foward pass / TMO

[OB..]

It's nice but still have the problem of what's clear and obvious, and the outcome potentially being different depending on the question asked

I don't see anyway (absent special gismos) to avoid a judgement call by the officials.

 

[crossref]

I don't see anyway (absent special gismos) to avoid a judgement call by the officials.

Of course, but
... Which direction does C&O go.
.. is it sensible that the outcome is partly dependent on the question?

 

[Dickie E]

Of course, but
... Which direction does C&O go.
.. is it sensible that the outcome is partly dependent on the question?

as with all other infringements, IMO a pass should be treated as legal unless C&O it isn't

 

[crossref]

as with all other infringements, IMO a pass should be treated as legal unless C&O it isn't

So we may need a change to the protocol then, because at the moment an on field decision of a forward pass might lead to TMO to require it to be CO not to over rule?

 

[Rich_NL]

"On field decision" is try or no try. At the moment the protocol is to play on and check for CO forward pass later. Which is what you propose, isn't it?

 

[Flish]

Of course, but
... Which direction does C&O go.
.. is it sensible that the outcome is partly dependent on the question?

Kind of, yes, the ref will ask the question based on what he/she believed occurred (like the rest of us), and is basically asking 'prove me wrong' and if this can't obviously be done, move on.

 

[crossref]

Kind of, yes, the ref will ask the question based on what he/she believed occurred (like the rest of us), and is basically asking 'prove me wrong' and if this can't obviously be done, move on.

I understand that, but we could change that protocol so that the TMO simply determines whether it was a forward pass or not (according to an agreed definition)

 

[Flish]

I understand that, but we could change that protocol so that the TMO simply determines whether it was a forward pass or not (according to an agreed definition)

We could, but I'm not in favour, my view is less TMO not more, maybe have a formal background review whilst the conversions being taken (for every try) and empower the TMO to overrule then, but as per the Aussie trials, a quicker game for me.

Luke Pearce was very good at this at Falcons on Friday btw, even on penalties he was encouraging them to get a move on, certainly removed a lot of faff and dead time

 

[Stu10]

I understand that, but we could change that protocol so that the TMO simply determines whether it was a forward pass or not (according to an agreed definition)

Right now, this raises a question over who makes the decision. Current guidance is that the ref has the final decision. On the one hand, I understand the desire to have the person holding the whistle make the final decision, however, at elite level the TMO is also an elite level ref, so I don't see why he/she could not be given the authority to make the decision considering they typically have more time to review the replays (if play continues) and is sitting close to a high definition screen rather than a matrix screen 20m away.

In the OP, I fully support the ref allowing play to continue until a stop in play if forward pass not C&O, and having not seen a forward pass himself then I understand why he would immediately blow for a try. Arguably the contentious issue was that the TMO clearly said that, in his opinion, the pass was forward and the ball left Hogg's hands in a forward direction, and IT dismissed/overruled the TMO's opinion... IMHO the TMO was better placed to make that call.

I would support a change in protocol to enable the TMO to call this, and the TMO could have reviewed while play was continuing and would not have slowed down play, which is the general concern associated with increased use of the TMO. If the TMO is given increased authority, should the TMO be allowed to call out any forward pass, etc, or just infringements within two phases prior to a try?

If the AR had said the pass was forward rather than the TMO, would the outcome have been different?

 

[crossref]

I go back to my first point, we are in a mess

Was that a forward pass?
Depends on who is asking, and what the exact question was

 

[Flish]

I go back to my first point, we are in a mess

Was that a forward pass?
Depends on who is asking, and what the exact question was

So no clear and obvious reason to overrule, crack on

 

[crossref]

So no clear and obvious reason to overrule, crack on

exactly so, a mess.

To spell it out, in the close ones, where the TMO thinks it was forward (as in the incident discussed)
- if the ref, who saw it once, in real time, says 'not forward' the TMO will go along with it, and not forward.
- if the ref, who saw it once in real time, says 'possible forward pass, can you check' , then the TMO rules it forward.
- if the ref was unsighted and never even saw it, the TMO will 'check check' 'I'm going to show you a possible forward pass' - and the outcome will depend upon a conversation based on the video evidence alone .

So
1 - the outcome depends on who was asking, and what they asked.
2 - in some cases the referee's one-time live action decision will over-rule the TMO's view based on close study of the video

Is that ideal?

 

[Flish]

Is that ideal?

Or alternatively, it comes down to the person in the middle's position, viewpoint, and choice of action - like most of our decisions, as you say, there are multiple potential outcomes, so I don't get too hung up on it, it's sport, fine margins sometimes, crack on

 

[crossref]

Or alternatively, it comes down to the person in the middle's position, viewpoint, and choice of action - like most of our decisions, as you say, there are multiple potential outcomes, so I don't get too hung up on it, it's sport, fine margins sometimes, crack on

that's NOT the current system though !

The current system at elite level is anything but 'crack on' it's a system of complex interactions and scrutiny by a team of people.

('crack on' is indeed the system at grass roots, but I don't think anyone would seriously consider getting rid of the TMO now)

 

[Jz558]

The system we have is not infalliable and whilst improvements should always be sought I dont see how your suggestion would produce better results. Effective communication should produce the correct decision whichever question is asked. We all want the correct decisions but what is clear is that more TMO involvement does not nessesarily lead to less arguement. What is also clear is that crowds and tv audiences dislike stopping the game for minutes at a time, several times a game to check a decison and seem equally displeased at going back to check something in the early stages of a try several phases before the ball is touched down.

What is achingly apparent is how much slower the professional game is than the levels below. I'm all in favour of what appears to be positive action by referees to take an early decision to keep the game moving and accept they will occasionally get marginal decisions wrong.

 

[crossref]

The system we have is not infalliable and whilst improvements should always be sought I dont see how your suggestion would produce better results. Effective communication should produce the correct decision whichever question is asked. We all want the correct decisions but what is clear is that more TMO involvement does not nessesarily lead to less arguement. What is also clear is that crowds and tv audiences dislike stopping the game for minutes at a time, several times a game to check a decison and seem equally displeased at going back to check something in the early stages of a try several phases before the ball is touched down.

What is achingly apparent is how much slower the professional game is than the levels below. I'm all in favour of what appears to be positive action by referees to take an early decision to keep the game moving and accept they will occasionally get marginal decisions wrong.

the system is full of problems ... but nothing can be done to improve it?

my proposal was two fold
- have another go at the Law Book to properly define a forward pass / throw forward / knock on / knock forward (viz the Marchant try, we can't even agree if what he did was legal or not!)
- have a TMO process that makes a decision - forward or not - that does not depend on who asked the question, and what the wordings was. A process that simply examines the video and gives an answer
you say that "Effective communication should produce the correct decision whichever question is asked." but that's simply not how the current process works, in the current process the nature of the question can determine the outcome

 

[SimonSmith]

exactly so, a mess.

To spell it out, in the close ones, where the TMO thinks it was forward (as in the incident discussed)
- if the ref, who saw it once, in real time, says 'not forward' the TMO will go along with it, and not forward.
- if the ref, who saw it once in real time, says 'possible forward pass, can you check' , then the TMO rules it forward.
- if the ref was unsighted and never even saw it, the TMO will 'check check' 'I'm going to show you a possible forward pass' - and the outcome will depend upon a conversation based on the video evidence alone .

So
1 - the outcome depends on who was asking, and what they asked.
2 - in some cases the referee's one-time live action decision will over-rule the TMO's view based on close study of the video

Is that ideal?

A couple of thoughts.

1. You seem to imply that 1 and 2 are necessarily bad things
2.n I'm OK with that. We can't get a definitive answer here, so it's fair to say that the TMO has an opinion on the pass and not a clear statement of fact. In which case, he or she should defer to the ref in the middle

 

[crossref]

A couple of thoughts.

1. You seem to imply that 1 and 2 are necessarily bad things
2.n I'm OK with that. We can't get a definitive answer here, so it's fair to say that the TMO has an opinion on the pass and not a clear statement of fact. In which case, he or she should defer to the ref in the middle

I understand how we got to (2), but have we arrived in the right place?

Does it make sense that the TMO has watched the video from five different angles and considers the pass is forward, but nevertheless the outcome is determined by the instant decision of the referee who saw it once, in real time, and didn't think it was?

I would prefer a 'hawk-eye' style logic where hawk-eye pays no attnetion to what the line judge, umpire or players thought in real time..... , and just tells us the correct answer.

 

[Flish]

What are you actually wanting to achieve, and are they actually in line with what the professional game wants to achieve? ie entertainment, excitement, broader coverage, increased engagement / TV, increased revenue, reduce costs etc - because if you read the room, at the top end, almost without fail it's a cry of "too much TMO" and then look sideways at football, their review system is permanently slated too - so if anything, in the real world I would expect them to step back a bit from technology, or at minimum speed up the TMO process.

However the cynic in me also thinks that the media and the entertainment arm also quite like all the column inches about "wrong" decisions, be it it TMOs or Refs - so a good chance the decision lottery will remain

 

[crossref]

1 clarity on the Law
2 accurate, speedy decisions