Currie Cup TMO Trial 2012

FKlopper

New member
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
135
Post Likes
0
Couple of relatively new articles on SARefs, thought I'd post them here for some discussion. I'm assuming that the TMO trial is to go ahead in this year's Currie Cup, with the following protocol being relevant.

http://www.sareferees.com/News/new-irbs-tmo-protocol-for-sa/2829633/
Laws Representation Group - TMO Protocol - Trial 2012 in SA Currie Cup

Definitions
Referee is Match Referee.
Assistant Referees – also act as TJ’s
TMO - Reviews TV evidence

All are “Match Officials”

Law 6 - Extension of the role of the TMO to be trialled in a Northern and Southern Hemisphere Competition.

Law 6 (b) A match organiser may appoint an official who uses technological devices known as the TMO who may be consulted:

If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal involving:
* a try being scored
* a touch down
* the ball being made dead on or over the dead ball line or touch-in- goal line

If the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touchdown when foul play in in-goal or in the field of play may have been involved

If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area the referee, or assistant referees or TMO believe there may have been an infringement by that team in the field of play before the ball was touched down

If the match officials believe that but for an infringement by the defending team that may have taken place in the field of play a try may have been scored

If the match officials believe there may have been an act of foul play within the playing enclosure or where they are unsure as to the sanction to be applied.

To confirm the success or otherwise of kicks at goal

Qualitative and Quantitative Data Gathering will be required.

The Trial IRB TMO protocol for South Africa:

The current TMO protocol for decisions in in-goal and for in touch in in-goal in the act of scoring remain as they are.

Additional jurisdiction protocol

1. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

1.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents in goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.
The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (Kick Off, PK, FK,L/O or Scrum), and the touch down; but not further back in play than two previous ruck(s) and/or maul(s).

1.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS, are as follows:
• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul Play
• 'Double movement' in act of scoring

Referee Judgement calls for all other decisions in the game are not included in the protocol and may not be referred to the TMO.

1.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use a (the) criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.

1.4. For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball i.e. were the players hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line?

1.5. If there has been an infringement the TMO will advise the referee of the exact nature of the infringement, the recommended sanction and/or where play will next restart.

1.6. The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

2. Potential infringement by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored

2.1. If the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement by the defending team that may have prevented a try being scored they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. The offences will normally be an act of foul play such as obstruction or playing a player without the ball.

2.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious and that but for the infringement a try would probably have been scored if he is to advise the referee to award a penalty try. If there is any doubt that a try would be scored the TMO must advise the award of an appropriate sanction in accordance with Law.

2.4 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

3. Potential acts of foul play

3.1. If the match officials observe an act of foul play where:
• They may have only partially observed an act or acts of foul play
• They are unsure of the exact circumstances
• The views of the match officials reporting the act(s) of foul play differ
• There is doubt as to the appropriate sanctions to be applied
They may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

3.2. If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate that he wishes the TMO to review the potential act(s) of foul play and to make a recommendation as to the appropriate sanction(s).

3.3. In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion on each occasion that the infringement must be clear and obvious especially where sanctions may apply where a player is removed from the field of play either temporarily or permanently.

3.4. The other match officials may utilise the in stadium screens (where available) to form a judgement in this matter.

3.5 The TMO may mention issues viewed in addition to those requested by the referee if it is appropriate to the situation under review.

3.6 The TMO may mention to the referee potential infringements outlined in (1.2) missed by the referee prior to the refereeing awarding a touchdown and the referee may if he sees fit ask the TMO to check.

The Referee will remain the sole judge of fact and law during a match. (Law 6.A.4)


And Andre Watson's notes on them
http://www.sareferees.com/News/notes-on-the-new-tmo-protocol/2829634/
TMO TRIAL 2012

A. TMO may be referred to as per the current application as well as:

1. When match officials are unsure whether foul play has occurred anywhere on the field or in-goal.
2. When match officials believe there may have been an infringement by the team that scored a try or touched down.
3. When match officials believe a try or touch down was prevented by an infringement.
4. To confirm the success or otherwise of kicks at goal.

Infringements listed by the IRB are:
• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul play
• Double movement in act of scoring

How far does referrals go back to?
• From the previous restart which may be a penalty, a free kick, a line-out, a scrum or a kick-off.
• BUT not further back than two rucks or mauls.
• That means numerous tackles may occur.

How does TMO adjudicate?
• Only on the clear and OBVIOUS
• In fact here, I believe there must be NO DOUBT.
• If it is not clear, the TMO is to advise it did not happen or there is no clear evidence that it happened.
• TMO to advise on the infringement, the recommended sanction and where play is to restart.


TMO can be advised on infringements by the team that scored or touched down BUT also if a try has been prevented from being scored.

• Penalty tries may be recommended
• If there is doubt as to whether the try would have been scored the TMO must then advise the appropriate sanction.

If foul play is referred, the TMO is to make recommendations as to the appropriate sanctions.

THE ON-FIELD MATCH OFFICIALS MAY USE THE STADIUM SCREENS TO FORM A JUDGMENT ON THE MATTER.

THE TMO MAY MENTION INCIDENTS AND ISSUES IN ADDITION TO THOSE REQUESTED BY THE REFEREE.

THE TMO MAY MENTION POTENTIAL INFRINGEMENTS PRIOR TO THE REFEREE AWARDING A TOUCH DOWN AND THE REFEREE MAY THEN IF HE SEES FIT, REFER TO THE TMO.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
I like it.

It is very comprehensive, and especially the last three lines of AW's notes are something I have wanted to see trialled for a long time.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Looks to be a good basis for a trial.
 

colesy


Referees in Scotland
Joined
Oct 19, 2011
Messages
342
Post Likes
41
Current Referee grade:
National Panel
Interesting use of the term 'double movement'. I remember being castigated on here for that.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
Interesting use of the term 'double movement'. I remember being castigated on here for that.
Yes - depressing to see them condoning such a misleading term.
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Interesting use of the term 'double movement'. I remember being castigated on here for that.

No be fair, the use of the term is pragmatic. They used it in single quotes as you did. After all "'Double movement' in act of scoring" is something that everyone understands, and it is lot easier to say than "in a tackle, not placing, passing, pushing or releasing ball to a player on his feet prior to attempting to score a try"
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
No be fair, the use of the term is pragmatic. They used it in single quotes as you did. After all "'Double movement' in act of scoring" is something that everyone understands,
But the root of my objection is that far too many people, both spectators and players, simply do not know what is or is not allowed.
and it is lot easier to say than "in a tackle, not placing, passing, pushing or releasing ball to a player on his feet prior to attempting to score a try"
Say "illegal movement". If people want more precision you can quote the law, just as I have often had to in explaining "double movement", only to get the response "so what is the first movement?" (Allegro vivace)
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,680
Post Likes
1,760
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
But the root of my objection is that far too many people, both spectators and players, simply do not know what is or is not allowed.Say "illegal movement". If people want more precision you can quote the law, just as I have often had to in explaining "double movement", only to get the response "so what is the first movement?" (Allegro vivace)

I wasn't agreeing with it OB, just understanding why its used To hijack a term used by Justice Potter Stewart (US Supreme Court 1964). "I can't describe a 'double movement' but I know it when I see it".

People often create terminology to simply describe complicated or complex things

Garryowen
jackler,
fetcher,
second man in,
gate,
man-off,
Up'n'under
clean-out,
breakdown,
box kick,
truck & trailer.

None of these terms can be found in the Laws, but we all understand what they mean because they are in common use. A good example is "forward pass". Despite all the discussions, banter and strongly held opinion that goes on about what constitutes a forward pass, the fact is that there is no such thing defined in the Laws, and the only place that the expression "forward pass" appears is in the LotG is in the Referee Signals. The correct term is "Throw forward" and it is a more accurate one, because a pass doesn't technically become a pass until the passee catches the ball.
 

OB..


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Oct 7, 2004
Messages
22,981
Post Likes
1,838
I wasn't agreeing with it OB, just understanding why its used To hijack a term used by Justice Potter Stewart (US Supreme Court 1964). "I can't describe a 'double movement' but I know it when I see it".
But the root of my objection is that far too many people, both spectators and players, simply do not know what is or is not allowed.
...but they don't know.
People often create terminology to simply describe complicated or complex things
I would have no objection if the phrase was sensible. It isn't. It is a mis-description.

It is perfectly easy to say "illegal movement".
 

Phil E


Referees in England
Staff member
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
16,073
Post Likes
2,346
Current Referee grade:
Level 8
Even easier to say what it actually is......'not releasing'.
 
Top