TMO

[Browner]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...e-scrapped-says-Saracens-chief-executive.html

Some interesting comments in here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...-and-scrap-the-Television-Match-Official.html

£6 a pint - wtf !

 

[Ian_Cook]

I can't see it ever happening. In the "old" days that Edward Griffith longs for, television video was poor resolution and poor quality. We didn't pick up the large number of mistakes that were made by referees at vital times that cost teams matches. Not so now; video is HD 1920 x1080 pixel resolution; photographically crystal clear. Mistakes become obvious. It simply makes no sense to have millions of people at home able to see clearly while we blindfold and hamstring the referee.

I have a collection of older matches going back 30+ years and they are replete with what we would now call refereeing blunders that would almost certainly have been turned over by the TMO.

Take for example....

1. the 1987 RWC Semi final between Australia and France. There is no way on God's green earth that Serge Blanco's last gasp try in the corner would have stood had there been a TMO. He was in touch before he grounded it. Even if you could somehow argue that it was inconclusive, two passes earlier, Rodriguez knocked the ball on picking it up. With a TMO, the 1987 would have been New Zealand v Australia.

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



2. the 1973 All Black Tour of Great Britain and France. Tom Grace's last gasp try for Ireland against NZ would certainly have gone to the TMO. The referee was 15m behind the play and there is no way he could have seen the try scored from his position. The ball looked like it crossed the DBL before being grounded, so the question would have been "try or no try?". The TMO would have to see a grounding in-goal, and this is simply not visible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXjDn6l6M74



Mr Griffith would certainly choke on his noble words should his team ever lose a vital match or a Premiership because a referee makes a critical blunder that might have been fixed by the TMO. He will in all likelihood be among the first to criticise that referee for his mistake!

 

[Rushforth]

Mr Griffith would certainly choke on his noble words should his team ever lose a vital match or a Premiership because a referee makes a critical blunder that might have been fixed by the TMO. He will in all likelihood be among the first to criticise that referee for his mistake!

I fully agree that Pandora's box, once opened, will remain so.

Perhaps I am old-school - my father certainly is - but I do not believe that in the history of rugby there has been a vital match lost "because a referee makes a critical blunder". And yes, I am fully aware of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Five_Nations_Championship#Legacy

Games of rugby are won, in general, by playing the game better than the opponents. Ian_Cook, I believe that this is how the team you support wins matches, again, in general. Sometimes the teams are roughly equally good on the day. They have similar resources (financial and otherwise, from the highest level to the very lowest), and the game is tight. In such games, a single decision by the referee may determine the final result, and as a consequence also promotion/relegation issues with all the implied financial concerns of sponsorship.

I am a referee, and also a coach. As a referee, I have come across as coaches that get on my wrong side. I have come across more coaches by a factor of ten who are proud when their team wins, but respectful of my decisions both during and after the game. I don't have a TMO, obviously.

Ian_Cook, what drives you to sat that a coach would CERTAINLY choke on his "noble" words? I don't know Mr Griffith from your mother, but would you post about your mother/sister/daughter that way if she suggested that players could live without TMO decisions?

 

[Ian_Cook]

Ian_Cook, what drives you to sat that a coach would CERTAINLY choke on his "noble" words? I don't know Mr Griffith from your mother, but would you post about your mother/sister/daughter that way if she suggested that players could live without TMO decisions?

Mr Griffith isn't the Saracens coach (Mike McCall is); he isn't even the Chairman (Nigel Wray is). No, Edward Griffith is their Chief Executive.... a sodding bean counter!!

My mother, daughter and son do not put their names into the public arena, Mr Griffith does; he expresses his opinion, so he lines himself up for whatever criticism he gets, that is a fact of public life, and tough if he doesn't like it. My position is that you don't stick your head above the parapet if you don't want to be shot at.

What drives me to say to say it. Well, I've watched and read enough of Mr Griffith's constant whining about TMO decisions to get a fairly good grasp on his attitudes to the subject, ever since the Premiership Final in June when a TMO decision correctly ruled a match-winning try against his team. I venture to suggest that had the TMO decision gone his way, the silence would be devastating.

Some people want a quick decision, right or wrong and get on with the game. I want the correct decision, even if it takes additional time. Rugby is a professional game, where players & coaches earn their living. The careers of players, managers and coached depend on results.

 

[Rushforth]

Some people want a quick decision, right or wrong and get on with the game. I want the correct decision, even if it takes additional time. Rugby is a professional game, where players & coaches earn their living. The careers of players, managers and coached depend on results.

Thank you for taking the time for a well-structured and informational reply.

I personally agree that where (since) the technology exists, adding 5 or even 10 minutes to the professional game to get some "crucial decisions" right is the way to go, whether we like it or not as spectators.

That said, I - both as a spectator and as a referee, and for that matter as a coach - intensely dislike it.

My counterproposal is that referees award the try if they have no obvious reason that it was not scored. The TMO then has 30 (or 45) seconds to state "There is an element of doubt" over the radio. On this, the clock is stopped. The kicker will have 60 (or 45, or even 30) seconds to take the kick once the try is confirmed, but if it isn't then the game restarts slightly quicker than that.

 

[Dickie E]

I wonder if there were Luddites that suggested that stopwatches should continue to be used for swimmimg races instead of more modern & accurate methods.

 

[Ian_Cook]

My counterproposal is that referees award the try if they have no obvious reason that it was not scored. The TMO then has 30 (or 45) seconds to state "There is an element of doubt" over the radio. On this, the clock is stopped. The kicker will have 60 (or 45, or even 30) seconds to take the kick once the try is confirmed, but if it isn't then the game restarts slightly quicker than that.

If you've watched Aussie Rugby League (NRL) you will have seen that your suggestion is very close to what they do.

The referee makes an on-field decision; and then says "we have a try" (signalled by making a "T" with his fist and forearm) or "we have no-try" (signalled by crossing his forearms in front of his chest). He also says what he want checked, e.g. "check the grounding and possible obstruction at the second to last pass".

The Video Ref can only overturn the referee's decision if he sees clear evidence that the on-field decision is wrong. If it is inconclusive, the on field decisions stands. Also, the Video Ref's decision is final; once he is called to make a decision, it is his decision alone.

 

[4eyesbetter]

The one thing I would change about the current process in either code is to introduce a hard time limit for every review like they have in the NFL. If you've been looking at something for 90 seconds and you still don't know, it's unlikely that watching it another 63 times in ever-slower-motion is going to do any good, so proceed to whatever benefit of the doubt principle the governing body sees fit to give you.

(If only to save Ray Warren's blood pressure...)

 

[Ian_Cook]

The one thing I would change about the current process in either code is to introduce a hard time limit for every review like they have in the NFL. If you've been looking at something for 90 seconds and you still don't know, it's unlikely that watching it another 63 times in ever-slower-motion is going to do any good, so proceed to whatever benefit of the doubt principle the governing body sees fit to give you.

(If only to save Ray Warren's blood pressure...)

I agree. If you cannot decide after seeing the same replay three times, then its inconclusive.

Also, sometimes slow motion is actually worse, e.g. a marginally late tackle often looks a lot worse in slo motion than at full speed