foward pass / TMO

[Rich_NL]

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.

That's not how it works now though; the policy is to play on in borderline cases and check later.

My previous final paragraph still stands.

 

[crossref]

My previous final paragraph still stands.

But no one has proposed what you suggest has been proposed

 

[Rich_NL]

"

But no one has proposed what you suggest has been proposed

You say the TMO announces their decision. Stu says "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."

In what meaningful way is that not "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"? It's certainly not fitting 6.5.a.

 

[crossref]

I don't understand that post at all.
No one has said that a TMO should be able to instruct the ref to blow his whistle

 

[Dickie E]

No one has said that a TMO should be able to instruct the ref to blow his whistle

well, I do prefer the NRL process where the ref hands the reigns to the "bunker" aka TMO.

It certainly looks more professional than having a ref & 2 ARs trying to squint up at a stadium screen to make sense of an event and then the inevitable convoluted discussion => "Marius, do you have any other angles?" "Marius, is that the best angle?" "Marius, do you agree with my decision?"

 

[crossref]

well, I do prefer the NRL process where the ref hands the reigns to the "bunker" aka TMO.

It certainly looks more professional than having a ref & 2 ARs trying to squint up at a stadium screen to make sense of an event and then the inevitable convoluted discussion => "Marius, do you have any other angles?" "Marius, is that the best angle?" "Marius, do you agree with my decision?"

I agree - that sounds like what I am proposing : if the TMO gets involved then forget about the one-time impression of the referee, real time : turn it over the TMO to make a judgement.

our current system is really quite odd, when you think about it

 

[Rich_NL]

I don't understand that post at all.
No one has said that a TMO should be able to instruct the ref to blow his whistle

In the figurative sense of awarding a scrum or penalty.

Try is scored, TMO calls attention to a borderline pass in the lead-up. Ref doesn't see it as C&O forward, TMO does and takes the decision to call it back to scrum for the defenders.

Or does the TMO just say "no try, back to a scrum on the 22 for a forward pass" and not involve the ref in the call at all?

 

[crossref]

In the figurative sense of awarding a scrum or penalty.

Try is scored, TMO calls attention to a borderline pass in the lead-up. Ref doesn't see it as C&O forward, TMO does and takes the decision to call it back to scrum for the defenders.

Or does the TMO just say "no try, back to a scrum on the 22 for a forward pass" and not involve the ref in the call at all?

for me the TMO makes the judgement, using all the technology available to him.

I just don't see point in asking the ref to second-guess the TMO , with only a low-definition giant screen 20m away from him.

So - after avery try TMO watches the video and says : "all good" or "no try back to the scrum for the forward pass"

Same as it would be if the TMO notices a foot in touch.

 

[Dickie E]

Or does the TMO just say "no try, back to a scrum on the 22 for a forward pass" and not involve the ref in the call at all?

that is what I would see as best practice.

Any of the 4 officials see a potential infringement. Ref says "I have a try but I'd like TMO to have a look at that pass". It is then over to TMO who has 3 possible outcomes:
1. pass was clearly forward => scrum back
2. pass was clearly not forward => try stands
3. inconclusive => ref's orginal call (try) stands

 

[Dickie E]

this is how you do it:

KFC Bunker

The KFC Bunker is powered by a world class fibre network to improve the decision review process.

www.nrl.com

 

[crossref]

this is how you do it:

KFC Bunker

The KFC Bunker is powered by a world class fibre network to improve the decision review process.

www.nrl.com

Really interesting
The description of the technology available in the bunker it brings home how silly it is in RU to pass the decision to a referee standing in the middle of a pitch using a screen designed for the crowd

 

[crossref]

that is what I would see as best practice.

Any of the 4 officials see a potential infringement. Ref says "I have a try but I'd like TMO to have a look at that pass". It is then over to TMO who has 3 possible outcomes:
1. pass was clearly forward => scrum back
2. pass was clearly not forward => try stands
3. inconclusive => ref's orginal call (try) stands

I would allow the TMO to come in uninvited (as indeed they already can and do in RU)

 

[SimonSmith]

well, I do prefer the NRL process where the ref hands the reigns to the "bunker" aka TMO.

It certainly looks more professional than having a ref & 2 ARs trying to squint up at a stadium screen to make sense of an event and then the inevitable convoluted discussion => "Marius, do you have any other angles?" "Marius, is that the best angle?" "Marius, do you agree with my decision?"

After some of the absolute howlers the bunker has handed down this season, I wouldn't be using them as the gold standard.

All too often the man in the middle os facing very reasonable questions from less than happy players, and all he can say is "it's been ruled on" and try to keep a straight face. I think it undermines them.

 

[Dickie E]

After some of the absolute howlers the bunker has handed down this season, I wouldn't be using them as the gold standard.

All too often the man in the middle os facing very reasonable questions from less than happy players, and all he can say is "it's been ruled on" and try to keep a straight face. I think it undermines them.

got any video links? All I can find is Paul Gallen whining cos the video ref spotted a punch in back play in the Roosters v Rabbits game.

 

[BikingBud]

this is how you do it:

KFC Bunker

The KFC Bunker is powered by a world class fibre network to improve the decision review process.

www.nrl.com

Rugby is a game played by humans, not a chess programme and technology does not assure the correct decision, see previous comments about VAR and the state of football. Also see a relatively straightforward obstruction decision being challenged:

Annesley indicates Luai obstruction call was incorrect

NRL Head of Football Graham Annesley admits the obstruction ruling on Luai shouldn't have been called

www.nrl.com

All humans make errors for a variety of differing reasons and it's mostly the players that make the real howlers; butchering overlaps, late tackles, high tackles, dangerous hits alongside many minor infringements that shape the game and decide the final score.

As facilitators we apply judgment and empathy, exploiting the best law in the book, advantage, alongside an assessment of materiality to create a game that is enjoyable to play and watch. If we resort to ever more technical resources to forensically analyse all actions to pinpoint minute transgressions where does this leave the game?

Much of the "evidence" is not C&O therefore the human still decides and all that has happened is the game has been delayed and time has been spent when the first observation was likely accurate in a high proportion of the occurrences. And for those that we feel could have been different chat on here mostly aids us all and progress our common understanding if not coming to a consensus

 

[SimonSmith]

got any video links? All I can find is Paul Gallen whining cos the video ref spotted a punch in back play in the Roosters v Rabbits game.

Not to hand, no. But Iwatched close to 80% of the games.

The glaring one was the inconsistency of judgement on the dummy runner hitting the outside shoulder. What used to be a black and white decision got changed to an application of "common sense", changed back the week after, andthen changed again.

 

[BikingBud]

got any video links? All I can find is Paul Gallen whining cos the video ref spotted a punch in back play in the Roosters v Rabbits game.

Is this close enough?

Annesley makes call on Moses pass

NRL Head of Football Graham Annesley concedes Mitchell Moses' pass should have been called forward in the Preliminary Final against the North Queensland Cowboys

www.nrl.com

 

[Dickie E]

Is this close enough?

No its not. That's a forensic examination of a very line ball decision, hardly a howler.

Do you follow cricket? If so, would you like to see an end to hot spot/snickometer decisions and ball tracking decisions?

 

[Stu10]

I'm catching up on Gallagher Prem round 5... Red 8 tackles Blue 6 off the ball, TMO announces this to the ref, Foley. Play/advantage is continuing as this conversation goes on:

Foley said, "Yes, I've got it, just a penalty, isn't it?"
TMO, "There's no arms in it."
Foley, "Is it more than a penalty?"
TMO, "Yes, looks like yellow to me."

Foley then stopped play and immediately carded Blue 8 without a video review or further discussion with other officials.

Personally, I think this is excellent officiating. The TMO made a clear recommendation, ref trusted the TMO, decision made quickly and get on with game.

 

[BikingBud]

No its not. That's a forensic examination of a very line ball decision, hardly a howler.

Do you follow cricket? If so, would you like to see an end to hot spot/snickometer decisions and ball tracking decisions?

And that is my point. It went to the"bunker" and yet the decision was apparently wrong. We can play the game as it unfolds or we can critically examine every decision and it still not be clear.

But what about the obstruction call?
Annesley indicates Luai obstruction call was incorrect

Cricket is a game with natural breaks, individual balls and overs, that is not impacted too much by the interruptions, whereas with rugby an interruption may allow a team under pressure to rest, regather to the detriment of the team that had momentum. I'm for keeping the game going and accepting that as humans are involved it is not perfect.