TMO AFTER 20011 RWC!

After the 2011 Rugby World Cup, will the duties of the TMO change?

Do you think that the duties of the TMO will change with regards to how the Ref,line judges will beable to call for help.

The Ref can only ask the TMO at the moment if a try as been scored or not.

Will the Ref beable to ask the TMO if a player in the act of scoring a Try placed a foot in touch,or was their a forward pass before the try was scored?

I am asking this in the wake of the England v Baby Black game today. Christian Wade scoring the first try for England, did he have a foot in touch?

Or if you go back to 2007 Rugby World Cup France v Abs game was it a forward pass or not.

What is your thoughts on this?

Looking into the future is one thing,

But 20011?

My mistake, must stop posting and drinking at the same time.

I don't know how wise it would be. It's rare enough that a truly contentious issue arises and, when it does, they can usually be cured by replacing the ref/linesman with another one with basic levels of competence (see Welsh try v Ireland in this years six nations). Personally, I'd leave things as they are as the curing of potential injustices isn't great enough to compensate the waste of time that added referrals would create.

I'm sure that over time the TMO's role will change though, and maybe it will change in just the manner you predict, but I don't foresee it happening any time soon.

Things like foot on the line calls have to be right as its so obvious so if it takes the tmo, or hawkeye to do it, then fair enough.

Some things will never be sorted. On saturday the Saders looked to have scorred when 7 or 8 players went over the line and the Saders started celebrating. The ball was never once visible through the entire process so even when a try is certainly scored, because no one with authority sees it, its not given.

TMO's are just another way of minimising the errors, but they'll always be there.

Depends on the question the ref asks too Taylor:

- Any reason I can't award the try? Inconclusive footage means Try!

- Is it a try or no try? Inconclusive footage means no Try!

Personally I'd like the TMO to be able to intervene when not directly asked by the referee. If the on field assistant referees can do this, why not the TMO?

For instance, we could all see that the England U20's first try involved the winger putting a foot in touch before he scored, the commentary team knew it, everyone watching on TV knew it, so why could the TMO not just say in the refs ear "you know what, his foot was in touch, back for the line out", in exactly the same way that the assistant referee could have?

The referee wouldn't be bound to listen, in the same way he isn't for on field assistant calls, but what would be wrong with him saying "looks like the defence are encroaching on the offside line behind you", or "there was a late hit on black 15 by white 7", or "welsh 15 was outside his 22 when kicked for touch", or for instance, "Michalak's pass was a mile forward, are you blind for goodness sake man!?"

If it makes the game more accurately policed, then surely it's a good thing.

Not a bad idea GreyGhost. Either that or players/coachs have a certain number of challenges where they can get a TMO ruling. Not sure how it would work exactly.

Need to be careful though. How much time could be lost with endless TV replays. There are those who say TMO is intrusive on the game as it is.

Well, if a is asked to adjdicate on a try etc, he can disallow one if the guy puts his foot in touch as things stand already, But as pointed ut he has to be asked.

In League the afford more lattitude and areas of examination to the TMO. It does prevent crossing or offsides way up the pitch from leading to tries but it also has the effect of clear tries not being awarded by the ref until he has gone upstairs, even though he may have been rright there watching everything that happened.

Again, though as far as I am aware, he has to be asked before he can do anything. Cannot be proactive.

Do we really need an on-pitch referee. With modern technology could the whole game not be refereed by a TMO?

red_stag
I think we need several referees on the grounds as the one in the middle doesn't seem to see anything. They should look at 2 referees on the field. this happens in basketball. Rugby League in Sydney now uses 2 - one looks after defence and the other attack. It tends to reduce the number of referee errors. They need all the help they can get in rugby.

TGG, I think you would get a little fed up with the TMO stopping evey NZ game.

"McCaw in at the side, penalty to the opposition"
"Forward pass by the NZ player, scrum where you are"
"Obstruction by New Zealand player, penalty"

New Zealand rugby players must be the most policed out of nations playing International rugby.especially when they are playing against NH teams........

The referees simply need better training. Rumour has it that Paddy O'Brien is arranging for Richie McCaw to Chair the next IRB referees panel on the breakdown laws. Apparently Paddy has been getting worried that Richie will be picked on the RWC.

One thing that Sky's "Front Line" piece often highlights is that the huge gap that opens up in a defence often results from some obstruction/holding back. However, this normally comes to light several minutes later after a whole bunch of techies have analysed teh coverage in minute detail. I know such things are illegal but I hope the TMO doeesn't get to rule on them. There is already a tendency for referees to use the TMO as a comfort blanket (just to be sure). Yes, getting rid of gross errors is good, but some element of flow to the game is needed to maintain the spectator appeal.

Rob B wrote:The referees simply need better training.

But what training? Positioning? Fitness? Knowledge of the laws?

How about

"Ref that scrum put in wasn't straight"

How long due you think it would take to actually complete a scrum?

red_stag wrote: But what training? Positioning? Fitness? Knowledge of the laws?

All of the above for certain referees Red Stag. Not to harp on about Peter Allan but that whole situation of that try been given is avoided if he has basic knowledge of the laws. He either didn't know the laws or was too afraid to admit that he didn't know which ball was used for the quick line out. Either is unacceptable and if you find a basic competent and emotionally strong person then you have a better linesman. In terms of fitness and positioning some claims are thrown at Wayne Barnes that he lacks them but I don't see that claim as valid personally. Something simple like ensuring that referees can run on a threadmill at certain speeds for a certain length of time and maybe an MCQ (with negative marking ) on the laws every few months would be a good way of ensuring referees are capable of the job their assigned to do. I agree that keeping the standard of referees high (or getting them high if that's your opinion) is much preferable to expanding the role of the TMO anyway.

I'm not sure... There aren't that many incidents in the game where you can use the TMO and frankly when the TMO is there looking at endless replays, the crowd tends to get annoyed after a while.
I dont want to be sat here as a fan waiting endlessly for god knows how many TMO decision i want an exciting game that flows, refereeing is never going to be perfect it isnt in any other sport.

I wonder how long before TGG mentions a certain game in October 2007.....

To me any referee training should be a way more in depth analysis into game management - what offenses should and shouldn't be let go. How to stamp out repeat infringing and finding the balance between being whistle happy and overly lax.

To me this is left up to each individual referee to too great an extent. Fitness, positioning and law knowledge is all tested pretty regularly and I'd imagine most referees would be fine in all 3 areas.

I wouldn't want to extend the TMOs powers to all aspects of the game, although I can think of a couple of things where he could be used more:

1 - Extending the review of a try scoring play back to the previous breakdown, so (for example) he can adjudicate on off-side and obvious forward passes

2 - Assisting the ref and touch judge on off-the-ball incidents. Often the TJ will flag for something but then say he only saw it out of the corner of his eye, and so doesn't necessarily get the right players or the seriousness. A quck look at the TV replay would help in this case.

red_stag wrote:Need to be careful though. How much time could be lost with endless TV replays. There are those who say TMO is intrusive on the game as it is.

None whatsoever is what I'm saying. He should call it real time, or against a real time replay. We had time for 6 replays of the first England U20 non-try. After the first one it was obvious that it wasn't a try. The TMO could've had a word in the refs ear, and he could've come back for the lineout with no time lost at all.

Or for example, the TMO could've told Wayne Barnes what every single spectator watching that infamous 2007 Q-final saw, and he somehow missed. Although given that *allegedly* reflink picked up the the touch judge *allegedly* telling him the pass was forward and he chose to award the try anyway, I doubt a TMO telling him as well would have helped in that particularly irksome case.

nottins wrote:I wonder how long before TGG mentions a certain game in October 2007.....

57 minutes.

Grey, I get your point but I put the question forward as to why we need a referee anymore. Why not have a 3 TMOs refereeing the whole thing instead of a Ref and 2 TJ. A loud buzzer can replace the whistle.

red_stag wrote:Grey, I get your point but I put the question forward as to why we need a referee anymore. Why not have a 3 TMOs refereeing the whole thing instead of a Ref and 2 TJ. A loud buzzer can replace the whistle.

Communication with the players. The physical presence of an adjudicator. And often an on-field referee, when well positioned can see things that no number of camera angles can. Who would players talk back to and concede 10 meters if there wasn't an on field ref?

TheGreyGhost wrote:

red_stag wrote:Grey, I get your point but I put the question forward as to why we need a referee anymore. Why not have a 3 TMOs refereeing the whole thing instead of a Ref and 2 TJ. A loud buzzer can replace the whistle.

Communication with the players. The physical presence of an adjudicator. And often an on-field referee, when well positioned can see things that no number of camera angles can. Who would players talk back to and concede 10 meters if there wasn't an on field ref?

Thats fair enough Grey for what its worth I'm just playing Devils Advocate

I guess if the ref could be replaced by enough cameras and TMOs, then the next step would be using image processing to replace the TMOs with infallible algorithms.

Wouldn't that take the fun out of it altogether.

A tongue in cheek suggestion stemming from football's discussions on the use of technology... We could always get a couple of microchips in the ball aligned with the lines on the field. In that way all forward passes could be pinged electronically as well as discretions such as the ball not travelling 5 metres at a lineout.

red_stag wrote:

Rob B wrote:The referees simply need better training.

But what training? Positioning? Fitness? Knowledge of the laws?

reg stag:

Training in terms of consistent interpretation and application of the laws across the board. I am from SH and whenever there is a NH ref for a Tri Nations test as an example there is always media coverage before the game about the referee and how the game will be different due to his different interpretations and NH "style". Some argue some referees are very technical, some are pedantic resulting in too many stoppages over technically correct calls but which should not stop play. Refs are human and liable to make mistakes but I just don't understand why they seem to have the freedom to do their own thing. One week the crouch touch pause engage rubbish will be applied evenly, then another week a different ref ref will warn teams he wants a "long delay" before engage. Some allow bodies to go flying over the ball slowing down play while others stamp on it. Some re-set a scrum collapse when the ball is already at the No8's feet ready to be cleared while others will not because because it makes no difference to the outcome of the scrum. These are not matters for for the TMOI. I don't think we need more TMOs - we need more consistent decision making.