TMO, World Rugby & Poor Standard of Refereeing - Discuss.

Alain Rolland & World Rugby have brought the game we love into disrepute.

You cannot go behind the back of officials and say they got it wrong after the game, let's face it Alain was prone to one or two errors here and there when he was a ref.

No one is perfect (Apart from Wilko) Mistakes and talking points are what makes sports fun and interesting.
Yes, Rugby union needs to learn a thing or two from other sports like Cricket and how rugby league has a very clear process it runs through once the ref has asked for it to be reviewed. But it should never say an official got it wrong after the event, yes, he did slip up as he dismissed the knock on far too quickly which made the grounding irrelevant anyway but all this hot air after the game is leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

Eddie is bang on when he says everyone should move on. Take note Mr Gatland.

Also

Is it me or has the Standard of Refereeing been poor so far. Week 1 was a breath of fresh air, 9s getting pinged for not feeding the scrum straight. (about time) yet by week 2 its back to normal.
During the England/wales game the Ref missed loads of offsides, diving over the top, not releasing the ball or the tackled player missed knock-ons!!! etc etc.......Its been poor to watch and they need to up the standard.


TMO what's the point, might as well have one fan from each side to judge their own teams incidents. Two Irish tries were knock ons and the kiwi should have been red carded for a shoulder charge to the head.

TightHEAD wrote:Alain Rolland & World Rugby have brought the game we love into disrepute.

You cannot go behind the back of officials and say they got it wrong after the game, let's face it Alain was prone to one or two errors here and there when he was a ref.

No one is perfect (Apart from Wilko) Mistakes and talking points are what makes sports fun and interesting.
Yes, Rugby union needs to learn a thing or two from other sports like Cricket and how rugby league has a very clear process it runs through once the ref has asked for it to be reviewed. But it should never say an official got it wrong after the event, yes, he did slip up as he dismissed the knock on far too quickly which made the grounding irrelevant anyway but all this hot air after the game is leaving a sour taste in my mouth.

Eddie is bang on when he says everyone should move on. Take note Mr Gatland.

Yet here you are bringing it up again.....

That's because the game has been brought into disrepute by World Rugby.

Union is a laughing stock because of this and will only harm our game.

Move on tighthead you troll.

How is this trolling, its all over the sports pages today?


This is a forum for sensible discussion, if you don't like it then you know what you can do.

Discuss it on the appropriate thread then!

or ?

The other side of the argument is that there has been a lot of column inches and freeze frame pics demonstrating who touched the ball down first. If World Rugby was asked they are obliged to respond surely. Failure to do so would leave them open to the charge of accepting a wrong decision as right. Owning up to a mistake is not bringing the game into disrepute, rather covering over an error could be argued as such.
You make the point that no-one is perfect - maybe not even Wilko - and that I would hope everybody accepts. I would hope that the TMO is prepared to accept that he can make a mistake.
There are 2 relevant points as far as I can see, which I hope everyone can accept.
1. The TMO made an error when he said that England touched the ball down.
2. The decision of the match officials in the game is final even if they make a mistake
So - Wales did not get the try - point 2. And TMOs maybe will be careful to be sure of the decision they are making next time they are asked - point 1. (and that applies to whether there was a knock on or who touched the ball down first)
I am neither English or Welsh so I think that gives me a little more impartiality. I do however wonder whether there would have been just as much hot air had the TMO said that the ball was touched down by Wales and missed the knock on. Would good old Eddie been of the same viewpoint as he was saying that the decision of the officials was final. Or would the English fans have been as upset as the Welsh fans were? We will never know - although if a similar situation where the officials make a decision which in retrospect is seen to be an error arises and it results in England's loss, I await the postings with interest.

And to claim no other sporting body has ever pointed out that a referee has made the wrong decision during a game is absolute horse sh*t.

I think world rugby have to own up and air a mistake. However once it has been aired, now it's time to move on.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think world rugby have to own up and air a mistake. However once it has been aired, now it's time to move on.

I thought they had already? Edit: I thought they’d already aired and owned up on a mistake.

Agree it’s time to move on. However, debate about rules is always good on a discussion forum, so that part is fine (for me).

poissonrouge wrote:The other side of the argument is that there has been a lot of column inches and freeze frame pics  demonstrating who touched the ball down first. If World Rugby was asked they are obliged to respond surely. Failure to do so would leave them open to the charge of accepting a wrong decision as right. Owning up to a mistake is not bringing the game into disrepute, rather covering over an error could be argued as such.
You make the point that no-one is perfect - maybe not even Wilko - and that I would hope everybody accepts. I would hope that the TMO is prepared to accept that he can make a mistake.
There are 2 relevant points as far as I can see, which I hope everyone can accept.
1. The TMO made an error when he said that England touched the ball down.
2. The decision of the match officials in the game is final even if they make a mistake
So - Wales did not get the try - point 2. And TMOs maybe will be careful to be sure of the decision they are making next time they are asked - point 1. (and that applies to whether there was a knock on or who touched the ball down first)
I am neither English or Welsh so I think that gives me a little more impartiality. I do however wonder whether there would have been just as much hot air had the TMO said that the ball was touched down by Wales and missed the knock on. Would good old Eddie been of the same viewpoint as he was saying that the decision of the officials was final. Or would the English fans have been as upset as the Welsh fans were? We will never know - although if a similar situation where the officials make a decision which in retrospect is seen to be an error arises and it results in England's loss, I await the postings with interest.

That would be a slightly different scenario though as this decision can't be said to have resulted in Wales' loss ...

Everybody is talking about this as if it is an isolated incident. Only the week before the TMO ruled out a perfectly legitimate try for Wales against Scotland.

For me this needs serious looking into. The TMO is supposed to make the decision a ref cannot, if they are bolloxing things up, then they are pointless.

The Oracle wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think world rugby have to own up and air a mistake. However once it has been aired, now it's time to move on.

I thought they had already? Edit: I thought they’d already aired and owned up on a mistake.

Agree it’s time to move on. However, debate about rules is always good on a discussion forum, so that part is fine (for me).

But have they actually made a statement? All the reports I've seen are comments from 3rd parties about what they've apparently said ...

Heaf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think world rugby have to own up and air a mistake. However once it has been aired, now it's time to move on.

I thought they had already? Edit: I thought they’d already aired and owned up on a mistake.

Agree it’s time to move on. However, debate about rules is always good on a discussion forum, so that part is fine (for me).

But have they actually made a statement?  All the reports I've seen are comments from 3rd parties about what they've apparently said ...

BBC Sport seems to be quoting them directly, rather than through Rob Howley as they did previously:

“World Rugby told BBC Sport Wales it "has clarified to the Wales team management... that the TMO made an error in the application of law during the England versus Wales match".

The governing body added: "In accordance with law 21.1 b, Wales should have been awarded a try as the Wales player grounded the ball."”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/43046791

I don't like cropped quotations from biased parties. Lets see a statement.

That's still 2nd hand though and not a direct statement ...

I think the answer is NFL style. The TMO doesn't exist. The ref has a screen at the side of the pitch and he has to make the call. Furthermore the images are not played on the big screen for the baying crowd to pass judgement on.

RuggerRadge2611 wrote:I think the answer is NFL style. The TMO doesn't exist. The ref has a screen at the side of the pitch and he has to make the call. Furthermore the images are not played on the big screen for the baying crowd to pass judgement on.

Good suggestion, and something I’ve advocated in the past. One of the first things Lyn Jones insisted on when he came to Gwent Dragons was to install a big screen as he said we were misssing our on so many decisions that usually get influenced by the home crowd upon watching the replay. Without it he reckoned it was like playing at a neutral venue! True story.

They should not play anything on those big screens, it gives the crowd a chance to influence the ref too much.

LordDowlais wrote:Everybody is talking about this as if it is an isolated incident. Only the week before the TMO ruled out a perfectly legitimate try for Wales against Scotland.

For me this needs serious looking into. The TMO is supposed to make the decision a ref cannot, if they are bolloxing things up, then they are pointless.

We also had a try allowed from a forward pass and we're not the All Blacks..

What goes around comes around...

I am talking about try scoring decisions, about ball grounding and the what not. Wyn Jones grounded the ball against Scotland, it was far more clearer than Anscombe's, but again, the TMO got it wrong.

I am sure if the ref asked the TMO to check the pass from Parkes for Evans's try, then he would have disallowed it.

Wales' hypothetical try scoring rate is impressive. Very good fictional attacking team.

Scottrf wrote:Wales' hypothetical try scoring rate is impressive. Very good fictional attacking team.

Are world rugby being hypothetical as well ?

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Wales' hypothetical try scoring rate is impressive. Very good fictional attacking team.

Are world rugby being hypothetical as well ?

Yeah. And they are wrong.

Well, assuming the biased press releases are accurate.

Scottrf wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Scottrf wrote:Wales' hypothetical try scoring rate is impressive. Very good fictional attacking team.

Are world rugby being hypothetical as well ?

Yeah. And they are wrong.

Well, assuming the biased press releases are accurate.

FFS.

Come on, surely this is the perfect outcome. A win-win if you will. Wales get their moral victory (ok, they’d have still lost so more of a moral defeat). And England get the winning points they so richly deserved. On top of all that the fans can have a go at a kiwi official for myopia, and a French ref for asking the wrong question. Everyone’s a winner. Even Wales.

Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

thomh wrote:Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

Agreed. You have rules which can be interpreted slightly differently.

The judgement of one guy who used to ref is somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time.

Scottrf wrote:

thomh wrote:Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

Agreed. You have rules which can be interpreted slightly differently.

The judgement of one guy who used to ref is somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time.

...but that guy who was there didn’t see it and so had to ask the TMO! Hence the referral. So it wasn’t that the TMO was more important. The ref is allowed to tell the TMO what he sees and come to an agreement together. Or are you honestly suggesting the ref should say “it was all a bit too fast, I couldn’t see properly as I had my eye on lots of things, so I’ll just guess rather than allow you to use your video slow mo technology because I still ref and you don’t”?! Cracking idea.

The Oracle wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

thomh wrote:Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

Agreed. You have rules which can be interpreted slightly differently.

The judgement of one guy who used to ref is somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time.

...but that guy who was there didn’t see it and so had to ask the TMO! Hence the referral. So it wasn’t that the TMO was more important. The ref is allowed to tell the TMO what he sees and come to an agreement together. Or are you honestly suggesting the ref should say “it was all a bit too fast, I couldn’t see properly as I had my eye on lots of things, so I’ll just guess rather than allow you to use your video slow mo technology because I still ref and you don’t”?! Cracking idea.

The TMO was the referee I was referring to.

I think he meant why should Rolland's judgement be more valid than the TMO's ...

I guess we could work out the score once World Rugby have had their say on all of the incidents.

Scottrf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

thomh wrote:Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

Agreed. You have rules which can be interpreted slightly differently.

The judgement of one guy who used to ref is somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time.

...but that guy who was there didn’t see it and so had to ask the TMO! Hence the referral. So it wasn’t that the TMO was more important. The ref is allowed to tell the TMO what he sees and come to an agreement together. Or are you honestly suggesting the ref should say “it was all a bit too fast, I couldn’t see properly as I had my eye on lots of things, so I’ll just guess rather than allow you to use your video slow mo technology because I still ref and you don’t”?! Cracking idea.

The TMO was the referee I was referring to.

Time perhaps? Every one says it was rushed. World Rugby have had a few days to review it.

I think the point is more that Rolland isn't better placed than anyone else to make the call - nothing to do with the TMO / ref distinction. The fact that he happens to work for World Rugby doesn't change the fact that his view on the matter is essentially irrelevant.

The Oracle wrote:Time perhaps? Every one says it was rushed. World Rugby have had a few days to review it.

Exactly. If it takes you a few days to review then the grounding isn't clear.

Law 21.20:

"If there is doubt about which team first grounded the ball in in-goal, play is restarts with a five-metre scrum, in line with the place where the ball was grounded. The attacking team throws in."

Given there was a knock-on I think the whole thing is irrelevant as we already know officials will make controversial decisions from time to time as given the complexity of the laws and interpretation it's unavoidable ...

The Oracle wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

The Oracle wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

thomh wrote:Don't see how this brings the game into disrepute. Seems like discussing contentious decisions with the team management would be a fairly normal part of the post-game procedure.

However, I also don't really see what the sentence "world rugby have confirmed that the try should have been given" is even supposed to mean or achieve. World Rugby can't overturn the decision, nor do they have any special ability to analyse it any more than anyone else with a tv screen and understanding of the rules, so the statement has no practical, legal or factual meaning whatsoever.

Agreed. You have rules which can be interpreted slightly differently.

The judgement of one guy who used to ref is somehow more important than the guy who still does, and was there at the time.

...but that guy who was there didn’t see it and so had to ask the TMO! Hence the referral. So it wasn’t that the TMO was more important. The ref is allowed to tell the TMO what he sees and come to an agreement together. Or are you honestly suggesting the ref should say “it was all a bit too fast, I couldn’t see properly as I had my eye on lots of things, so I’ll just guess rather than allow you to use your video slow mo technology because I still ref and you don’t”?! Cracking idea.

The TMO was the referee I was referring to.

Time perhaps? Every one says it was rushed. World Rugby have had a few days to review it.

Two things:
1) If it needs days to decide it was grounded then it was not clear and obvious and as the question was "Try? Yes or no." then the TM was correct not to give the try.
2) If Rolland is going to second guess officials he should at least look at both parts of the decision. Closer examination indicates it was a knock on by Evans.

You win some you lose some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lHmPKq_Hx4

TightHEAD wrote:You win some you lose some.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lHmPKq_Hx4

Quite! Some more than others. Possibly the most shocking decision ever coming up:

https://youtu.be/2yRM46g0Mp4

And this is the one we lost, Oh and is that Mr Rolland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVuDMYSJ7M

Actually the worst one I've ever seen by far was in a HC match where Tigers were playing - I can't remember who the opposition were and the TMO gave a try where the ball was clearly grounded on the boot of a defending player - even the home crowd couldn't believe it as they initially all groaned when they saw the replay then cheered and laughed in disbelief when it was awarded .... I think it was one of the years when Munster went on to win the cup but ironically had the try not been awarded they wouldn't have got out of the pool stages as Tigers would have gone through instead.

TightHEAD wrote:And this is the one we lost, Oh and is that Mr Rolland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVuDMYSJ7M

Forward pass and a foot in touch. Nice try!

It was a 'nice try'.

The Oracle wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:And this is the one we lost, Oh and is that Mr Rolland?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OVuDMYSJ7M

Forward pass and a foot in touch. Nice try!

Errrmmm, been to Specsavers lately?

Whoever said that the TMO got it wrong 2 weeks in a row for WALES was correct. Why are they bollixing it up for us so often? Not sure why the 'wrong ball' from 2011 is being brought up?! We were never in denial about that and yes the officials made a huge blunder on that one too.

I'm more concerned that we have international referees running the touchlines yet they are missing easy offsides, forward passes, Knock-ons etc etc...... 

I'm fed up with teams getting away with these basic easy to spot indiscretions against England.

Do the Irish remember the wrong ball incident?

Can't quite remember the comments form Gatland afterwards, but i'm sure it would read well after the last week or so.

The quality of official is better than ever yet the game is becoming impossible to officiatate. If on one occasion the referee allows a competition at the ruck to last for 2 seconds and on another lets it run for 2.1, is that inconsistency? The referee can't wait for all forty camera angles to be studied frame by frame, because the majority of spectators would walk away from the game, and if it is subsequently proven that he missed something then he is the devil incarnate.

It's fine to criticise the officials but remember that they generally show up because they love the game. Only a masochist would suffer the constant abuse, for not much more than expenses and losing far more family time from all the travelling (a ref never has a home game!). It is time World Rugby took control of the game they purport to represent, and restrict what the spectators get to see, because whatever the ruling, one half of the crowd will be unhappy.
- Don't show the TMO footage on the big screens.
- Don't allow the broadcaster to show any other angles than what they have already shown live.

Ok, as we are talking bad referee decisions and to try an lighten the conversation a little, is anyone old enough to remember this TV film, Old Scores [imbd link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0102581/ ] . I thought it was really funny at the time, especially as I'm old enough to remember Andy Hayden's cheating b!oody dive out of the line in 78 to steal another win against Wales (Jump is about 4:50 into the YouTube clip. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6r4iOOjOWL4)

... but back to the film. Its called Old Scores, and its a comedy of course, but I think the idea was born out of that 1978 game, although to keep the lawyers happy the film itself is based around a game supposeduly held in 1966 where the referee, on his death bed, confessed to cheating..

I dont know if there's anywhere you can get this from today.