What do TMO's actually see and what can they say?

[The umpire]

Just finished watching the Osprey's v Treviso and apart form the general performance of the man with the whistle, the most surprising thing was the try awarded by the TMO.
O's attck and winger is pushed into touch just before the corner flag, momentum and the wet surface allow to plough on, taking out the flag and stop several yards behind the goal line. Treviso, for some reason, pick up the ball and throw it in from where it stopped - in the in-goal area. Their receiver messes up the kick and hits it straight to an Osprey who is standing with one foot in touch just short of the goal line. He catches it and drops to the ground over the line, claiming the score. Ref asks AR are you happy with the LO, he says Yes so we go upstairs - Try or No Try?. All of this was clear on the replay yet the TMO says "You may award the try!"
OK, the grounding was good, but is the TMO not allowed to say - he was in touch when he caught it, half a second before, or the original QT was incorrect and we should go back for a 5m LO?

Baffled?
If I can find a clip I'll post the link.

 

[crossref]

I have said it before and will say again..

1 The TMO should be much less bound by protocol and more able to reveal what he actually sees

2 the referee and TMO should be able to converse candidly and unheard by the tv

Of course this would mean trusting them more....

 

[The umpire]

very brief video here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jzaomlTty-0#t=39s

 

[OB..]

The clip does not show the first part of the incident, but the throw-in was from the wrong place anyway. Presumably the referee was playing advantage.

The TMO can comment if the player was in touch when attempting to ground the ball. In the clip the player had actually stepped back into play before grounding, so technically it was outside the TMO's remit, though I am not sure about the current extended remit in this game.

 

[Taff]

.... OK, the grounding was good, but is the TMO not allowed to say - he was in touch when he caught it, half a second before, or the original QT was incorrect and we should go back for a 5m LO? Baffled?

You weren't the only one baffled. They must have replayed it 5 or 6 times while both commentators went through it step by step to try to make sense of it all. Even then, I'm not sure they managed it. It's bound to be on Scrum V later.

I have said it before and will say again. 1 The TMO should be much less bound by protocol and more able to reveal what he actually sees. 2 the referee and TMO should be able to converse candidly and unheard by the tv. Of course this would mean trusting them more....

Exactly. For some reason people seem obsessed with protocol and formalities and tying themselves up in knots when there's just no need. Why not just let the officials quietly get on with the job of getting it right without the spectators and commentators listening in and wringing their hands about "protocols" wondering whether he could give a straight answer to a question that wasn't asked.

IMO, if he wanted to the Referee should be free to just say "What the hell happened there mate? This ones's for you to sort out." and if he wanted to the TMO should have been allowed to say (again off microphone) "Difficult one mate. It's not a try. Firstly the QTI was from the wrong place, and even if it was good, the Ospreys man was in touch when he caught the ball anyway. If you want my advice, disallow the QTI and go with the standard LO. And you owe me a pint Dudley."

All done and dusted in less than 15 seconds and no dramas or controversy.

 

[uncle fester]

http://www.rugbydump.com/2013/04/3138/midweek-madness-ben-john-scores-a-bizarre-ospreys-try

For starters, it's a bizarre application of law 22.4g

(g)

Player in touch or touch-in-goal. If an attacking player is in touch or in touch-in-goal, the player can score a try by grounding the ball in the opponents’ in-goal provided the player is not carrying the ball.

It's intended to apply to a player running into the in goal area to ground a ball already on the ground.

 

[Taff]

For starters, it's a bizarre application of law 22.4g It's intended to apply to a player running into the in goal area to ground a ball already on the ground.

That law applies if the ball is loose in-goal. Ie a player in touch can quite legally "dab" the ball down without picking it up or holding it. In the OP, the Osprey player actually held the ball while in touch - and you can't do that.

 

[uncle fester]

That law applies if the ball is loose in-goal. Ie a player in touch can quite legally "dab" the ball down without picking it up or holding it. In the OP, the Osprey player actually held the ball while in touch - and you can't do that.

That's my reading of it too.

 

[SilverMoon]

Isn't it the case that the TMO in teh RABO can only rule on a player being in touch in the act of grounding the ball. In this case it is the touch judge's call. It's a stupid outcome but I suspect the TMO got it right and on field match officials got it badly wrong. Would not happen under the TMO trial in the Aviva Premiership.

 

[Rassie]

Ok this is for clear or decisions the TMO knows what to look for. But as I showed in the other thread things can look good on video and even with the replay to the untrained eye.