foward pass / TMO

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,314
Post Likes
1,419
1 clarity on the Law
2 accurate, speedy decisions
1. The law is clear.
2. We did. You - and others - disagreeing with the outcome doesn;t make it inaccurate. And I think you may be seeking something in which the two qualities move in different directions. In general, you might get accurate decisions, or you might get speedy decisions. You might not be able to get accurate speedy decisions.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
1. The law is clear.
2. We did. You - and others - disagreeing with the outcome doesn;t make it inaccurate. And I think you may be seeking something in which the two qualities move in different directions. In general, you might get accurate decisions, or you might get speedy decisions. You might not be able to get accurate speedy decisions.
1 Yet in the other thread we can't decide whether Marchant's action wás.legal or not. So evidently it isnt ?

2 see post 52 .
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
Tempest was close to in line, and had sent it upstairs as a try. Clear and obvious mistake? Not for my money. The nature of his questions suggested to me that had a conclusive angle been available, he'd have taken it. He'd seen both angles and wasn't satisfied there was enough there to over turn his decision.
I agree with this analysis, he made an on field decision, which took priority over the view of the TMO , with the luxury of a video and multiple angles

I am suggesting instead a "hawk eye" approach (for forward passes) where we disregard the snap on field decision, and use the video and angle to make the decision if it was forward or not
 

Jz558


Referees in England
Joined
Nov 8, 2018
Messages
386
Post Likes
132
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I am suggesting instead a "hawk eye" approach (for forward passes) where we disregard the snap on field decision, and use the video and angle to make the decision if it was forward or not

I think this may fall into category of be careful what you wish for. Even if such a system existed (which I understand it doesnt currently) it doesnt strike me as the nirvana you are hoping for. In football no one disputes that VAR is accurate rather that it detracts from the overall spectacle as a goal is scored, team and supporters celebrate, VAR looks at a potential offside and 45 seconds to a minute later the goal is ruled out for an offside decision not apparent to the human eye. The correct decision yes, but whether it enhances the game is debatable after all a rugby hawkeye system equals no Gareth Edwards try v the All blacks in 1973.
 
Last edited:

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
I think this may fall into category of be careful what you wish for. Even if such a system existed (which I understand it doesnt currently) it doesnt strike me as the nirvana you are hoping for. In football no one disputes that VAR is accurate rather that it detracts from the overall spectacle as a goal is scored, team and supporters celebrate, VAR looks at a potential offside and 45 seconds to a minute later the goal is ruled out for an offside decision not apparent to the human eye. The correct decision yes, but whether it enhances the game is debatable after all a rugby hawkeye system equals no Gareth Edwards try v the All blacks in 1973.
Yes but it may well be that offside in football and forward passes in rugby are different things, requiring different solutions?
I don't really follow football
 

SimonSmith


Referees in Australia
Staff member
Joined
Jan 27, 2004
Messages
9,314
Post Likes
1,419
Yes but it may well be that offside in football and forward passes in rugby are different things, requiring different solutions?
I don't really follow football
But the general premise is the same - you're asking for non-discretional black and white application of a binary question. In football "was he offisde?" and in rugby "was it forward?"

Even if the technology were available to a satisfactory standard, which it isn't yet, I'm not sure it's a path we want to walk down.
 

Dickie E


Referees in Australia
Joined
Jan 19, 2007
Messages
14,079
Post Likes
2,113
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Even if the technology were available to a satisfactory standard, which it isn't yet, I'm not sure it's a path we want to walk down.
Yes, its a path I want to walk down. 100% accuracy is a laudable goal in any sport. The one sport that is crying out for a bit of technical decision making is baseball. How many strike/ball howlers are there week in and week out?
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
Even if the technology were available to a satisfactory standard, which it isn't yet, I'm not sure it's a path we want to walk down.
i understand that in any protocol, mistakes may be made.

but I think we have got ourselves into an odd situation where the referee's on-field one-time, real-time impression can sometimes take precedence over the technology we have developed
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,620
Post Likes
499
A couple of remarks:
- The point of such a system wouldn't be 100% accuracy, but 100% consistency. Some margin for error would have to be built in, but everyone would be treated the same
- If it doesn't run and work in real time and signal to the ref within a couple of seconds, it will only add to the current problems with and complaints about having a TMO and calling back the game for earlier infringements. The TMO/VAR gets criticised for taking away the excitement of scoring because you're left waiting for the reviews, often on a very marginal technicality
- It's completely irrelevant to grassroots refs anyway. The Sunday tennis tournament round the corner also doesn't have Hawkeye :p

From a technical point of view: tennis(/theoretical baseball) systems can't really be compared as examples of the technology needed, as you have a small, unobstructed ball in free flight that has to be analysed in a carefully controlled region. The ball is hit and left to fly in an area where vision is unimpeded, and there's already an objective, concrete performance criterion.

In rugby you may have a centre breaking the line with a (non-spherical) ball tucked under their arm, wrestling through three people and popping it up to a teammate, at any point over a large pitch. Then you have to tell the system whether what it's seeing was a forward pass or not, with 100% certainty - otherwise, it's as fuzzy as the current decisions are.

It's orders of magnitude more complex to train and validate, much less to the accuracy and speed you need. Plus, you need exactly the same camera setup in every international test stadium for consistency; I don't know whether that's possible/practical.

I think we have got ourselves into an odd situation where the referee's on-field one-time, real-time impression can sometimes take precedence over the technology we have developed

I don't think that's necessarily an odd situation, unless you consider technology paramount over human judgement, and accuracy paramount over other considerations like practicality, enjoyment, viewability.

We could (ad absurdam) institute a rule whereby every time the ref blows up for an infringement, we have to stop and do a TMO review that finds at least three camera angles to confirm the accuracy of the call. You could expect to gain a very marginal increase in accuracy, but the game would be utterly ruined.
 
Last edited:

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
694
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
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.
Not sure that hawk eye type logic will be able to differentiate between thrown forward (the offence) and ball travelling forward (the laws of dynamics)
1 clarity on the Law
2 accurate, speedy decisions

1. I think the law is clear.
2. The referee applied the law in a way that he considered was accurate, he certainly was clear and swift, (nothing to see here, let's move on)

We can discuss ad nauseam, I still feel we could discuss that Cueto was not in touch in the 2007 World Cup Final and that the outcome of last year's F1 World Championship was a travesty, but at some point you have to let go.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
694
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
A couple of remarks:
- The point of such a system wouldn't be 100% accuracy, but 100% consistency. Some margin for error would have to be built in, but everyone would be treated the same
- If it doesn't run and work in real time and signal to the ref within a couple of seconds, it will only add to the current problems with and complaints about having a TMO and calling back the game for earlier infringements. The TMO/VAR gets criticised for taking away the excitement of scoring because you're left waiting for the reviews, often on a very marginal technicality
- It's completely irrelevant to grassroots refs anyway. The Sunday tennis tournament round the corner also doesn't have Hawkeye :p

From a technical point of view: tennis(/theoretical baseball) systems can't really be compared as examples of the technology needed, as you have a small, unobstructed ball in free flight that has to be analysed in a carefully controlled region. The ball is hit and left to fly in an area where vision is unimpeded, and there's already an objective, concrete performance criterion.

In rugby you may have a centre breaking the line with a (non-spherical) ball tucked under their arm, wrestling through three people and popping it up to a teammate, at any point over a large pitch. Then you have to tell the system whether what it's seeing was a forward pass or not, with 100% certainty - otherwise, it's as fuzzy as the current decisions are.

It's orders of magnitude more complex to train and validate, much less to the accuracy and speed you need. Plus, you need exactly the same camera setup in every international test stadium for consistency; I don't know whether that's possible/practical.



I don't think that's necessarily an odd situation, unless you consider technology paramount over human judgement, and accuracy paramount over other considerations like practicality, enjoyment, viewability.

We could (ad absurdam) institute a rule whereby every time the ref blows up for an infringement, we have to stop and do a TMO review that finds at least three camera angles to confirm the accuracy of the call. You could expect to gain a very marginal increase in accuracy, but the game would be utterly ruined.
Great response and like the realisation that some margin of error must be built in. I think perhaps cricket is the best example of accommodating built in error.

In other sports, the ball is tracked all the way to contact and can be replicated by tracking technology very accurately. But in cricket, for LBW decisions, the ball's trajectory is interrupted and the model can show where the ball may have travelled to. How that would cope with some of the balls Shane Warne esq used to deliver I do not know but where there is some margin of error within the model, the umpire's original decision is supported.

That would be the same as saying there is nothing C+O to indicate the ball was "thrown forward" and to change the on-field decision.
 

dfobrien

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2019
Messages
19
Post Likes
3
Off topic, but from the same match. When I watched Dickie E’s clip of these highlights (on the first page of this thread), the first try (Harry Williams’) seemed very dubious to me. Full disclosure, I am not a ref at all, just an ex-player and fan, so I may well be missing something obvious.

Black 6 makes a break, is tackled, and then jackled by Blue 7. I am not sure if this is a tackle, or a ruck, or a tackle that then becomes a ruck. But either way, as I understand it, players joining are obliged to (a) try to stay on their feet, (b) bind on someone, and (c) not go charging miles past the ball. But Black 1 and Black 11 both launch themselves straight at the jackler, and shove him out of the way, leaving Williams to pick up and score. I suppose you COULD rule that Black 1 makes some effort to bind on the jackler, but Black 11 most definitely does no such thing, and offends against (a), (b), and (c) it seems to me.

Am I missing something here? And if not, how did the MOs not see this? It jumped out to me as soon as I saw the clip. Thanks for the help.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
Not sure that hawk eye type logic will be able to differentiate between thrown forward (the offence) and ball travelling forward (the laws of dynamics)
see this article- posted by Dickie earier

But the point is - juat with the currently available technology - who is MORE LIKLELY to be right, the ref or the TMO ?
 

Stu10


Referees in England
Joined
Mar 10, 2020
Messages
870
Post Likes
468
Current Referee grade:
Level 15 - 11
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'm inclined to agree with this for the close calls, but my main issue with the current system is when the TMO shares a strong opinion, which they consider to be a clear statement of fact that a pass was forward, and then the ref dismisses that and makes up his own mind. I feel that if the TMO (who is also an elite level referee) thinks something is C&O with the benefit of replays and several angles, then I think that should be the decision.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
I'm inclined to agree with this for the close calls, but my main issue with the current system is when the TMO shares a strong opinion, which they consider to be a clear statement of fact that a pass was forward, and then the ref dismisses that and makes up his own mind. I feel that if the TMO (who is also an elite level referee) thinks something is C&O with the benefit of replays and several angles, then I think that should be the decision.
exactly so. IMO it's crazy that the TMO's view is over-ruled by a combination of the referees' fleeting real-time impression, and the way the the question was phrased.

(I understand exactly how we have arrived at this situation! But I still think it's crazy)
 

Rich_NL

Rugby Expert
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Messages
1,620
Post Likes
499
I'm inclined to agree with this for the close calls, but my main issue with the current system is when the TMO shares a strong opinion, which they consider to be a clear statement of fact that a pass was forward, and then the ref dismisses that and makes up his own mind. I feel that if the TMO (who is also an elite level referee) thinks something is C&O with the benefit of replays and several angles, then I think that should be the decision.
They can show the replays and angles. If the ref doesn't think it C&O after that, why give the TMO the ultimate say?

The default is that the ref has the say, and the responsibility, and the TMO advises on missed calls and obstructed/split-second situations by offering additional film evidence.

You're proposing that the TMO can instruct the referee to blow the whistle and make a decision on field contrary to what the ref feels they saw/judged. I think that's a terrible development that significantly alters refereeing for the worse.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
They can show the replays and angles. If the ref doesn't think it C&O after that, why give the TMO the ultimate say?.
because we'd get it right more often?

Before he even gets to see one angle, the the ref has to publicly announce his snap, on-field decision. Clearly this influences how he then perceives the video. No one like to make a decision and then immediately having to concede it was wrong. it's just human.

The TMO announces a decision *after* watching the video and angles.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
1. I think the law is clear.
I am curious as to your view on the Joe Marchant incident - is it legal to deliberately knock the ball forward as he did? Because opinions here (and elsewhere) differ on that, and the Law doen't appear to be clear.
 

BikingBud


Referees in England
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
694
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
I am curious as to your view on the Joe Marchant incident - is it legal to deliberately knock the ball forward as he did? Because opinions here (and elsewhere) differ on that, and the Law doen't appear to be clear.
Not going to cross post but I also think they are entirely differing situations.

One is a discussion about a potential thrown forward and the other about a potential deliberate knock on.
 

crossref


Referees in England
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
21,771
Post Likes
3,124
Not going to cross post but I also think they are entirely differing situations.

One is a discussion about a potential thrown forward and the other about a potential deliberate knock on.
Or are they linked .m see the argument in the other thread that Marchant couldn't have committed an offence as there was no knock on (post 14 which I see you liked in fact)

Anyway (still a little curious!)
 
Top