SA BaaBaas vs Eng...TMO remit

[Skids]

Just watching the SA Barbarians vs England midweek team. Minute 29:09, Wade tackled short of try line but his momentum may take him across line, and he should score. BaaBaa 11 dives in, leading with elbow which strikes Wades neck (1st point of contact) and pushes him out of play. Clearly reckless and dangerous, for me a RC and a penalty try as it appears to be in the process of scoring (but I'm open to persuasion otherwise on that one).

Referee Lawrence cannot communicate with TMO so asks AR to liase and there appears to be confusion over what he asks and what the answer is, but TMO can clearly not comment on the foul play in-field and the decision ends up as a knock-on (Wade dropped the ball in the process), scrum BaaBaas.

Ludicrous state of affairs.

I'd appreciate other views on this incident.

 

[OB..]

From memory, it was agreed that the TMO could not rule on the (potential) foul play in the field of play. He told them but neither on-field official had seen it, so they agreed to play it by the book.

Yes, this is the sort of incident that has people calling for an extension of the TMO's powers. Unfortunately, however far we extend them there will always be an incident that falls just outside the limit. Nonethless I agree that some extension should be tried, to include the act of scoring at the very least.

 

[crossref]

I think the IRB need to give them much more discretion in what they can say and trust them more.

Its often said here that the prime duty of an AR is to not make the referee look like an idiot.

Alas the restriction placed on the TMO do seem to contrive to make him do exactly that.

 

[Dickie E]

I was talking to a TMO last Saturday & apparently the trial protocol will be, where the ref thinks foul play may have occurred, he can refer it upstairs. If the ref hasn't seen anything and therefore doesn't refer - the TMO can't raise it.

 

[Ian_Cook]

From memory, it was agreed that the TMO could not rule on the (potential) foul play in the field of play. He told them but neither on-field official had seen it, so they agreed to play it by the book.

Yes, this is the sort of incident that has people calling for an extension of the TMO's powers. Unfortunately, however far we extend them there will always be an incident that falls just outside the limit. Nonethless I agree that some extension should be tried, to include the act of scoring at the very least.

That would be the absolute minimum in my view. It is preposterous to have an act of foul play, missed by the TO3 but clearly obvious to anyone watching a television, unable to be ruled on because the ball or the incident took place a fraction of a second before the ball crossed into in-goal.

Many of the naysayers are afraid that an extension of the TMO power will lead to games lasting 20-30 minutes longer due to video footage review, but there are simple ways around that. I suggest....

1. The referee can consult the TMO as normal.

2. If the referee does not consult the TMO the game carries on, but the TMO can still look anyway and if he finds something "material" that was "clear and obvious", missed by the TO3, he can report it. The referee can then bring the game back to that point, which might involve reversing a PK or overturning a try/no-try decision.

3. Allow each captain to challenge the on-field decision and send it to the TMO. There would be a limit of two unsuccessful challenges each, at which point that captain's right to challenge is cancelled. There would be no limit to the number of successful challenges... I have no problem allowing the game to run on if the right decisions are being made... if that's what it takes, so be it.

4. I would also like to somehow limit the continual reviewing of the same incident over and over. The limit should be two reviews from any one angle. If the TMO has to look more than twice at the footage for, say grounding, then it can't really be construed as clear an obvious.

 

[Rushforth]

3. Allow each captain to challenge the on-field decision and send it to the TMO. There would be a limit of two unsuccessful challenges each, at which point that captain's right to challenge is cancelled. There would be no limit to the number of successful challenges... I have no problem allowing the game to run on if the right decisions are being made... if that's what it takes, so be it.

Good god no. Not just because of the "referee does the refereeing thing", but in cricket referrals are discussed between the two batsmen, or between bowler and wicket-keeper and perhaps another couple. There is just no possible way for the captain of an XV to get enough correct information to refer a decision (and more importantly, a NON-decision) quickly enough.

 

[Davet]

1. The referee can consult the TMO as normal.

I would suggest that the ref be able to refer anything in-goal or in the act of scoring (or attempting to score), the TMO then has full authority to identify and inform on whatever he feels is relevant. The final decision must then be the Referee's.

2. If the referee does not consult the TMO the game carries on, but the TMO can still look anyway and if he finds something "material" that was "clear and obvious", missed by the TO3, he can report it. The referee can then bring the game back to that point, which might involve reversing a PK or overturning a try/no-try decision.

I really really don't like this, the continual big brother reviewing play on a delay and then stepping in to stop whatever is going on and go back to a previous play... why not simply remove the ref from the field altogether, give the TMO a button that sounds a whistle, and a microphone so he can announce to all what has happened?

For the sake of clarity I am NOT in favour of the above idea.

3. Allow each captain to challenge the on-field decision and send it to the TMO. There would be a limit of two unsuccessful challenges each, at which point that captain's right to challenge is cancelled. There would be no limit to the number of successful challenges... I have no problem allowing the game to run on if the right decisions are being made... if that's what it takes, so be it.

Again - I simply don't like this. I think it would result in lots of "challenges" down in the weeds where we haven't got TMOs, but players feel that if the elite can challenge theh so can we. It would also result in half-challenges in the elite game, captain makes point to ref, complaining of X Y or Z - ref says "Are you issuing a challenge?" - "No, I'm just saying you need to watch this, Sir or I may have to challenge it in future".

4. I would also like to somehow limit the continual reviewing of the same incident over and over. The limit should be two reviews from any one angle. If the TMO has to look more than twice at the footage for, say grounding, then it can't really be construed as clear an obvious.

Again - I disagree. We have seen a number of excellent TMO judgements wher a couple of views establish the basics but no single view shows say if the ball was grounded before the players foot went to touch - but by looking a couple more views we can identify other things in shot that correspond in time to when the foot went out and when the ball was grounded and by looking at these we can then show try or touch. But these can take several views from a few different angles. We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

 

[OB..]

The TMO is not usually controlling the reviews directly, but talking to technicians who do it for him. It may be appropriate to have a time limit (based on current data - in the NFL it is 90 seconds) but not a micro-managing restriction on a particular shot.

 

[Skids]

Does anyone have a view as to the actual incident (elbow to the neck) preventing a possible try?

 

[Rushforth]

Does anyone have a view as to the actual incident (elbow to the neck) preventing a possible try?

You didn't link to a video of it, but it seems everybody here agrees that it "should" be a PT and some kind of card; however protocol does not allow that if not seen by the team of three.

Was there any talk of citing?

 

[Skids]

You didn't link to a video of it, but it seems everybody here agrees that it "should" be a PT and some kind of card; however protocol does not allow that if not seen by the team of three.

Was there any talk of citing?

I'm sorry, I'm not aware of any link/video...I watched it on Sky+.

I haven't seen any reports of a citing.

 

[Skids]

12345

 

[Phil E]

67890 ?

 

[TheBFG]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwLhufo0P_s

heres the match, it's 47.30 on the video clip (wish the bloody commentaters would STF up).

 

[Pedro]

Looks like it should have been a citing - but don't think it would have been a red considering some of the current decisions being made by CO's so I wouldn't have thought anything would come out of it anyway.

Is the Off field yellow available on the tours or is that still just the S15's?

 

[Pedro]

12345

Once I caught a fish alive?

 

[Skids]

It was a duplicate post you twonks! Not allowed to delete it and must post a minimum of 5 characters. :chair: