Change in the wind ?

[Bury_Dave]

Interesting article in the Telegraph with WB and others about future wider role for TMO.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...view-so-we-can-always-see-bigger-picture.html

All very good I'm sure but why is no-one taking the refs to task over poor discipline of basic scrum Laws like binding and put-in ? At least those are things we can take to the wider games we ref'.

I'm also assuming that wider remits and any Law changes ('experimental' or otherwise) need to be in place a couple of seasons before the World Cup ? Time's winged charriot and all that !

 

[irishref]

I was watching the Cheetahs v Bulls game last night after training and the absurdity of the current situation was perfectly illustrated.

Bulls were attacking in a series of phases from about 5m from the cheetahs try line. A prop made a decisive break and was tackled just short of the line. He went to ground, placed the ball and a ruck was formed and this time - amazingly - none of his opponents were leaning over or messing with the ball!

So after placing the ball behind him, he picked it up again and was able to touch the line with it.

The ref wasn't sure and went upstairs, but the question he asked was "Try or No Try".

The TMO saw the obvious double movement then proceeded to once again try to influence the ref in his reply. First of all he said "did you ask If there's any reason I can't award the try" to which Mr Joubert said "No, I asked Try no Try. Just check the grounding please"

And there you have it. According to the protocol the try must be awarded, despite the TMO spotting what the ref had missed. So the Bulls were awarded a try that a better protocol would have correctly ruled out.

I don't like this choice of questions malarkey. Even if we don't expand the TMO remit, right now I would prefer to have a very simple process. The ref asks the TMO to judge on the try and use everything within his remit to check on.

My understanding of the current protocol though, a double movement falls outside, does it not?

 

[OB..]

My understanding of the current protocol though, a double movement falls outside, does it not?

That is the crunch. Whatever question was asked, the current protocol does not allow the TMO to comment on such issues.

The point of the current choice of questions is that "any reason not to award a try" means that if the TMO is not sure, the try will be awarded. If the question is "try or no try?" and the video evidence is inconclusive, no try will be awarded. It makes sense, though I prefer the NFL protocol where the referee makes a decision and it is overturned only if there is clear evidence.

 

[Davet]

No try - foul play in the act of grounding the ball.

 

[Ian_Cook]

The odd occasions that we get these incidents, the one person who has got the best view of all this is sat in the truck with everything in front of him and at the minute he’s the one person we don’t ask.

Amen to that!!

 

[Bury_Dave]

I suppose that the original intent was to assist the referess with something that he - and only he - thought he might need clarity on. Whereas we are now talking about someone with a higher authority than the on-field ref' and who can 'overrule' him in some way. It requires the ref' to relinquish his ultimate authority to someone else.

It is a subtle but not insignificant change in emphasis but, as has been stated above, one which needs to be done to move the professional game to a greater level of fairness with so much more now at stake financially.