Too Much Overuse-TMO ???

By Richard Loe for the NZ Herald.

How stupid can officials get? They didn't even keep to the rule book in this morning's World Cup opener between England and Fiji.

I think officials should use technology because it's important to get things right but, even when they used it today, they got it wrong.

The opening try of the match, when England were awarded a penalty try, was a blatant truck and trailer and Fiji should have earned a penalty. Then there was the lifting tackle - when Fijian flanker Dominiko Waqaniburotu lifted English wing Jonny May.

The officials looked at it five or six times, and it was clearly dangerous, yet didn't sinbin Waqaniburotu.

And finally they needed an inordinate number of looks at the tries to both Nemani Nadolo and Billy Vunipola when it was obvious after the first viewing they had scored.

Just make a decision, already. I really hope this World Cup isn't ruined by officials.


http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11515790

How many tries haven't gone to the TMO...?

Someone said on the telly last night that once the ref gives the try, he can't "un-award" it. I couldn't tell if that was an opinion or the laws.
Not only did that happen to Fiji last night but also to France just now. Surely unless every try is shown on big screens from every angle, any team who "lose" a try this way are disadvantaged.

InjuredYetAgain wrote:Someone said on the telly last night that once the ref gives the try, he can't "un-award" it. I couldn't tell if that was an opinion or the laws.
Not only did that happen to Fiji last night but also to France just now. Surely unless every try is shown on big screens from every angle, any team who "lose" a try this way are disadvantaged.

Also the choice of what is reviewed by the TMO/Referee...!

The over-cooked reffing and TMOing going on at this WC is simply because of us....fans.

So take a bow fans and don't blame it all on the bellboy.

True to a degree fly, but the TV producers love it... They consider it adds suspense, and smile with the the sense of joy they have when someone comes up with a new risqué reality TV show.

I think the TMO is doing a great job to be honest.

Just how many tries in the past have been given that should not of been given?

No leave the TMO alone. He is doing a fine job.

If the ref or his assistants request the TMO then I don't see a problem but they shouldn't be able to do it after a replay has been shown on the big screen and the crowd start booing.

chris_501 wrote:If the ref or his assistants request the TMO then I don't see a problem but they shouldn't be able to do it after a replay has been shown on the big screen and the crowd start booing.

I disagree..

The reason for implementing the TMO, even earlier for encouraging the assistants to take a more active role was to adjudicate the game in a fairer way.

I want to see the correct result, referees make many mistakes they need as much assistance as possible.

What I would like to see is the correct result achieved as quickly as possible. I think the TMO needs more assistance.

chris_501 wrote:If the ref or his assistants request the TMO then I don't see a problem but they shouldn't be able to do it after a replay has been shown on the big screen and the crowd start booing.

That's fan based reffing.  That's Simon Cowell stuff - phone-in voting.  If the ref makes a call, he makes a call and should stand by it.  [He should make sure as possible he's making the right call!!!  He shouldn't be quick to decisions if he hadn't a sufficient angle with his own eyes to see.  He should involve the TMO if he does need help and don't make rash decisions on his own]  But if he makes his decision, then stand by it.  Don't be quickly awarding tries and then doing the TV Replay sign.
After all, has anyone ever seen a ref put a yellow card back into his pocket and let a player he's just given the yellow to stay on the field because a crowd chanted that the player was provoked?

Good points all, but maybe it is in the nature of the type of person who wishes to become a referee to be mayb a bit more pedantic, inconclusive in decision making whilst enjoying the focus and attention that they garner from their position?

Maybe our next step is to character asses referees through stringent psychological tests before giving them a whistle.

SecretFly wrote:

chris_501 wrote:If the ref or his assistants request the TMO then I don't see a problem but they shouldn't be able to do it after a replay has been shown on the big screen and the crowd start booing.

That's fan based reffing.  That's Simon Cowell stuff - phone-in voting.  If the ref makes a call, he makes a call and should stand by it.  [He should make sure as possible he's making the right call!!!  He shouldn't be quick to decisions if he hadn't a sufficient angle with his own eyes to see.  He should involve the TMO if he does need help and don't make rash decisions on his own]  But if he makes his decision, then stand by it.  Don't be quickly awarding tries and then doing the TV Replay sign.
After all, has anyone ever seen a ref put a yellow card back into his pocket and let a player he's just given the yellow to stay on the field because a crowd chanted that the player was provoked?

I agree with this. Let's not forget that Stuart Hogg had his card changed from yellow to red after a replay was shown in the Wales match a couple of years ago when Halfpenny (I think) was getting treatment. I couldn't argue with a red card but what rankled was that the correct sentence was only passed because there was an extended break in the game. If Halfpenny had gotten up quickly, there wouldn't have been the time for replays to be shown etc.

In the Fiji game the ref should have referred the Fiji non try straight away because neither he or assistant were in a position to make a decision.

The real problem though was the TMO.

Firstly he was incredibly slow. The Vunipola try was clearly a try once we had seen from correct angle. He then looked again from every angle.

Secondly, The intervention of the TMO for two foul play incidents was unjustified. Although both were penalties neither were sufficiently bad to justify a card. If TMOs are going to intervene for every potential penalty the game will never end. In my view they should intervene for serious foul play only.

Amazed he wasn't used in England's 3rd "try" where Jonny May clearly gets up and passes the ball after being tacked. Shocking decision.

I thought the best use of the TMO over the weekend was Wayne Barnes, who was using his radio to ask the TMO to check things while allowing the game to continue. It meant that at the next stoppage he would get the input he needed to make the right decision, but it minimised the downtime in the game - I hope after this round the other refs are encouraged to do the same thing.

The other end of the scale was probably Peyper, who I thought mostly came to the right decisions but took forever over it and frequently seemed to be looking at the wrong angles. There was nothing wrong in the laws with him reviewing the Fiji try having seen the replay, because the kick hadn't been taken. But if he had checked before awarding it and it had been fine, he'd have been lambasted on here for time wasting. As a ref, you can't win!

Maesteg - I am concerned about the reffing of mauls in general. If England were truck and trailer, then how about Wales, who regularly formed their side of a maul from the lineout when no tackle had been made and no player was even in contact with the opposition? They even won a penalty when one of the Uruguayans brought the maul down by tackling the ball carrier - which he is allowed to do.

Players on the same team forming up before contact is made is a flying wedge, which is specifically classed as a penalty offence in the laws (whereas truck and trailer isn't defined in the laws and is a matter of ref interpretation).

I think Barnes' use of the TMO was an improvement over the previous games, although talking to the TMO while play goes on could be a distraction.
Could be a case that we need at least 2 TMOs, bear with me, one of them watching the game live as play goes on. With the second one immediately replaying anything that he/the other TMO/ ref/ assistants 'flag' up as play continues. That way play can continue and if an infringement has occured then the ref can be informed as soon as the 2TMO is sure of it. Or at least he can show the definitive replay when play stops.

Another thing occured as I watched the (was it?) Tipuric try, disallowed after the replay. As soon as he got up I thought no try, it was pretty obvious from his reaction. Could we see a new era of player honesty coming it? If a player knows he didn't score and knows full well the replays will show it, is it preferable for them to let the ref know immediately and get on with the game straight away, instead of waiting 2 minutes for 5 replays to confirm it?

I started out hating the use of replays and technology in sport - as well as rugby I'm an avid follower of football, cricket and tennis as well. However what changed my view on this is the fact that the TV developed to have multiple angles and technology and so that the viewer is made aware of incorrect decisions in almost real time. On that basis it became silly to have the technology for correct decision to be made, and yet not use it.

I don't therefore think the question is "should we", but rather "how should we". It's the implementation and use of the technology that needs to be improved, and not just in rugby. Delays need to be kept to a minimum, and care should be given regarding decisions which have been given being overturned. How far back you go is also something that needs more thought? What if something is spotted in the build up at half time which the TMO didn't see? Can you overrule at that point and adjust the score?

My own view is that unless the ref refers something specific, only the grounding and the assist (i.e. whether the pass was forward or whether the player was offside) should be up for grabs. I hate the "try, yes or no" type of question, or "is there any reason not to award the try". It should be a specific question (please confirm the grounding, or can you check the final pass, or was he in front of the ball), otherwise the ref should make the call with the help of the on-pitch assistants. Yes, the ref may miss something, but it would at least prevent the endless spooling through minutes of footage looking for indiscretions. If the ref gives the try, then that's it. The Matawalu incident was ridiculous, and I don't particularly care that the correct decision was ultimately made. Rugby is not a precise sport (well at least when Scotland are playing) or an exact science, and if a ref can't think of any particular specific element of the build-up to question, then it should be a try.

rodders wrote:Amazed he wasn't used in England's 3rd "try" where Jonny May clearly gets up and passes the ball after being tacked. Shocking decision.

I have just looked at the video. He wasn't held.

Exiledinborders wrote:

rodders wrote:Amazed he wasn't used in England's 3rd "try" where Jonny May clearly gets up and passes the ball after being tacked. Shocking decision.

I have just looked at the video. He wasn't held.

He's held when he hits the ground, that's a completed tackle.

rodders wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

rodders wrote:Amazed he wasn't used in England's 3rd "try" where Jonny May clearly gets up and passes the ball after being tacked. Shocking decision.

I have just looked at the video. He wasn't held.

He's held when he hits the ground, that's a completed tackle.

It is difficult to tell from the footage of the match however on the ITV highlights show in the post match blather when discussing Mike Brown's work a closer view was shown. From that it is clear that the tackler let go before May hit the ground.

Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews? The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

I think you would have to stop replays being shown in the stadium if that's the case.

mr_stonelea wrote:Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews?  The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

Well then it could be used as a strategic timeout the way it is in tennis.

See Andy Farrell is spouting some nonsense about the TMO being a disadvantage to England because apparently they are fitter than everyone else...

Every scrum, injury and current TMO decision is a time-out at the moment. I don;t see why having 4 TMOs each game is a downside of what we have now

If you are going to use the TMO to award tries, then unless it is blatantly obviously scored, all tries must go to the TMO.

As for lifting tackles, once again it is subjective, what one referee sees as dangerous, others don't

I want to see scrum feeds checked, Japan on the weekend, avoided SA scrum dominance by getting the ball in and out in .75 seconds.

The average human being takes .45 second just to react.

rodders wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews?  The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

Well then it could be used as a strategic timeout the way it is in tennis.

See Andy Farrell is spouting some nonsense about the TMO being a disadvantage to England because apparently they are fitter than everyone else...

???

I'd like to hear that theory expanded. Too fast for the slow-mo cameras to catch them? That they're a blur even in freezeframe?

rodders wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews?  The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

Well then it could be used as a strategic timeout the way it is in tennis.

See Andy Farrell is spouting some nonsense about the TMO being a disadvantage to England because apparently they are fitter than everyone else...

It's not really nonsense when there were over 8 minutes of breaks in play because of the TMO, that is an extra 8 minutes the opposition have to take a breather mid game.

The Japan scrum was a thing of beauty, Tom Youngs take note on how to hook a ball.

I dislike the TMO stopping play for suspected foul play, that should stop unless the Ref asks it to be checked.

SecretFly wrote:

rodders wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews?  The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

Well then it could be used as a strategic timeout the way it is in tennis.

See Andy Farrell is spouting some nonsense about the TMO being a disadvantage to England because apparently they are fitter than everyone else...

???

I'd like to hear that theory expanded.  Too fast for the slow-mo cameras to catch them?  That they're a blur even in freezeframe?

As said below it gives the opposition a breather from England running the legs of them, they are fitter than the rest apparently.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

rodders wrote:

mr_stonelea wrote:Why not follow cricket and tennis and give each side 2 reviews?  The ref calls everything as he sees it, but the captain can ask for a TMO review if he thinks something was missed.

Well then it could be used as a strategic timeout the way it is in tennis.

See Andy Farrell is spouting some nonsense about the TMO being a disadvantage to England because apparently they are fitter than everyone else...

It's not really nonsense when there were over 8 minutes of breaks in play because of the TMO, that is an extra 8 minutes the opposition have to take a breather mid game.

So are England jogging on the spot then or would they not be getting a breather too?

Many tries in league are judged by the TMO and they don't seem to have a problem. They're generally looking at similar things (offside?, foot in touch? grounding? etc). Maybe it's just going to take a while to get used to it.

In terms of drawing the ref's attention to foul play I think it's generally a good thing as citings after the event don't help the team who are sinned against.

I think it's more a case of the ref taking control and being the final arbiter rather than leaving it all to the TMO when they're seeing the same footage.

As with all officiating it's all about consistency. Having most people see the new rulings in in a World Cup wasn't maybe the best idea.

Scrum feeds are a mess as usual and any side that is penalised is going to feel badly done to as everyone has got away with it for so long.

The point Farrell was making that unlike Fiji, England did not need a breather so overall dominance against a tiring team came later than it might have done, pretty simple to understand really. As for Jonny May being held in the build up to the third, he was not.

What was that team...was it yesterday? I forget but the 9 was just blatantly allowed shunt the ball ever so clearly back to his boys at scrumtime.  The commentator kept mentioning how pointed it was...the ref didn't seem to give a damn.  I know lesser sides are on a hiding to nothing often and a little leeway keeps them interested, but are rules not always rules or are they being used to create narratives for the organisers?

If the big sides are going to get blown off the pitch for crooked feeds in the big games to come then I think the smaller boys need to be asked to play fully by the rules too.

If the small sides DO need an 'edge', I'd suggest the edge should be more directed at allowing them the same rest periods as the big sides............   The present system simply ain't fair any which way you look at it.  It might be the only way the organisers feel they can push everything into a few weeks but it isn't remotely fair.

Yeah shocking that Japan have to play Scotland 4 days after SA. The fix is in.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The point Farrell was making that unlike Fiji, England did not need a breather so overall dominance against a tiring team came later than it might have done, pretty simple to understand really. As for Jonny May being held in the build up to the third, he was not.

But how do you cut down on TMOs slowing the game down and not allowing the poor Fiji's a rest and a bit of water? Playing cleaner (as in crisper) and scoring with less body clutter around you to make the TMO almost inevitable.

The need for TMOing is a direct result of teams playing rugby.... breakdown mess, rolling maul stuff. No clear view for Ref - upstairs.

In short, if Farrell wants less rest breaks then less breakdowns, less scrums and try not to score too often

SecretFly wrote:
In short, if Farrell wants less rest breaks then less breakdowns, less scrums and try not to score too often

Well the 3rd one won't be easy in fairness, given England don't even need to make the try line to score

it's the problem with 5 team groups, means that you'll have one team sitting out each round so unless you make the tournament a fair bit longer they'll always have to be shorter turnarounds for some teams. Unfortunately it does seem to be the "minnows" (is this an acceptable term in rugby? in cricket it isn't...) who get shafted by the scheduling. Should the tournament be expanded to 24 teams (four groups of six)? Makes it a bit longer, sure (though only a week or so), but would have more teams involved, and ensure fairer scheduling...

rodders wrote:Yeah shocking that Japan have to play Scotland 4 days after SA. The fix is in.

We have to play USA four days after we play Japan, and Australia has to play Uruguay 4 days after playing Fiji. Not really a fix, just fixtures logistics.

SecretFly wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The point Farrell was making that unlike Fiji, England did not need a breather so overall dominance against a tiring team came later than it might have done, pretty simple to understand really. As for Jonny May being held in the build up to the third, he was not.

But how do you cut down on TMOs slowing the game down and not allowing the poor Fiji's a rest and a bit of water?  Playing cleaner (as in crisper) and scoring with less body clutter around you to make the TMO almost inevitable.  

The need for TMOing is a direct result of teams playing rugby.... breakdown mess, rolling maul stuff.  No clear view for Ref - upstairs.

In short, if Farrell wants less rest breaks then less breakdowns, less scrums and try not to score too often

fewer

Farrell has a point, to a degree. The time the TMO took over the decisions on Friday seemed excessive, most of them were clear on first viewing or once the correct angle was found (in Vunipola's case), so why they needed to constantly look over each angle multiple times is beyond me...

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Yeah shocking that Japan have to play Scotland 4 days after SA. The fix is in.

We have to play USA four days after we play Japan, and Australia has to play Uruguay 4 days after playing Fiji. Not really a fix, just fixtures logistics.

Ah here now, you and the wallabies have proper full time squads and can rotate for these games - Japan have the 2 toughest fixtures back to back so have a much tougher task to qualify.

grammar too??

The f**king TMO is everywhere these days.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:

Farrell has a point, to a degree. The time the TMO took over the decisions on Friday seemed excessive, most of them were clear on first viewing or once the correct angle was found (in Vunipola's case), so why they needed to constantly look over each angle multiple times is beyond me...

The ref needed a rest? Don't all blame the minnows. Refs are people too. Long fussy scrums = rest. Going upstairs = rest. Them boys know their way around a tea break.

rodders wrote:

funnyExiledScot wrote:

rodders wrote:Yeah shocking that Japan have to play Scotland 4 days after SA. The fix is in.

We have to play USA four days after we play Japan, and Australia has to play Uruguay 4 days after playing Fiji. Not really a fix, just fixtures logistics.

Ah here now, you and the wallabies have proper full time squads and can rotate for these games - Japan have the 2 toughest fixtures back to back so have a much tougher task to qualify.

I do like the fact that you think Scotland is a tougher fixture than Samoa!

Japan will only need to win 3 games to qualify. All teams can afford to drop a game. I would suggest that Japan rotate for this one....

SecretFly wrote:grammar too??  

The f**king TMO is everywhere these days.

Hang on, can we stop there. I just want to check with the TMO about some language used during the last post or two.

why does the ref have to order the TMO to check grounding... why can't it be automatic if the ref can't see grounding. Peyper was what 15 metres away from a 3 body mass... how could he be so certain?

The TMO should be instantly checking things not simply waiting for ref instructions.

Rotate what? Their clothes line? If they have a Mark2 team that can play anything like their First Choices then they're on their way to a semi.

fa0019 wrote:why does the ref have to order the TMO to check grounding... why can't it be automatic if the ref can't see grounding. Peyper was what 15 metres away from a 3 body mass... how could he be so certain?

The TMO should be instantly checking things not simply waiting for ref instructions.

The Ref must maintain the air of authority. He controls the space. He seeks information that will lead him to his conclusions. I don't think it would be productive having the screen show a caption reading "Try!" as the ref was only still running to get to the putdown area.

We might as well have no ref on the field at all and just have loudspeakers telling the players when they've infringed.

Its only Scotland, if they play near 70% of their performance vs SA they will scrape home.

I definitely agree that the schedules once again do no favours for the minnows.

But all in all, I thought it was a fabulous opening weekend of rugby. Very entertaining.