The ball was grounded though so good decision for me.

No9 wrote:I've watched the Vinupola's try several times and I don't agree. I dint think it was a try. However,  it didn't affect the game result and I don't want this turning into a WUMfest, I was using this as an example of the TMO process and whether it needs to be fixed, etc...

I'm still of the opinion that the ref should take more accountability for the call. I had hoped when they started to show the playback so the ref could see it, they may get more backbone and make the call themselves. Maybe that's  the answer. Scrap the TMO but keep playbacks on the big screen, but the ref has to make the call themselves.

But then when a ref gets the call wrong it will be back to people moaning again.

Ok, we'll agree to differ on Billy's try, but on the wider use of TMO and the howlers they have made in the past... You still believe the process works well, or could be improved...

I accept, those here tonight will say Billlys try was good, even if I don't agree. You never know tomorrow may see a Welsh try given by a TMO, where Scotland fans will dispiute. This happens. But it doesn't mean the process is a good one...

No9 wrote:Ok, we'll agree to differ on Billy's try, but on the wider use of TMO and the howlers they have made in the past... You still believe the process works well, or could be improved...

I accept, those here tonight will say Billlys try was good, even if I don't agree. You never know tomorrow may see a Welsh try given by  a TMO, where Scotland fans will dispiute. This happens. But it doesn't mean the process is a good one...

But does it result in getting more decisions correct than if there was no TMO? I think it does.

Ball was clearly grounded on the video so this was actually a good use of the TMO. In general I agree they're overused. In particular I think refs sometimes pass up decisions that they would otherwise have made in the build up to a try on the basis that they can go back and check it, but then a try isn't scored and play continues without the forward pass etc being awarded.

nathan wrote:

No9 wrote:I've watched the Vinupola's try several times and I don't agree. I dint think it was a try. However,  it didn't affect the game result and I don't want this turning into a WUMfest, I was using this as an example of the TMO process and whether it needs to be fixed, etc...

I'm still of the opinion that the ref should take more accountability for the call. I had hoped when they started to show the playback so the ref could see it, they may get more backbone and make the call themselves. Maybe that's  the answer. Scrap the TMO but keep playbacks on the big screen, but the ref has to make the call themselves.

But then when a ref gets the call wrong it will be back to people moaning again.

True... Used to have some great discussions in the past about ref mistakes. But it beggars belief that mistakes can be made to the extent they are when the TMO gas all those replays to hand. I accept sometimes the camera doesn't catch it, but then should the TMO make the call, or should the ref. I believe the ref, yet so often now the ref ducks it.

Well to expand it a little there was a man sausage up in the cricket where there a dismissal incorrectly given by the tmo and umpires backed it up. It gives another chance but is still in human hands.

Im sure i didn t say sausage. Reading that back it sounds far worse than what I said! auto correct (?) has filthied up my language.

thomh wrote:

Ball was clearly grounded on the video so this was actually a good use of the TMO. In general I agree they're overused. In particular I think refs sometimes pass up decisions that they would otherwise have made in the build up to a try on the basis that they can go back and check it, but then a try isn't scored and play continues without the forward pass etc being awarded.

You telling me you can see the ball there...

Ok, I'll book an eye sight...

That's not conclusive .... Hence benefit of doubt, No Try... Them are the rules... But as I say, not really what I wanted to discuss, as it didn't change the result. Now if England had won by one score, that would be a different arguement. As Brian Moore said at the time, "I'd be unhappy if I was Italian"...

My problem with the TMO is that refs have simply stopped making decisions. They refer everything with any doubt to the TMO now.

It was supposed to be for the really tricky situations but not now.

IMHO it should be Coaches call for TMO, 3 calls each if corect keep it if wrong lose it, can only go back 2 phases of play or 1 minute, have to name offence & be correct, if get offence incorrect tough lose a call. TMO can still call foul play.

lostinwales wrote:it was absolutely clear from the replays that it was grounded, and from the original footage (and real time) it was not at all obvious. No TMO no try, but the TMO giving the try was fine.

You could question was he in control / who was in control but the ball was grounded.

Nah, keep the TMO. Does far more good than harm in my opinion.

Talking of TMO howlers though, who can remember the Johnny Wilkinson 'try' against Scotland a few years back? Maybe even the first year of the TMO. They replayed it and replayed it and every angle showed Wilkinson's foot in touch ages before touching the ball down, yet the try was given. Outrageous!

No9 wrote:

As Brian Moore said at the time, "I'd be unhappy if I was Italian"...

That sounds like Brian. I don't think he'd make a very good Italian. Imagine how unhappy he would be if he found out he was French

TJ wrote:

lostinwales wrote:it was absolutely clear from the replays that it was grounded, and from the original footage (and real time) it was not at all obvious. No TMO no try, but the TMO giving the try was fine.

You could question was he in control / who was in control but the ball was grounded.

Yes. One angle looked like an Italian player had it and grounded it.

No9 wrote:

thomh wrote:

Ball was clearly grounded on the video so this was actually a good use of the TMO. In general I agree they're overused. In particular I think refs sometimes pass up decisions that they would otherwise have made in the build up to a try on the basis that they can go back and check it, but then a try isn't scored and play continues without the forward pass etc being awarded.

You telling me you can see the ball there...

Ok, I'll book an eye sight...

That's not conclusive .... Hence benefit of doubt, No Try... Them are the rules... But as I say, not really what I wanted to discuss, as it didn't change the result. Now if England had won by one score, that would be a different arguement. As Brian Moore said at the time, "I'd be unhappy if I was Italian"...

On the replay there was a very clear shot of the ball being grounded ... no doubt the TMO got that one right. And I think Brian said that before that shot was shown as originally it did look like he'd been held up.

Griff wrote:Nah, keep the TMO. Does far more good than harm in my opinion.

Talking of TMO howlers though, who can remember the Johnny Wilkinson 'try' against Scotland a few years back? Maybe even the first year of the TMO. They replayed it and replayed it and every angle showed Wilkinson's foot in touch ages before touching the ball down, yet the try was given. Outrageous!  

Here it is! I hope the TMO got reprimanded for this:

Griff wrote:

Griff wrote:Nah, keep the TMO. Does far more good than harm in my opinion.

Talking of TMO howlers though, who can remember the Johnny Wilkinson 'try' against Scotland a few years back? Maybe even the first year of the TMO. They replayed it and replayed it and every angle showed Wilkinson's foot in touch ages before touching the ball down, yet the try was given. Outrageous!  

Here it is! I hope the TMO got reprimanded for this:

That was 2007, not even nearly the first year of the TMO. The TMO awarded Luger's try v Australia in 2000, 7 years before that.

Ludicrous decision admittedly. Luckily it had no bearing on the result and was just pandering to the crowd.

No9 wrote:

thomh wrote:

Ball was clearly grounded on the video so this was actually a good use of the TMO. In general I agree they're overused. In particular I think refs sometimes pass up decisions that they would otherwise have made in the build up to a try on the basis that they can go back and check it, but then a try isn't scored and play continues without the forward pass etc being awarded.

You telling me you can see the ball there...

Ok, I'll book an eye sight...

That's not conclusive .... Hence benefit of doubt, No Try... Them are the rules... But as I say, not really what I wanted to discuss, as it didn't change the result. Now if England had won by one score, that would be a different arguement. As Brian Moore said at the time, "I'd be unhappy if I was Italian"...

Maybe doesn't show as well in a still shot but the ball is there and clearly grounded.

It's not conclusive. In fact I don't think it was a try. But I've always believed the official's, if in doubt, should give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking team. So I don't have a huge problem with such a difficult decision being made in favour of England there.

Although in theory (but not in reality as it turned out) the yellow to Pape helped Ireland, I don't see how the TMO decided it was intentional. It may have been. But again it was not conclusive. If you're sure it was intentional red card him. If not, you can't decide yourself whether it was intentional or not on a whim.

What I want to know is, was Nigel Owens a touch judge? If you're going to give Nigel Owens a days pay, why the hell would you have him as a touch judge while Wayne beedin Barnes is the man in charge?

The photo clearly shows the ball is grounded, so it IS conclusive. Try awarded and well done to the TMO for spotting it.

Nigel Owens was assistant referee and that's the end of his involvement in the 6N this year. Wayne "great ref" Barnes was assistant referee for the Italy v Ireland match and will be for the Italy v France match.

How many of the TMO decisions was the lord of all awesome Owens in a position to make a definitive call on?
Would he have been as an on field ref?

There is some bad use of the TMO and too many incidents going to it. The biggest issues come when they cant make a definitive call even from several watches, in this case you can piece togteher all the information. Vunipola never goes out. He has the ball as its pushed down and only he can possibly have control as it is grounded.
I also strongly dislike going back two phases which seems to be quite arbitrarily used and inevitably favours defensive teams (lets not even go there on the refs inability to count phases). TBF the officials have generally steered away from using that power but I can forsee a gradual creep as has happened with grounding and foul play calls. It does get to a point where the TMO becomes the game deciding factor, and players are encouraged by this to appeal and feel hard done by rather than just playing. It would be OK if replays always gave a clear answer, they dont. And playing them on a big screen so the crowd can influence the referee seems dodgy too.

Anyone want to bring up Cueto?

Well I think I remember we all felt there was a need for a TMO in the first place because refs were constantly getting calls wrong - because they had a worse view than we had of what happened.

Now in ye olde days of B&W or no TV, it didn't matter so much because people (audience) accepted they had no part to play in the games and accepted most ref decisions because, in truth, the cameras weren't up to seeing much more than the ref could see.

But now IS the time of the couch 'Official' - they DO have a real bearing on the game, on the rules and how forcefully the rules are enforced.  If the crowd (TV audience) don't like what they see in HD slow-mo repeated viewings then they start crowing about it in the social media.  And then the official media might feel inclined to join in - and then often times the rugby officials have to eventually modify things to placate the moaning audience.

Thus the initial arrival of the TMO.

The problem now of course is that the same opinionated, moaning audience are now watching the TMO in close-up slow-mo  He, like everything else in rugby, has become a plaything of the moaning classes of the sports watching public.

I think it's a no win situation.  The audience want to control everything - what power the ref has, what powers should be taken back off the TMO, what the TMO should be allowed say, what the ref should be allowed ask...etc, etc.

You might call it natural evolution that the system will continually adapt to all the constant complaining -but I still think some people truly believe perfection is out there and that there is an ideal around which they'd never complain about the ref or TMO again.

The truth unfortunately is the exact opposite.  Neither the ref nor the TMO is ever going to be universally liked or accepted, no matter how many variations of rules on top of rules are brought in.

The Vunipola try is exactly what is good about the TMO. The on field officials had no chance of seeing it just like Brian Moore. However you have to be blind or one-eyed not to agree the ball was grounded by England after the replays.

The ball was grounded. It was a try. But it did need a few replays to be clear about it.... to ensure fainess to the good attempt at holding up.

I think we should back to when we didn't need refs and teams played by the rules and kept their own discipline. Then we wouldn't need TMO, refs, etc.

The problem with awarding vunipola the try wasn't the debatable grounding, but that the TMO missed that he had out a foot in touch well before the line and then the ball was carried over the plane of touch before being "grounded" (debatably). Just awful work.

HammerofThunor wrote:I think we should back to when we didn't need refs and teams played by the rules and kept their own discipline. Then we wouldn't need TMO, refs, etc.

Agreed. We need to revert to the days when a rugby game was decided by honour and duelling pistols.

I'm not sure the ball being over the plane of touch counts as in touch as long as the player isn't in touch - if you stand in-field and hold the ball over the touch line that's not in touch is it? I'm not sure it went over the plane anyway,

The grounding was clear.

I didn't see a foot in touch when they showed the reverse angle.

From what I saw at the time the TMO got it right - but I'll take another look later.

TheRugbyMaster wrote:The problem with awarding vunipola the try wasn't the debatable grounding, but that the TMO missed that he had out a foot in touch well before the line and then the ball was carried over the plane of touch before being "grounded" (debatably). Just awful work.

His foot wasnt in touch neither was the ball. Have another look.

The Vunipola try was, as pointed out, an excellent use of the TMO. Little to no chance of the ref spotting the grounding in normal time, but the replay shows it quite clearly. There was a similar one a few years back in England vs Ireland with Dan Cole grounding the ball (Finished Eng 16-20 Ire IIRC, Bowe got a couple of tries). Ref said he didn't think it was a try but asked the TMO to check, who spotted the grounding. I'll see if I can find a replay somewhere.

I agree that in general the TMO is somewhat over-used, but then again Owens got a lot of criticism for not going to the TMO on the Cruden "try" vs England in the AIs, and I suspect refs do go to the TMO out of precaution a fair amount nowadays.

Personally, I think the TMO should only be used to check a grounding, or the last pass, so no going back through phases. I don't mind it being used for foul play either.

This is a baffling idea OP.

the TMO is a great thing for rugby and sport in general.

Heaf wrote:I'm not sure the ball being over the plane of touch counts as in touch as long as the player isn't in touch - if you stand in-field and hold the ball over the touch line that's not in touch is it?  I'm not sure it went over the plane anyway,

The grounding was clear.

I didn't see a foot in touch when they showed the reverse angle.

From what I saw at the time the TMO got it right - but I'll take another look later.

Foot touches the touch line at 0:22 and clearly the ball is over the plane of touch at 0:24 with vunipola in the air, partially in touch himself - that's out, he then twists the ball back in field beyond the flag at 0:27 and the possible grounding is at 0:31

Scrub that, The link I reference it from can't be posted here, so little point in the details!

There's no such thing as being the plane of touch, it's only out if touches the floor I believe, just watched it again and at no point does he go into touch.

For a "rugby master" you know little about the game. The ball is only in touch if it is on the ground on or over the white line, just like a try can only be scored if the ball touches the ground. Rugby isn't American football.

Rugbymaster

Vunipola's foot was not in touch. It was about 2 inches away. Given that, the fact that the ball crossed the plane is irrelevant. Player's often stop kicks from going into touch when the ball has "crossed the plane" by keeping their feet infield and reaching out over the line to catch it or flick it back in.

What about the disallowed Bennett try? It obviously wasn't a knock-on even though Jackson called it. When Jackson got it wrong there was more than enough time for the TMO to tell the ref about it during the break in play.

The TMO is there to get more decisions right and they generally do, even though they still will get some wrong.

I thought the TMO had a good weekend.

The Great Aukster wrote:What about the disallowed Bennett try? It obviously wasn't a knock-on even though Jackson called it. When Jackson got it wrong there was more than enough time for the TMO to tell the ref about it during the break in play.

The TMO is there to get more decisions right and they generally do, even though they still will get some wrong.

Obviously? I wouldn't say obviously.

I would say the Bennett one was marginal. Looked like it might have gone slightly forward initially before bouncing back. Strange that Jackson was certain enough to blow immediately though rather than wait two seconds to check it.

TRM I've watched the replays again as I said I would but still can't see a foot in touch - he puts his foot next to the line as per the image posted by thomh but that's not in touch ... I stand by what I said that the TMO in this case got it right.