Lost coms with TMO - genuine mistake or home broadcaster influence?

[shebeen]

in the recent France vs South Africa test match, a try was awarded on-field, but referee Wayne Barnes appeared to want to review it as it involved a potential double(or triple) movement to ground the ball..

The comms with the TMO was lost at this crucial point, but he chose to wait for it to return.
(It appears no replays were put up on the big screen either).

It is debatable whether the TMO did actually review it, or if the try would have been overturned had it been reviewed.

What is the protocol here, should WB have waited even longer, or is this just a potential home ground advantage factor?


This article from June 2022 seems to suggest this is nothing new.

"Unfortunately, French TV coverage can have a different agenda"

We look at the strange power French TV coverage can have on elite rugby games played in their country, from club to Test matches

www.rugbyworld.com

 

[crossref]

it's a widespread conspiracy against South Africa involving referees, ARs, TMOs, 4th officials, WR, Englang Rugby, NZRugby, TV companies and Ball Boys.

just slightly surprised that no south africans have noticed it yet

 

[shebeen]

it's a widespread conspiracy against South Africa involving referees, ARs, TMOs, 4th officials, WR, Englang Rugby, NZRugby, TV companies and Ball Boys.

just slightly surprised that no south africans have noticed it yet

I'm aware of that, it's beyond problematic. I deliberately avoided that in my post and only queried the actual protocol. If you want to discuss the actual incident, be my guest.

If you read my full post you would have seen the article from an English perspective from July 2022, so it affects all teams. I herein wonder if FranceTV is running the full broadcasting for RWC2024, or if it will be neutral to the TMO feed?

 

[crossref]

who knows what the protocol says, in regard to failed comms ---- but how long do you think WB should have waited? what would be reasonable ? even 30 seconds is a long time on live TV.

 

[Phil E]

It is well known (and I have spoken to several top referees on this subject) that French TV coverage, along with TMO replays can be, shall we say, partisan...at best.

I fear WB would have been waiting a very long time.

 

[Dickie E]

It is well known (and I have spoken to several top referees on this subject) that French TV coverage, along with TMO replays can be, shall we say, partisan...at best.

I fear WB would have been waiting a very long time.

If that's true it's an effing disgrace and WR should sort it out.

 

[belladonna]

I also thought that try was well dodgy. Ball-carrier goes to ground under a mound of bodies a yard short, and a second or so later pushes himself forward with his legs to get over the line. From what I heard the TMO reviewed it and said it was OK. If anyone can explain how that's not a double movement I'd be very grateful?

There were also no replays AT ALL of the forward pass which went against SA at a critical time in the match. It was quite strange that there weren't any replays as there was plenty of time before the scrum was formed and it was the obvious thing to show. I was watching on catch-up and replayed it several times to try and work out why anyone might have thought it was clearly and obviously forward, and am still totally mystified.

In terms of partisan replays, there were repeated replays of the (mistaken) penalty against France for not releasing, when in fact the ball-carrier was not held. Didn't help France though as WB didn't change his mind

 

[crossref]

the TMO is not dependent on the broadcast replays -- he has independent replays.
he is though dependent on the TV technicians.
I wonder are French TV companies part of the anti-SA grand coalition conspiracy ..., or just indepently free-lancing for France and SA are just collateral damage?

 

[crossref]

If that's true it's an effing disgrace and WR should sort it out.

RW own the RWC and they have appointed HBS as host broadcaster - which is a Swiss company so that should sort out any suspicion of home advantage
(but I imagine that WR will have contracted them to join the global anti-SA conspiracy grand coalition )



2 mins googling, I can't work out who is the host broadcaster for the French autumn internaitonals (which I assume are organised by the French RU who would make the contract) Anyone know?

HBS appointed as Rugby World Cup host broadcaster

Host Broadcast Services, the Infront-owned sports broadcast production company, has been awarded the host broadcast contract for the 2023 Rugby World Cup, along with the women’s Rugby World Cup taking…

www.sportbusiness.com

 

[shebeen]

I also thought that try was well dodgy. Ball-carrier goes to ground under a mound of bodies a yard short, and a second or so later pushes himself forward with his legs to get over the line. From what I heard the TMO reviewed it and said it was OK. If anyone can explain how that's not a double movement I'd be very grateful?

There were also no replays AT ALL of the forward pass which went against SA at a critical time in the match. It was quite strange that there weren't any replays as there was plenty of time before the scrum was formed and it was the obvious thing to show. I was watching on catch-up and replayed it several times to try and work out why anyone might have thought it was clearly and obviously forward, and am still totally mystified.

In terms of partisan replays, there were repeated replays of the (mistaken) penalty against France for not releasing, when in fact the ball-carrier was not held. Didn't help France though as WB didn't change his mind

I'm not sure you could conclusively say that this knee is not on the ground yet while he is still being held in this freezeframe, it's a tight one for sure. Blue21 just needed to do that split second "release and pick up" trick and he was in the clear for this. Intimidating crowd vs the worlds currently most experienced ref is a good matchup. For the record this is the 63rd minute and it is the last decision to go the way of RSA.

RW own the RWC and they have appointed HBS as host broadcaster - which is a Swiss company so that should sort out any suspicion of home advantage
(but I imagine that WR will have contracted them to join the global anti-SA conspiracy grand coalition )


2 mins googling, I can't work out who is the host broadcaster for the French autumn internaitonals (which I assume are organised by the French RU who would make the contract) Anyone know?

HBS appointed as Rugby World Cup host broadcaster

Host Broadcast Services, the Infront-owned sports broadcast production company, has been awarded the host broadcast contract for the 2023 Rugby World Cup, along with the women’s Rugby World Cup taking…

www.sportbusiness.com

thanks, I did not think it would be so easy to find this far out, but does it really mean the cameras and producers/editors are not local - obviously not.. Cricket contract a lot of their equipment contracting for DRS to independant companies who then provide the feed to the host broadcaster. I suspect if we saw this new ball tracking technology being used for decision it would be run by the supplier (Sage in this case).

 

[crossref]

AIUI the host broadcaster is the one with the cameras.
The host broadcaster then provides the feed(s) to the other broadcasters (and to the TMO)

 

[Camquin]

Simple.

If the pictures are supplied by the host broadcaster, just tell the broadcaster before the game that if replays are lost, we favour the visitors.
If the pictures come from an IRB supplied independent source, if we lose pictures we stick with on field decision, whatever that was.

 

[crossref]

The pictures come from the host broadcaster
If WR have the tech I guess they could ask for a feed from every camera and record it. Then they could do their own playbacks

 

[Marc Wakeham]

Simple.

If the pictures are supplied by the host broadcaster, just tell the broadcaster before the game that if replays are lost, we favour the visitors.
If the pictures come from an IRB supplied independent source, if we lose pictures we stick with on field decision, whatever that was.

I like it!

 

[didds]

The host broadcaster thing works until the actual head producer on the day for nation X is actually of nationality Y.... and X are playing Y...

didds

 

[crossref]

So the only real solution is for the TMO to take, and record, the feed from every single camera, and then the TMO team can generate their own replays

Obviously the TMO is a team of people with a lot of tech and skill.

 

[Phil E]

I'm not sure its as simple as that.

When I work at Tigers the host broadcaster may change. It could be BT, it could be EPCR, it could be anyone.
Often however the trucks, cameras and technicians will be the same people; or maybe someone entirely different who has never worked at that location before, so doesn't recognise what end of the pitch they are looking at maybe. They are hired in by the host, not employed by the host.
It's the production team who decide who sees what, and they have many more angles than we see on TV or on the big screen at the stadium. What they show to the TMO is up to them, he doesn't automatically see everything, although he should have a plan of what camera angles are available. He normally has a live feed and a delayed feed (so if he thinks he saw something he can switch to the delayed feed to check it again), but this won't be a live feed of every single camera.

Imagine there are 30 cameras, all running and moving shots. 30 sets of recordings all going on. When something happens the production team need to roll back to a point in time for a particular camera, it's not as simple as pushing a button, amongst the recordings they need to find one camera at a certain timeframe, queue it up for the TMO, then send it to his monitor. This is all alongside the live broadcast that is going on managing all the other cameras and queuing them up and giving them instructions for the live feed at the same time.

Add into that, if its a highlights game instead of a live game, you have less cameras (less angles) and a smaller crew who are editing as they go for the highlights show, not for live.

So you could have a producer or an engineer who sees a shot that is bad for his team and suddenly "can't find it". I'm not saying that does go on, but it could. There may also be a language barrier between producer and TMO.

This is all being done in a tiny truck with lots of people trying to get their own jobs done, maybe not enough monitors for all the cameras, so they are constantly switching back and forth. Everyone talking at once, people coming in and out of the truck.

You start to get a picture of what its like and the potential issues. It's not as simple as some might think.

 

[shebeen]

I'm not sure its as simple as that.


So you could have a producer or an engineer who sees a shot that is bad for his team and suddenly "can't find it". I'm not saying that does go on, but it could. There may also be a language barrier between producer and TMO.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Wayne Barnes' comms with the TMO went mysteriously as the winning try was waiting for a review here!

 

[Phil E]

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Wayne Barnes' comms with the TMO went mysteriously as the winning try was waiting for a review here!

I ran touch for a ladies game at Tigers. There were only 4,000 people there. When the teams ran out, the team of three couldn't hear each other over our comm's because the noise was immense. I can't begin to imagine what it's like trying to hear when there's 60,000 people shouting!

 

[crossref]

I'm not sure its as simple as that.

When I work at Tigers the host broadcaster may change. It could be BT, it could be EPCR, it could be anyone.
Often however the trucks, cameras and technicians will be the same people; or maybe someone entirely different who has never worked at that location before, so doesn't recognise what end of the pitch they are looking at maybe. They are hired in by the host, not employed by the host.
It's the production team who decide who sees what, and they have many more angles than we see on TV or on the big screen at the stadium. What they show to the TMO is up to them, he doesn't automatically see everything, although he should have a plan of what camera angles are available. He normally has a live feed and a delayed feed (so if he thinks he saw something he can switch to the delayed feed to check it again), but this won't be a live feed of every single camera.

Imagine there are 30 cameras, all running and moving shots. 30 sets of recordings all going on. When something happens the production team need to roll back to a point in time for a particular camera, it's not as simple as pushing a button, amongst the recordings they need to find one camera at a certain timeframe, queue it up for the TMO, then send it to his monitor. This is all alongside the live broadcast that is going on managing all the other cameras and queuing them up and giving them instructions for the live feed at the same time.

Add into that, if its a highlights game instead of a live game, you have less cameras (less angles) and a smaller crew who are editing as they go for the highlights show, not for live.

So you could have a producer or an engineer who sees a shot that is bad for his team and suddenly "can't find it". I'm not saying that does go on, but it could. There may also be a language barrier between producer and TMO.

This is all being done in a tiny truck with lots of people trying to get their own jobs done, maybe not enough monitors for all the cameras, so they are constantly switching back and forth. Everyone talking at once, people coming in and out of the truck.

You start to get a picture of what its like and the potential issues. It's not as simple as some might think.

Great post
The only way a TMO can be completely independent is to have their own entire production team, with their own recordings of all the feeds

Clearly not practical for premiership game

Perhaps for a WC knock out game ?