My Dad's bigger than your Dad

First topic message reminder :

Date: Saturday 10th November 2018
Time: 15:00
Location: Twickenham Stadium

Referee:       Jerome Garces (France)
Assistant 1:  Jaco Peyper (SA)
Assistant 2:  Marius Mitrea (Italy)
TMO:            Marius Jonker (SA)




Teams


England

[size=42]15 Elliot Daly (Wasps, 22 caps), 14 Chris Ashton (Sale Sharks, 40 caps), 13 Henry Slade (Exeter Chiefs, 14 caps), 12 Ben Te’o (Worcester Warriors, 14 caps), 11 Jonny May (Leicester Tigers, 38 caps), 10 Owen Farrell (Saracens, 62 caps) co-captain, 9 Ben Youngs (Leicester Tigers, 78 caps), 1 Ben Moon (Exeter Chiefs, 1 cap), 2 Dylan Hartley (Northampton Saints, 94 caps) co-captain, 3 Kyle Sinckler (Harlequins, 14 caps), 4 Maro Itoje (Saracens, 23 caps), 5 George Kruis (Saracens, 26 caps), 6 Brad Shields (Wasps, 3 caps), 7 Sam Underhill (Bath Rugby, 6 caps), 8 Mark Wilson (Newcastle Falcons, 5 caps).[/size]
[size=42]Finishers[/size]
[size=42]16 Jamie George (Saracens, 29 caps), 17 Alec Hepburn (Exeter Chiefs, 3 caps), 18 Harry Williams (Exeter Chiefs, 12 caps), 19 Charlie Ewels (Bath Rugby, 7 caps), 20 Courtney Lawes (Northampton Saints, 65 caps), 21 Danny Care (Harlequins, 82 caps), 22 George Ford (Leicester Tigers, 48 caps), 23 Jack Nowell (Exeter Chiefs, 27 caps).[/size]




New Zealand

1. Karl Tu'inukuafe (10)
2. Codie Taylor (39)
3. Owen Franks (104)
4. Samuel Whitelock (106)
5. Brodie Retallick (72)
6. Liam Squire (21) 
7. Ardie Savea (32)
8. Kieran Read - captain (115)
9. Aaron Smith (80)
10. Beauden Barrett (70)
11. Rieko Ioane (21)
12. Sonny Bill Williams (50)
13. Jack Goodhue (5)
14. Ben Smith (74)
15. Damian McKenzie (20)

16. Dane Coles (57)
17. Ofa Tuungafasi (23)
18. Nepo Laulala (14)
19. Scott Barrett (26)
20. Matt Todd (15)
21. TJ Perenara (52)
22. Richie Mo'unga (5)
23. Ryan Crotty (42

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm still using the mobile app without the ability to quote but the tmo trials were in force for the england new zealand game ld.

Then why did the ref go to the the TMO ?

He shouldn't have if the new laws were being trialed. I thought they were only being trialed in one game.

Co commentators is where you really notice the difference in quality between sky and bt. Barnes just don't have aby knowledge of lineouts and scrums and so you get the general chat without any detail on what's going on.

The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

And the amount of emphasis he gave to the tmo to simply tell him whether it was offside or not deemed to go against the trial. He is however able to call the tmo in for foul play and tries. It's more up to the ref to now call in it however without the tmo asking the ref to check it.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

 The commentators before the game stated that there would be changes in how the TMO was used. And to a degree there was with Garces asking for advice (though more about whether Underhill was offside as he was looking at Lawes the whole time). Things got confusing when Garces seemed to indicate that he could not see the pictures properly and then said "So I can award the try?" until Joncker became definitive. Situation not helped I guess by at least one of them communicating in a second language.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

I actually thought that the referee awarded the try and it was the AR that suggested he go to the TMO?

It also appeared that the TMO was the leading voice in disallowing the try?

eirebilly wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

I actually thought that the referee awarded the try and it was the AR that suggested he go to the TMO?

It also appeared that the TMO was the leading voice in disallowing the try?

Exactly, under the new laws, the TMO should not be making the decision. The ref awarded the try, it should have stood, and we should have argued about it later.

It was all a bit strange for me and I really feel for Underhill, who had a superb game, that the try was disallowed. It was and excellent run to the line, wingeresq...

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

The TMO says 'It's offside so you need to change your decision to a penalty.'

Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.

eirebilly wrote:It was all a bit strange for me and I really feel for Underhill, who had a superb game, that the try was disallowed. It was and excellent run to the line, wingeresq...

To me it was a try. South African TMO looking for some revenge perhaps. Im not sure. If Lawes was offside then the AB defense if offside almost every play.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

What was there to stop Farrell taking a drop kick at that point? I believe you cant review the call once the kick has been taken.

You hear garces blow the whistle. Then he says I think it's a try but I want to check 21. He then speaks to Farrell directly saying he's going to check. The signals for the tmo.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:The ref can still go to the tmo for trys.

No he is supposed to make his own mind up. Unless there is something clear and obvious.

This was discussed at length because to me it sounded as though the TMO made the decision for the ref.

If the criteria is "clear and obvious", then my question would be that if the TMO had never been involved, would the other team be saying that the try should have been disallowed? I'm not sure.

Still, it's done now.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

And there in is my problem with the understanding of the rules. I was certain that if Garces had awarded the try that any intervention from the TMO had to highlight a clear error in the referee's original decision and for me I could not see a clear error...

eirebilly wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

And there in is my problem with the understanding of the rules. I was certain that if Garces had awarded the try that any intervention from the TMO had to highlight a clear error in the referee's original decision and for me I could not see a clear error...

Talking wider than the decision this weekend; to understand the new TMO role more clearly, the TMO now should only speak up if there is something obvious? So it shouldn't be "maybe you should just check..."

Can the referee check "just check" calls? I.e. "any reason why I can't give the try". Or should the referee just be using "try: yes or no" now, when unsure.

I think any move to put the decision making back on the referee's hands is a good thing. But I think one thing that is going to make referees less comfortable giving decisions is the "trial by twitter" backlash on every close decision towards the end of a close game. If the fans are going to dissect every decision to the nth degree, then there is a pressure on the officials to do the same to ensure it is absolutely correct. There is a graphic going around on twitter that I saw that someone had called out as doctored to make it look like Lawes was way behind the back foot. It's getting beyond parody now - although I guess that isn't something exclusive to rugby.

I'd love to see referees make more decisions and possibly have a TMO-clock on. It's a bit gimmicky, but if the ref makes a call and the TMO thinks there's a clear and obvious infraction, alert the referee who can either call for video review or decline. If the referee calls for a review based on the TMO's suggestion, then there could be a 60-second time limit for the TMO to show the referee the angles and the referee to potentially change their mind. If you haven't seen a clear infraction in 60 seconds, I would suggest it isn't obvious and go with your original call.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

What was there to stop Farrell taking a drop kick at that point? I believe you cant review the call once the kick has been taken.

If Farrell had taken the kick straight after the try he "might" have got away with it, but once he was told to wait be the referee not to, even if he did it wouldn't have counted.I seem to remember a team doing this a while back.

robbo277 wrote:Can the referee check "just check" calls? I.e. "any reason why I can't give the try". Or should the referee just be using "try: yes or no" now, when unsure.

From my understanding, that should not be allowed to happen anymore. The ref can only ask for the TMO's advice on foul play and anything blatantly obvious.

Farrell couldn't take the kick even quickly as the ref was already speaking to the tmo and had stopped Farrell. It was the ref not th tmo who instigated the check.

Personally as a player the ref word is law, he didn't award the try, so it wasn't a try. As a fan watching I try to live by that. When I saw it on TV I thought Lawes was just off side, and was convinced the ref was going to disallow but hoping not. I was watching/drinking with 2 kiwis were both convinced it was a good try, but were glad when it wasn't awarded. Once the Ref had started to review then it was always going to be controversial. With marginal calls some are going to go for you, some against you, but in the long run I think they even out. We got one in our favour last week, and this week one went against us.

And the fact that it would have changed the result (providing the ABs didn't go on a rampage at KO), it wasn't the reason we lost. There were 3 or 4 other opportunities to take the game away from the Kiwis. KO out on the full leading to 3 points to ABs, second penalty to touch when it was on the 15 (the first one was on the 5m line and a 50-50). Our best hooker (apparently) throwing 5 lineouts to the ABs. Lack of nous at the death, when they went for the try (in wet conditions, Duhhh), when a drop would have won.

Added to that you have Danny Care best impression of a seagull, in the face of some slightly exuberant rucking, where if he had just got on and played the game he might have actually achieved something.

Irish Londoner wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Garces called for the tmo himself unfortunately.  

I was certain that Garces originally signalled the try and it was after intervention that he called for the TMO. I could be very wrong but that is how I saw it.  

Yes, as OF was walking towards his kicking spot, Garces passed him, turned towards him, and asked that he wait, before speaking the TMO

What was there to stop Farrell taking a drop kick at that point? I believe you cant review the call once the kick has been taken.

If Farrell had taken the kick straight after the try he "might" have got away with it, but once he was told to wait be the referee not to, even if he did it wouldn't have counted.I seem to remember a team doing this a while back.

If a 10 and captain who knew there had been foul play had run up to the try scorer after the try, picked the ball up, ran to the 5m line and "attempted" a drop kick conversion from there in the space of about 4 seconds to try to move the game on, then there's no doubt in my mind the referee would allow a TMO intervention. It would just be too suspicious otherwise.

You could hurry through your normal routine, but I don't think it normally takes the TMO that long to get the pictures and get in the referee's ear. I think even if he managed to go through his normal routine in half the time and the TMO had piped up just afterwards, the referee would have paused and possibly then overruled it.

I guess it comes to spirit of the laws. The TMO is there to get decisions right, but there is obviously a time factor on that, in that he gets to review information on replay and not just real time. The law is obviously there to stop the TMO picking up something that is, in the context of the game, ancient history. If the offending team try to circumvent that by pulling a fast one and not letting the TMO have his say, then the referee should be quite within his rights to shut that down.

Regardless of what the laws say, I would think the try and conversion will be treated as one piece, and if the TMO got in before the restart, then the referee would at least hear him out.

I guess in that way, it would be similar to the restart situation on a penalty try. There was an unintended consequence with a penalty try offering the offending team the chance for a quick kick off without the scoring team having time to properly set for it. I think this was rightly extinguished. I'm sure if we had a situation where a TMO intervention came after the conversion but before the restart, the referee would allow it, everyone would complain and then the laws would get changed.

It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

Collapse2005 wrote:It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

From an England perspective, definitely!

I know you can turn down a conversion attempt if you don't want to take it, which is something you rarely see (don't think I've ever seen it in televised rugby or even park rugby). I guess Farrell could have said "No conversion Jerome" and just ran back to his own half to field the restart, which would be equally amusing, but I think the same thing would apply.

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

From an England perspective, definitely!

I know you can turn down a conversion attempt if you don't want to take it, which is something you rarely see (don't think I've ever seen it in televised rugby or even park rugby). I guess Farrell could have said "No conversion Jerome" and just ran back to his own half to field the restart, which would be equally amusing, but I think the same thing would apply.

Beauden Barrett should try that. Could boost his stats.

No. Really. The second underhill dotted down the ref whistled and asked for a review.

Collapse2005 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

From an England perspective, definitely!

I know you can turn down a conversion attempt if you don't want to take it, which is something you rarely see (don't think I've ever seen it in televised rugby or even park rugby). I guess Farrell could have said "No conversion Jerome" and just ran back to his own half to field the restart, which would be equally amusing, but I think the same thing would apply.

Beauden Barrett should try that. Could boost his stats.

Best kicker on the weekend, only one with 100%. Think you should aim that at halfpenny, sexton or farrell, who all missed.

Even out of hand? Was it 2 or 3 missed kicks to touch?

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

From an England perspective, definitely!

I know you can turn down a conversion attempt if you don't want to take it, which is something you rarely see (don't think I've ever seen it in televised rugby or even park rugby). I guess Farrell could have said "No conversion Jerome" and just ran back to his own half to field the restart, which would be equally amusing, but I think the same thing would apply.

Beauden Barrett should try that. Could boost his stats.

Best kicker on the weekend, only one with 100%. Think you should aim that at halfpenny, sexton or farrell, who all missed.

He has a long way to go before you can compare Barretts kicking to those guys. There are props that would kick better than Barrett.

One thing that NZ do seem to have to corrected it the very high numbers of penalties they conceded last year compared to this year albeit I wouldnt bet against them getting another red card in the next 18 months.

Exiledinborders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Maybe, and I agree with most of that but 11 missed tackles ...and he always tops that count means someone else has to make the tackle. In the rare instance we scored vs the Lions it was due to farrells five missed tackles, he opened the door for our midfield by charging crazily up at the wrong player.

He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

I have been calling Farrell out on his defensive weakness for years now, yet there are still people on here who will stick up for him till the bitter end.

Tackle percentages are pretty meaningless. What counts is not the stats for individual players but the effectiveness of the defensive system.  At Saracens too Farrell has a 'poor' tackle percentage yet the Saracens overall defence is regarded as being excellent. Opponents do not see the Saracens midfield as a weak point.

Farrell's job is not to stop the attacker but to rush up and 'tackle' from the outside and so:
a) prevent the pass to the outside
b) force the attacker back to the inside where the Sarries forwards will tackle in numbers and hope to gain a turnover.

It is often better to force the attack back inside than to tackle in the open where the attacking team are likely to quickly recycle.

If a midfield player in a rush defence misses a tackle but prevents the pass and turns the attacker back inside he has not failed but done what is required by the system. Tackle percentages as a way of rating players is just for newspapers not serious coaches. The England coaching staff will be measuring Farrell's defence but in terms of the number of times the ball gets to the outside not in crude tackle percentage terms.

Just as in the Lions tour NZ targetted Farrells defense and made quite a lot of yards through his channel.

His large volume of missed tackles is in part down to tactics and shooting up but I dont think its that effective because he does give up so many yards.

The 1014 guys break down his defensive failures in their review of the game.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

robbo277 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:It would have been a great way to finish the game though wouldn't it, if it worked?

From an England perspective, definitely!

I know you can turn down a conversion attempt if you don't want to take it, which is something you rarely see (don't think I've ever seen it in televised rugby or even park rugby). I guess Farrell could have said "No conversion Jerome" and just ran back to his own half to field the restart, which would be equally amusing, but I think the same thing would apply.

Beauden Barrett should try that. Could boost his stats.

Best kicker on the weekend, only one with 100%. Think you should aim that at halfpenny, sexton or farrell, who all missed.

He has a long way to go before you can compare Barretts kicking to those guys. There are props that would kick better than Barrett.

Once again, fake news. Stay off Fox, you make far too many things up.

LordDowlais wrote:I initially thought there was nothing wrong with the try Underhill scored on Saturday, and boy oh boy what a turn of pace and an inside out to totally out fox Barrett who did not have a clue where he was going.

He learned all that stuff in Wales by the way.

But I was watching Scrum V last night, and they actually highlighted the offside line and Courtney Lawes was passed it, by about a yard, they went from the attacking players hind feet.

If the TMO trials were in that game, and not the Wales V Australia game, I reckon that try would be awarded. But those are the breaks.

They put the line in the wrong place then ... it's the hindmost point of your own player involved in the tackle (Ford) as there was no 'back foot' as there was no English player on his feet engaged in the ruck.

LondonTiger wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:I initially thought there was nothing wrong with the try Underhill scored on Saturday, and boy oh boy what a turn of pace and an inside out to totally out fox Barrett who did not have a clue where he was going.

He learned all that stuff in Wales by the way.

But I was watching Scrum V last night, and they actually highlighted the offside line and Courtney Lawes was passed it, by about a yard, they went from the attacking players hind feet.

If the TMO trials were in that game, and not the Wales V Australia game, I reckon that try would be awarded. But those are the breaks.

 Whereas Sky inserted an offside line which showed him ok by about 2 inches. All irrelevant as the past is written and cannot be changed. New Zealand won, England did not. Hopefully England learn from the mistakes they made.

At least Sky put the line in the right place based on the actual laws ...

The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Maybe, and I agree with most of that but 11 missed tackles ...and he always tops that count means someone else has to make the tackle. In the rare instance we scored vs the Lions it was due to farrells five missed tackles, he opened the door for our midfield by charging crazily up at the wrong player.

He just needs to reduce tha5 count, cos any way you look at it, 11 is bad in a test match.

I have been calling Farrell out on his defensive weakness for years now, yet there are still people on here who will stick up for him till the bitter end.

Tackle percentages are pretty meaningless. What counts is not the stats for individual players but the effectiveness of the defensive system.  At Saracens too Farrell has a 'poor' tackle percentage yet the Saracens overall defence is regarded as being excellent. Opponents do not see the Saracens midfield as a weak point.

Farrell's job is not to stop the attacker but to rush up and 'tackle' from the outside and so:
a) prevent the pass to the outside
b) force the attacker back to the inside where the Sarries forwards will tackle in numbers and hope to gain a turnover.

It is often better to force the attack back inside than to tackle in the open where the attacking team are likely to quickly recycle.

If a midfield player in a rush defence misses a tackle but prevents the pass and turns the attacker back inside he has not failed but done what is required by the system. Tackle percentages as a way of rating players is just for newspapers not serious coaches. The England coaching staff will be measuring Farrell's defence but in terms of the number of times the ball gets to the outside not in crude tackle percentage terms.

Just as in the Lions tour NZ targetted Farrells defense and made quite a lot of yards through his channel.

His large volume of missed tackles is in part down to tactics and shooting up but I dont think its that effective because he does give up so many yards.

The 1014 guys break down his defensive failures in their review of the game.

I alluded to this point exiled that at Saracens and England he attacks the space hard and pushes players into the heavy traffic. Although he does miss too many because he tackles too high far too often. Sometimes it's wholly appropriate to stand the man up but most of the time chopping is the best option. He needs to improve in this regard which is why Wilkinson was one of the best due to his overall game. If Farrell gets thus right then he starts to become very good indeed.

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Perhaps the linesmen can carry Ipad equivelents and the Ref reviews them there (the big screen fifty yards away isnt accurate enough for decisions onfield) telling the TMO which views to bring up. The TMO just becomes a tech guru responsible for providing the best views of any incident, including the setup of the cameras prior to the match that will enable best reviewing, and the big screens display exactly what the Ref is viewing. All decisions remain on field and the technology is there to support that now.

If it all breaks down back to old school ref decision counts no questions asked, but thats unlikely these days.

Taylorman wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Perhaps the linesmen can carry Ipad equivelents and the Ref reviews them there (the big screen fifty yards away isnt accurate enough for decisions onfield) telling the TMO which views to bring up. The TMO just becomes a tech guru responsible for providing the best views of any incident, including the setup of the cameras prior to the match that will enable best reviewing, and the big screens display exactly what the Ref is viewing. All decisions remain on field and the technology is there to support that now.

If it all breaks down back to old school ref decision counts no questions asked, but thats unlikely these days.

Just get rid of the whole shooting match. Get rid of TMOs and Citing Officers. Let the referee do his job. The ref can watch the match on TV after the game and cite any players if necessary and rescind any wrongly awarded red cards.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Perhaps the linesmen can carry Ipad equivelents and the Ref reviews them there (the big screen fifty yards away isnt accurate enough for decisions onfield) telling the TMO which views to bring up. The TMO just becomes a tech guru responsible for providing the best views of any incident, including the setup of the cameras prior to the match that will enable best reviewing, and the big screens display exactly what the Ref is viewing. All decisions remain on field and the technology is there to support that now.

If it all breaks down back to old school ref decision counts no questions asked, but thats unlikely these days.

Just get rid of the whole shooting match. Get rid of TMOs and Citing Officers. Let the referee do his job. The ref can watch the match on TV after the game and cite any players if necessary and rescind any wrongly awarded red cards.

Then you're back to exactly the reason they brought TMO's in, and that CLEARLY didn't work. And the game is much faster and more complex now. Every match would be full of errors that the Ref can't keep up with. And with tv cameras all over those decisions Refs would cop it far more for being wrong. Its an essential tool now. In fairness to Refs you'd have to agree with no replays whatsoever, and that wouldnt go down well either.

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Perhaps the linesmen can carry Ipad equivelents and the Ref reviews them there (the big screen fifty yards away isnt accurate enough for decisions onfield) telling the TMO which views to bring up. The TMO just becomes a tech guru responsible for providing the best views of any incident, including the setup of the cameras prior to the match that will enable best reviewing, and the big screens display exactly what the Ref is viewing. All decisions remain on field and the technology is there to support that now.

If it all breaks down back to old school ref decision counts no questions asked, but thats unlikely these days.

Just get rid of the whole shooting match. Get rid of TMOs and Citing Officers. Let the referee do his job. The ref can watch the match on TV after the game and cite any players if necessary and rescind any wrongly awarded red cards.

Then youre back to exactly the reason they brought TMO's in, and that CLEARLY didnt work.

It worked better than the current fiasco.  Referees got things wrong but they did not waste five minutes getting them wrong like they do now. The match would be shorter and more exciting.

I am totally fed up with referees who are incapable of making decisions and refer virtually every try.
It is one of the things that turns people away from Rugby. Occasional TV watchers decide the game is far too complicated if it takes five minutes to look at a multitude of possible technical offences and go back to watching football.

Sometimes you have to admit your mistakes. World Rugby should just admit that the TMO system adds no value. Getting rid would also save money.

I'd be happy for TMO usage to be restricted to deliberating over whether a try has been successfully scored (if the referee is unsure) and off-the-ball incidents that the three main officials may have missed (such as a late tackle or misdemeanour at a ruck).

I'm a bit bored with endless slow-motion replays of marginal high tackles, minor obstructions and, of course, tight offside calls, and would be perfectly happy for those to be judged in 'real' time.

No real need for a TMO, to be honest. Every ground has a big screen where the referee watches the action.

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Exiledinborders wrote:

Taylorman wrote:

Barney McGrew did it wrote:The problem is that the TMO involvement hasn’t remedied the problem.

We have a ref a metre or so from the event. A try given, then put on hold for a TMO review. Post-match analysis that claims anything from Lawes being a toes-length onside to a full metre offside (I know he's got big feet, but..). Ex-refs saying not only a wrong decision but a breach of protocol. Etc etc. How can this be helping the game. If you’re gonna involve the TMO and 5 minutes of various angle slo-mo replays, at least come to some decision that the majority can live with. OR IMO wind back the use of the TMO just for things like foul play and situations where the ref just can’t anywhere near the action (or where the ball is hidden under 16 bodies). Tell the ref to ref.

Perhaps the linesmen can carry Ipad equivelents and the Ref reviews them there (the big screen fifty yards away isnt accurate enough for decisions onfield) telling the TMO which views to bring up. The TMO just becomes a tech guru responsible for providing the best views of any incident, including the setup of the cameras prior to the match that will enable best reviewing, and the big screens display exactly what the Ref is viewing. All decisions remain on field and the technology is there to support that now.

If it all breaks down back to old school ref decision counts no questions asked, but thats unlikely these days.

Just get rid of the whole shooting match. Get rid of TMOs and Citing Officers. Let the referee do his job. The ref can watch the match on TV after the game and cite any players if necessary and rescind any wrongly awarded red cards.

Then youre back to exactly the reason they brought TMO's in, and that CLEARLY didnt work.

It worked better than the current fiasco.

No it didnt, not even close. If a complex sport like rugby were to drop replays in its decision making chaos would break lose, sports like tennis and cricket would laugh at the caveman approach, as would its fans. Youd get crystal clear, no issue groundings being denied because it wasnt seen. Rugby would be ten times the farce it is now. Tens of millions would see a valid try scored, and one, the only one that matters, doesnt. Imagine a world cup final being decided in the last minute on that basis.

No chance replays are goingbanywhere soon.

Collapse2005 wrote:...The 1014 guys break down his defensive failures in their review of the game.

They certainly called him out but only gave one decent example of a problem. They are knowledgeable guys, so I'd trust them to see more than me but it was more a general observation that he was shooting out of the line.

It's unlikely that any defensive system would give a player licence to miss so many tackles, so I'd be keen to see some more specific analysis. Ben Kay's analysis of our second half lineout failure has already shown that it might be too simplistic to say we just screwed up, so I wonder whether Farrell's apparent failing also isn't as straightforward.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:...The 1014 guys break down his defensive failures in their review of the game.

They certainly called him out but only gave one decent example of a problem. They are knowledgeable guys, so I'd trust them to see more than me but it was more a general observation that he was shooting out of the line.

It's unlikely that any defensive system would give a player licence to miss so many tackles, so I'd be keen to see some more specific analysis. Ben Kay's analysis of our second half lineout failure has already shown that it might be too simplistic to say we just screwed up, so I wonder whether Farrell's apparent failing also isn't as straightforward.

Think you'll find that analysis in the AB camp where if he's going to do that as part of a plan, they'll expect it, and will make use of it, such as immediately occupying the space behind him in a way that creates go forward ball. The 1014 guys were calling him a turnstyle. That can't be good in anyones books.

Taylorman wrote:Think you'll find that analysis in the AB camp where if he's going to do that as part of a plan, they'll expect it, and will make use of it, such as immediately occupying the space behind him in a way that creates go forward ball. The 1014 guys were calling him a turnstyle. That can't be good in anyones books.

It's definitely a topic this week. The discussion on the Maul Over podcast couldn't really pin it down. One contributor noted Farrell was one reason Crotty made that ground ahead of McKenzie's try, and that error might have been playing on his mind when he kicked the restart out on the full.

Rugby Fan wrote:

Taylorman wrote:Think you'll find that analysis in the AB camp where if he's going to do that as part of a plan, they'll expect it, and will make use of it, such as immediately occupying the space behind him in a way that creates go forward ball. The 1014 guys were calling him a turnstyle. That can't be good in anyones books.

It's definitely a topic this week. The discussion on the Maul Over podcast couldn't really pin it down. One contributor noted Farrell was one reason Crotty made that ground ahead of McKenzie's try, and that error might have been playing on his mind when he kicked the restart out on the full.

Yes that was one mighty kick! It went into the stands on the full.

I think the only reason a kicker of Farrells calibre would have done that is if he was trying to get more height but with the rain/ wet didn't get underneath it enough and the power went into the lower angle, hitting it much further than he meant to. But yeah if hes going to miss than many its definitely an area to be exploited.

"The 1014 guys were calling him a turnstyle."

Kieran Reid respectfully disagrees.

It should be noted that officially the tackle on Esterhuizen would have been classed as a missed tackle