I suggest we trial dropping TMO “Protocols”.

[Taff]

Once again the problem of TMO protocols raises it’s ugly head. Why some people seem to enjoy tying themselves up in knots by using certain words is beyond me. Why not just let 2 adults speak to each other as they would normally – instead of making them ask a set of coded questions? :frown:

Today, we saw a howler in my opinion - and just to rub salt in the wound it cost us the game. Marius Mitrea of Italy was the Ref in this afternoons Ospreys v Scarlets game; the Osprey got a good shove on a maul and crashed over the Scarlets goal line. There must have been at least 14 players involved. In a nutshell, there was a mass of bodies and nobody could see the ball at all – it was well and truly buried. Even on slo-mo replay they still couldn't spot the ball; when it did eventually turn up, they even replayed it in slo-mo in reverse to try and find where it had come from and still couldn't see it. Mitrea asks Derek Bevan “Is there any reason I cannot award the try?” After a lengthy look, Bevan says something like “We cannot see the ball. It’s your decision”. The Ref mentions something about a try to which Bevan immediately replies along the lines of “We cannot see the ball. You need to be sure” or words to that effect, to which Mitrea replies in his best pigeon English “There is no reason I cannot award the try”. Peeeeeeeeeep. Try awarded. Well, that’s not what the TMO said now – was it?

Bevan was obviously trying to imply there was doubt over the grounding, but why then isn't the Ref allowed to say "Derek. Given what you can see on the screen, what would you recommend?" And why isn't the TMO just allowed to say “We’ve checked every camera angle there is, and we still can’t see if a try has been scored. Ie it’s inconclusive, so I suggest X”. Not only would it have been quicker – it would also have been more accurate. We just seem determined to make life difficult for ourselves - when there is just no need for it.

At the time, I mentioned to my boy that if we were to lose, I hoped it would be by more than 7 points ... but it wasn’t. The Scarlets lost by just 2 points, which makes this incident critical. Just to be clear, I’m not moaning about this because the Scarlets lost – I wouldn’t be happy with the decision if the Scarlets had benefitted from it, and I've moaned about "Protocols" before. Personally, I reckon it should have been a PK to the Ospreys and a YC for deliberately collapsing the maul. Apart from this incident, I think Mitrea had a pretty good game.

 

[Phil E]

Why can't you abide by the 'ref is the sole judge' aspect?

By asking the question he did, the ref was saying 'I am happy it is a try, is there any reason it shouldn't be'. The TMO was saying, ' I can't see any reason it isn't a try, so it's your call'. The ref was happy it was a try by his first question, so it WAS a try.

As a ref, you should abide by that, whether you like it or not. Would you be happy for spectators at your games to try you by what they saw, not by what you saw?........

 

[Taff]

Why can't you abide by the 'ref is the sole judge' aspect? By asking the question he did, the ref was saying 'I am happy it is a try, is there any reason it shouldn't be'.

Quite honestly Phil, I don't think anybody could be happy that was a try.

It's not on Youtube yet, but when it is have a look at it and see if you think the same way.

 

[OB..]

What you are arguing is that in effect a referee should never award a try when a maul crashes over and he cannot see the ball.

In practice he may know that the ball was firmly in the hands of an attacker surrounded by team-mates. Yes, he might have lost the ball forward at the last minute and then fallen on it, but do you really want to decide "no try" on that basis?

 

[The umpire]

Taff,
1 I agree with you about the protocols. If we have to have them then one should be, "tell me WTF happened there!" Mitres asked if there was any reason not to award the try, it was DB's vague reply that was the problem. But, of course, he could see no reason to disallow it as couldn't see anything at all.(and he generously disallowed Adron's try when another might have taken the view that it touched one of those White blades of grass)
2 That's not what cost you the game, a lack of tackling and letting them run through the defence with 15 that they couldn't when your were down to 14 was more to blame.
3. It should have been a penalty try anyway as a Scarlet went in at the feet as the maul got to the line and collapsed it anyway.
4 I really hoped Scarlets would win!

 

[crossref]

in a different thread didnt' KML tell us that the the Aviva Premiership has basically abandoned the artificial protocols, and now allows a much more natural language conversation

 

[Pegleg]

I agree the protocls are poor. They limit what the TMO can do. however, the question asked here can be read as: " I'm happy that it is a try. Can you see something that contadicts that?" SO the TMO not seeing the grounding doess not cvontradict the ref being happy with it. Had the TMO clearly seen there was no grounding then he would say so. Before TMOs the ref WOULD have awarded the try.

So I both agree and disagree with you. Yes the Protocols need to be reviewed. "Can you check is the last pass was forward?" Ahould not prevent the reply: " "The pass was fine but there was obstruction so no try".

Perhaps the question should be "Try, yes or no? I'm particularly concerned about the final pass". But The question in your example is clear: "I'm happy. Have I missed anything?"

 

[Shelflife]

In fairness to Taff he has a point, I was rooting for ospreys and while its probable that a try was scored there was no way that you could be any ways sure, at first I went try but it was clear that Marius hadnt a clue where that ball was so he went upstairs.

If he had no idea where the ball was, then he should have asked try yes or no.

Bevan just confused matters by warbling on as he does instead of simply answering the question that he was asked.

 

[Stuartg]

I thought the red had a shocker.

At the breakdown he made several errors as seen in replays on screen.

The scrums were a disaster and he never got a grip. Twice he spoke to the FRs and told them that they were "spoiling the scrums". It sounded like an 8 year old kid complaining about a nasty boy spoiling his game.

As for the try after the maul - no problem as far as I'm concerned. I'd have awarded it every day of the week. Once again Geoff Warren sounded like someone losing it.

What do others think of the third(?) Osprey's try why came about after a break. The player who broke through was brought down just short of the line and a try resulted almost immediately. The tackler brought him down by placing his hands on top of the player's shoulders. Why did he not immediately go under the post and pull out a YC.

He also accepted a great deal of backchat indicating that the players were not accepting his decisions and thought they might be able to put pressure on him. He seemed like a rabbit in front of headlights.

 

[The umpire]

As for the try after the maul - no problem as far as I'm concerned. I'd have awarded it every day of the week. Once again Geoff Warren sounded like someone losing it.

Who? Do you mean Derek Bevan the TMO, or Marius Mitrea, the referee?

What do others think of the third(?) Osprey's try why came about after a break. The player who broke through was brought down just short of the line and a try resulted almost immediately. The tackler brought him down by placing his hands on top of the player's shoulders. Why did he not immediately go under the post and pull out a YC.

Because that's not an offence...
Tackles above the line of the shoulders are 'dangerous', but that isn't.

 

[Daftmedic]

Wait. When I did my medical degree. Ontop of the shoulders (Sperior) is above. Below the shoulders (inferior) is below. Wait, have I been teaching a whole generation of military medics wrong?
I bloody new I should of joined the Salvation Army.

 

[Pinky]

Well above most of our pay grades about deciding on the protocol, but the Aviva seems to have a more flexible arrangement this year. However I agree that it is likely that the ref thought a try had been scored and just wanted to make sure there was nothing obvious that might have prevented it.

Oh, about collapsing the maul, once the ball is over the goal line the maul is ended and can be collapsed without penalty, so there probably was no need for a PK or PT. I've not seen this yet, but we need to remember that the maul ends as the ball gets to the line.

 

[Browner]

What do others think of the third(?) Osprey's try why came about after a break....... The tackler brought him down by placing his hands on top of the player's shoulders. Why did he not immediately go under the post and pull out a YC.

Because that's not an offence...
Tackles above the line of the shoulders are 'dangerous', but that isn't.

Generally agree TU.....

[LAWS]

Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.

[/LAWS]........ However, whilst pulling a player to ground from on top of the shoulder isn't generally dangerous in Pro rugby, but it could be IF ( for argument sake) the BCs head/shoulders or head was slammed/driven/jammed down onto the ground whilst the players legs were still 4ft in the air, or his shirt was pulled back so hard that it garroted his neck.

Granted, rarely seen. But my point is ' dangerousness' exists beyond the prescribed examples listed in 10.4(e)

(By way of example ......if I saw a player swing an opponent by the shirt and launch him " hammer throw style" toward the pitchside barriers from 3m away , then it would meet my definition of dangerous.

 

[The umpire]

Generally agree TU.....

[LAWS]

Dangerous tackling. A player must not tackle an opponent early, late or dangerously.

A player must not tackle (or try to tackle) an opponent above the line of the shoulders even if the tackle starts below the line of the shoulders. A tackle around the opponent’s neck or head is dangerous play.

[/LAWS]........ However, whilst pulling a player to ground from on top of the shoulder isn't generally dangerous in Pro rugby, but it could be IF ( for argument sake)

You don't know a bloke caller "Chopper" by any chance?

the BCs head/shoulders or head was slammed/driven/jammed down onto the ground whilst the players legs were still 4ft in the air,

Obviously dangerous and now caught by the tip tackle ruling
,

or his shirt was pulled back so hard that it garroted his neck.

Indeed, also dangerous, but not what happened

Granted, rarely seen. But my point is ' dangerousness' exists beyond the prescribed examples listed in 10.4(e)

(By way of example ......if I saw a player swing an opponent by the shirt and launch him " hammer throw style" toward the pitchside barriers from 3m away , then it would meet my definition of dangerous.

And it would mine, as well.

I'm not saying that dangerous things can't result, but the basic two hands on the shoulders as we saw in that game, isn't an offence.

 

[Browner]

You don't know a bloke caller "Chopper" by any chance?

I can only assume this is supposed to be a 'witty goad'? fftopic: th4 ignore button pressed. :biggrin:



Obviously dangerous and now caught by the tip tackle ruling

But you're incorrect in referring to 10.4(j) as covering the shoulder jerk/yank/pull/slam its not caught by it, (j) requires a 'lift' and the example i gave where a player is violently yanked downward ( say by hands on the shoulder ) doesnt actually feature a lift.

 

[The umpire]

I can only assume this is supposed to be a 'witty goad'? th4 ignore button pressed.

Yes, but I appreciate the 'witty':biggrin:

Obviously dangerous and now caught by the tip tackle ruling

But you're incorrect in referring to 10.4(j) as covering the shoulder jerk/yank/pull/slam its not caught by it, (j) requires a 'lift' and the example i gave where a player is violently yanked downward ( say by hands on the shoulder ) doesnt actually feature a lift.

Indeed, you're right about that.

 

[Browner]

Yes, but I appreciate the 'witty':biggrin:

Your wit - your choice, i'll assume it was you being complimentary &.... admiring.

 

[Taff]

What you are arguing is that in effect a referee should never award a try when a maul crashes over and he cannot see the ball.

IMO the bar is a bit flexible but in a nutshell, yes. If the BC falls in such a way that he blocks the view of the ball at the exact moment of grounding, but you’re 90% sure where it is, I’d give that as a try. Where there’s a massive maul and you have no idea where the ball is within that maul, I don’t think I would give that.

In a way however, that wasn’t my main issue; my problem is with the TMO protocols which tie people’s hands behind their back. The Ref (if he wanted to) should have been allowed to say “Derek. I couldn’t see a thing. This one’s over to you”. And IMO the TMO should have been allowed to say “I’ve checked every angle there is and I couldn’t see a thing either. It could easily have been held up, so if I were you, I would say there was some doubt over the grounding and would suggest an attacking 5m scrum”. I think that was what Bevan was hoping the Ref would conclude from his coded wording – but Mitrea grabbed the wrong end of the stick.

.. 1 I agree with you about the protocols. If we have to have them then one should be, "tell me WTF happened there!"

In a way I couldn’t agree with you more. I think conversations with TMOs should be heard by the public, BUT they should be free to discuss everything.

... It should have been a penalty try anyway as a Scarlet went in at the feet as the maul got to the line and collapsed it anyway.

Given there were so many bodies in that maul, would a “probable” try have been scored? I’m not sure, but I wouldn’t argue with a Ref that would have given a PT.

in a different thread didnt' KML tell us that the the Aviva Premiership has basically abandoned the artificial protocols, and now allows a much more natural language conversation

I really hope you’re right.

In fairness to Taff he has a point, I was rooting for ospreys and while its probable that a try was scored there was no way that you could be any ways sure, at first I went try but it was clear that Marius hadnt a clue where that ball was so he went upstairs. If he had no idea where the ball was, then he should have asked try yes or no.

Well above most of our pay grades about deciding on the protocol, but the Aviva seems to have a more flexible arrangement this year.

Everything is “above my paygrade” because I’m paid FA. :biggrin:

... Oh, about collapsing the maul, once the ball is over the goal line the maul is ended and can be collapsed without penalty, so there probably was no need for a PK or PT. I've not seen this yet, but we need to remember that the maul ends as the ball gets to the line.

OK, the maul does end when the ball is on or over the goal line, but don’t forget that collapsing the maul was trialled but dropped as it was deemed dangerous. My point is if collapsing a maul is dangerous play in the FoP, why isn’t collapsing a “maul like thing” in in-goal equally dangerous? IMO it is just as dangerous. While we can’t call it “collapsing the maul” (because there is no maul) ... we can call it “dangerous play”.

... I'm not saying that dangerous things can't result, but the basic two hands on the shoulders as we saw in that game, isn't an offence.

IMO it is an offence – but I am willing to be educated. There was obviously a “tackle” ie the BC was held and brought to ground, and the tacklers hands were above the shoulder. Although the BC fell awkwardly luckily he didn’t get hurt.

... Can a MOD please post a message to get this thread back on track before the grammar police arrest everyone.....:sarc: :biggrin:

Done.
The Off topic posts have been moved to their own thread.

 

[matty1194]

For me in response to the OP I think that the rugby league boys have a much better way of chatting between the referee and the TMO, much more natural communication between them both and they get the point across so much easier.

What doesnt help with the current TMO protocols is the fact a foreign based referee who may not have English as his first language ends up in wildest Gloucester or up North at Falcons and struggles with the regional dialects, so when people are forced to do it scripted then there is mis-communication.

I have it on good knowledge that next season the TMO will be from the same Union as the referee for Pro 12 games to ensure communication improves.

 

[dave_clark]

I have it on good knowledge that next season the TMO will be from the same Union as the referee for Pro 12 games to ensure communication improves.

which makes perfect sense, and about bloody time too!

(would probably have (of?) avoided a yellow card for an eye gouge in 2009...)