TMO Intervention RWC Final

[didds]

and FWIW once you have an acceptance that protocols and procedures can be overwritten "for the greater good" (or whatever!) then it isn't a "protocol" or "procedure" but at its best a "guideline" and really no more than a "general suggestion"

 

[crossref]

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

I don't know much about F1 or the precise details of what happened, but on the face of it that's a interesting comparison to make.

According to Wikipedia the FIA said that the race director misapplied the rules due to human error?


For the RWC .. We don't have an WR enquiry to rely on.

My guess is that TF relied on the integrity clause to override the phase count . If he did do that, and was wrong to do so, then that would be similar to the F1 incident

Your guess is that he simply forgot all about the phase count, which would be a different type of error ( and arguably a much worse one)

 

[crossref]

and FWIW once you have an acceptance that protocols and procedures can be overwritten "for the greater good" (or whatever!) then it isn't a "protocol" or "procedure" but at its best a "guideline" and really no more than a "general suggestion"

Safety / Enjoyment / Equity / Law - which is in the Law Book - gives the referee permission to override the letter of the Law

in the same way the phrase
the application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent and in doing so, contribute to maintaining the integrity of the game, while attempting to deal with the clear and obvious and 'big moments' during a game of rugby.

which is in the protocol - surely gives the TMO permission to override the letter of the protocol?

 

[Locke]

Safety / Enjoyment / Equity / Law - which is in the Law Book - gives the referee permission to override the letter of the Law

in the same way the phrase
the application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent and in doing so, contribute to maintaining the integrity of the game, while attempting to deal with the clear and obvious and 'big moments' during a game of rugby.

which is in the protocol - surely gives the TMO permission to override the letter of the protocol?

I don’t agree at all. I’ll lean on the usage of “credible and consistent” to say that if the TMO can decide how far back he or she wants to go based on a completely subjective idea of “maintaining integrity”, we will have anything but “consistency”. As didds said, in that case the protocols are nothing more than guidelines or suggestions.
If someone thinks that’s the best way to set up the system, that’s a debate to have and reasonable minds can disagree, but I think the sport and officiating is done a disservice by calling them “procedures” or “rules” or “protocols”, which indicates they must be followed by the TMO, and then adding an out clause to allow that very same person to choose a moment to ignore it completely with no oversight. We can’t have it both ways. Either the TMO is bound by protocols or the TMO has been given some “usually best practice ideas” but can do as he or she sees fit to produce the best outcome according to the brief provided.

 

[didds]

Safety / Enjoyment / Equity / Law - which is in the Law Book - gives the referee permission to override the letter of the Law

its a moot point that that is the expectation at the elite level - which is the level at debate here.
Because we constantly see "safety" not being the primary onus from various parties, and the rest is just rearranging deckchairs

 

[didds]

which is in the protocol - surely gives the TMO permission to override the letter of the protocol?

All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others?

 

[didds]

which is in the protocol - surely gives the TMO permission to override the letter of the protocol?

Or if you prefer - they make it up as they go along.

 

[crossref]

I guess eventually Tom Foley will end up on the after dinner circuit and will tell everyone what was going through his mind on the day, AND what World Rugby thought about it afterwards. And then we'll know.

 

[Stu10]

Safety / Enjoyment / Equity / Law - which is in the Law Book - gives the referee permission to override the letter of the Law

in the same way the phrase
the application of the TMO system must be credible and consistent and in doing so, contribute to maintaining the integrity of the game, while attempting to deal with the clear and obvious and 'big moments' during a game of rugby.

which is in the protocol - surely gives the TMO permission to override the letter of the protocol?

I don't think credible and consistent aligns with not following the agreed protocols based on an individual's subjective view of integrity.

 

[Dixpat]

I’m pleased and thankful to see that Crossref seems to be in a minority of one.

If more in this forum agreed with him the game would be royally f…ked!

 

[crossref]

I’m pleased and thankful to see that Crossref seems to be in a minority of one.

If more in this forum agreed with him the game would be royally f…ked!

That's a strange comment! Perhaps you could explain?

We are speculating on the reason why TF made the call he did?

We don't know, the reason, as he hasn't told us, but whatever it was I don't see why the game of rugby is royally f'd . (Although perhaps TF is !)

 

[Dixpat]

That's a strange comment! Perhaps you could explain?

We are speculating on the reason why TF made the call he did?

We don't know, the reason, as he hasn't told us, but whatever it was I don't see why the game of rugby is royally f'd . (Although perhaps TF is !)

You are the only one pushing the integrity of the game angle and inferring that the TMO is in his rights to throw an agreed protocol out the window if necessary.

It would be royally f..ked if refs took it upon themselves to ignore the laws of the game as and when they felt to do so would preserve the game’s integrity.
If that were to occur the vitriol allegedly directed at WB would in retrospect look like a verse from the good book!

 

[crossref]

You are the only one pushing the integrity of the game angle and inferring that the TMO is in his rights to throw an agreed protocol out the window if necessary.

It would be royally f..ked if refs took it upon themselves to ignore the laws of the game as and when they felt to do so would preserve the game’s integrity.
If that were to occur the vitriol allegedly directed at WB would in retrospect look like a verse from the good book!

I don't know what you mean by 'pushing' it.

I just think it's most plausible that TF decided to ignore the number of phases, based on that phrase in the protocol, (as opposed to the alternative explanations: that he miscounted the phases, or just forgot about the protocol on phases).

But we don't know.
And we don't really know for sure what WR thought about the decision.

 

[Locke]

I think crossref often has well reasoned viewpoints. I just happen to disagree with him on this one.

 

[crossref]

FWIW - I tend to think that the Stuff article was based on a real leak - ie someone in WR told Stuff that the decision was regarded as wrong.

HOWEVER - was that person well informed? is that the considered view of WR? Or was it merely one individual telling Stuff that he/she personally thought the decision was wrong? I guess one day we'll know more.

Note : yes, obviously in this post I'm speculating.