TMO Intervention RWC Final
- Thread starter kudu314
- Start date
Yes, not sure how much credence to place on that
On the one hand it is Stuff
On the the other hand WR leaked a lot of things in the RWC ..
Stu10
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2020
- Messages
- 883
- Post Likes
- 478
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
However, as I've posted earlier, I think it is black and white that the TMO protocol was not applied correctly with regard to number of phases.
Yes but there is an escape clause isn't there about intervening to correct and error when necessary to preserve the integrity of the game.
Stu10
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2020
- Messages
- 883
- Post Likes
- 478
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Are you referring to this text in the guiding principles:
I don't see that as an escape clause. Also, must be credible and consistent...
Yes, I think that phrase is what TF felt applied.
There is no "bigger" moment than a knock on in the lead up to a try ... in a RWC final.
I think it's hard to say that the TMO should ignore it because protocol
(But would not be entirely surprised if WR had briefed some journalist somewhere that that is the case)
Looking back: time and again when TMOs have kept quiet about a mistake because of protocol, WR have changed the protocol to allow them to intervene the next time
There is no "bigger" moment than a knock on in the lead up to a try ... in a RWC final.
I think it's hard to say that the TMO should ignore it because protocol
(But would not be entirely surprised if WR had briefed some journalist somewhere that that is the case)
Looking back: time and again when TMOs have kept quiet about a mistake because of protocol, WR have changed the protocol to allow them to intervene the next time
Last edited:
Ref errors that give field position advantage and that advantage leads to points in the next set of phases are just as big moments - perhaps to maintain the integrity of the game the TMO should intervene here as well!!
Let’s just throw out the protocol, put the ref in the TMO box and let things rip.
The game would have all the integrity in the world but no one would be interested in watching it.
FFS if there is a protocol follow it!!! Not too hard I would have thought to notice an error, count to two and if you have to count to three sit back until you see another error.
BikingBud
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 723
- Post Likes
- 260
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
What other than missed foul play?
Penalty offences where leading with the forearm to an opponents neck head area go without review?
Penalty offences where players are not supporting their body weight and the resultant penalty gives a six point swing in a one point match!
I still find it quite incredulous that you post what you think about what others might have felt but lack any real assessment of the germane evidence.
well, at least i manage to say what I think
you are always on the fence.why do you think the TMO felt able to intervene ?
1 - perhaps he counted the phases differently, counted two, and therefore beleived he was within protocol?
2 - perhaps he felt it was a big moment, integrity at stake, protocol therefore allows him to overturn the try ?
3 - perhaps he forgot all about the protocol?
For 1 - Stu's analysis is pretty convincing for me. I don't think that was the reason
For 3 - Tom Foley is a great TMO, he works carefully. Don't think so
Which leaves me with (2) as the most likely explanation
what do you reckon?
some other explanation I haven't considered?
Stu10
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2020
- Messages
- 883
- Post Likes
- 478
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Personally, I think he forgot the detail of the protocol and the condition of only going back 2 phases.
As @Dixpat said, if you are going to ignore the protocol, where do you draw the line... do you even go back to a possible offence before the lineout, for the sake of integrity?
Also, I don't think the integrity sentence in the guiding principles is strong enough to allow the subsequent protocols to be overruled... it reads more like introductory fluff rather than an accepted plan B.
As @Dixpat said, if you are going to ignore the protocol, where do you draw the line... do you even go back to a possible offence before the lineout, for the sake of integrity?
Also, I don't think the integrity sentence in the guiding principles is strong enough to allow the subsequent protocols to be overruled... it reads more like introductory fluff rather than an accepted plan B.
BikingBud
Referees in England
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2011
- Messages
- 723
- Post Likes
- 260
- Current Referee grade:
- Select Grade
I say lots about what I think but I try not to surmise what others may have thought or why they may have done something based upon very limited evidence.well, at least i manage to say what I think
why do you think the TMO felt able to intervene ?
1 - perhaps he counted the phases differently, counted two, and therefore beleived he was within protocol?
2 - perhaps he felt it was a big moment, integrity at stake, protocol therefore allows him to overturn the try ?
3 - perhaps he forgot all about the protocol?
For 1 - Stu's analysis is pretty convincing for me. I don't think that was the reason
For 3 - Tom Foley is a great TMO, he works carefully. Don't think so
Which leaves me with (2) as the most likely explanation
what do you reckon?
some other explanation I haven't considered?
I can observe and judge what I might have done and offer a perspective on that, eg the Wales advantage over call, or the 2 significant penalties where K Smith was rewarded and I would have pinged him, or no action against Kriege for head contact in the Scotland game. But to try and suggest what I feel they have decided, what process I feel they followed and how I feel they came to that outcome is pure guesswork. We cannot determine their understanding of what occurred, what they observed and what they decided unless we get the opportunity to chat with them. It might, (should) come out in their debrief but we don't see that.
That said I have reviewed the disciplinary report for the red card for Sam Cane and found inconsistencies in the report and the analysis that included testimony from the match officials, so I highlight those and offer a perspective it doesn't add up, see other thread where you thought it was a "well written report" whereas I suggest it was inaccurate and inconsistent. I looked at the evidence used by the panel in their report and provided examples of where I feel there was sufficient mitigation to not issue a red card. I have not made any attempt to wonder why they thought differently to me, just that the evidence they offered is not, to me, compelling or robust.
For me the benefit of the discussions here is not to pick people, high class referees that have risen to the top of their game, apart but to consider what if that happens to me? Do I understand enough to make a good decision based upon what facts I have. Where are the gotchas. Pretty similar to when out riding, if another road user doesn't see me and nearly knocks me off my bike, I am more concerned about how I can ensure that doesn't happen again rather than worrying if they were on the phone, drunk, drugged, shouting at the kids or just blind. How can I improve my observation, to see the cues, to understand how it may progress and be positioned to make better decisions because the next time they might not see me for another reason and the assumption that the initial driver was drunk doesn't help me manage the one who is distracted by the kids. We can't just tell people to make better decisions we need to equip them.
All of this is in the context that humans are fallible, we all make errors many times a day every day and we will start reconstructing memories after the event, to try and normalise what we saw and perhaps even try to justify why we decided what we did. Perhaps World Rugby should just promote this principle and reflect on the beauty of the game rather than bowing down to constant pressure to comment and releasing press statements that bring the integrity of the game into question.
We all see it different because we are all different.
i knew you wouldn't give an opinion on the TMO!But I did like your close analysis of the Sam Cane written judgement (in the other thread)
I thought the judgement was well written in that it did a pretty good job of justifying what was actually a fairly marginal decision. ... especially by the standards adopted in the second half of the competition. [i don't see that as the worst tackle to happen after 28 Sept, but it was the only one that got a RC. And it could have gone the other way, mitigated by late change of direction]
If you are correct (which I doubt) then what else occurred in the game that he saw and should have brought to the attention of the ref but choose not to because he felt he was the sole arbiter of the “game’s integrity“?
you mean were there other incidents where he should have over-ruled the protocol in order to highlight an offence?
I don't recall any - I think this was the only one that hinged on protocol.
Neither do I but neither of us had the benefit of multi screen, multi angles etc.
The issue I was trying to highlight was the absurdity of inferring his call was designed to preserve the integrity of the game
Why is that absurd?
I mean it may be wrong, perhaps he did forget all about the protocol, but why is the idea of breaking protocol to highlight an actual forward pass in the run up to an actual try... absurd?
I remember when Craig Joubert made his big mistake at the RWC , the consensus was that he and the TMO should have found a way to overcome the protocol (at the time) that prevented the TMO from correcting the obvious mistake...
Last edited:
Dickie E
Referees in Australia
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2007
- Messages
- 14,132
- Post Likes
- 2,153
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 2
Indeed. Maybe Safety, Equity, Law applies to TMOs too.
didds
Resident Club Coach
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2004
- Messages
- 12,067
- Post Likes
- 1,797
FTFY ;-)
Stu10
Referees in England
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2020
- Messages
- 883
- Post Likes
- 478
- Current Referee grade:
- Level 15 - 11
Is overruling/ignoring the written and agreed TMO protocol a demonstration of integrity?
This is giving me flashbacks to the 2021 F1 final race in Abu Dhabi when the race director decided to do what he felt was right for the spectacle rather than follow the rule book.
In both instances, one team is happy with the outcome and the other isn't. In both instances, I feel for the the team that lost because the rule book was thrown out the window.
This is giving me flashbacks to the 2021 F1 final race in Abu Dhabi when the race director decided to do what he felt was right for the spectacle rather than follow the rule book.
In both instances, one team is happy with the outcome and the other isn't. In both instances, I feel for the the team that lost because the rule book was thrown out the window.