Is the TMO no longer required?

[Muttonbird]

The game of rugby is always changing, evolving, as it tries to cement it's place in popularity worldwide. It's not a perfect game I know, and the IRB is always tinkering with the laws. These laws are tinkered with after discussions with all the interested parties and heavily trialed at lower levels if I'm not mistaken.

One thing I've noticed is, with the availability of ever-updated and new technology, the laws around the TMO and the use of the TMO are often not so much driven by the IRB after consultation and trial but can be instantly changed by individual referees setting precedents during big matches with no warning whatsoever. These changes are introduced by stealth and once introduced are seemingly very difficult to reverse.

One example was the Cowan no-try at Port Elizabeth in 2011 when the TMO Johann van Meuwesen broke from protocol by offering information about a forward pass in the field of play from Dagg. Clancy wasn't strong enough to ignore it and as far as I know he wasn't allowed to rule from the big screen at that time.

It struck me watching Nigel Owens today how far we have come! In 2011 the TMO's word became sacrosanct, but today in Johannesburg the on field referee can rule off the big screen and deliberately influence and interrupt the TMO who is no doubt put in place to make exactly the sort of call the referee missed in the first place. Today, Owens took it upon himself to rule the Louw pass to Habana "flat".

This is the sort of change-by-stealth I referred to before and it now begs the question: Is the TMO no longer required?

 

[Dan54]

Owens was dead right, he can rule on what he sees on screen , I believe the laws were changed this year to allow it, but he can also ask the tmo for advice as tmo is able to replay different angles etc. Don't forget tmo stands for television match official, not referee, so is only meant to give advice when needed!

 

[Sully]

Someone has to press rewind on the VCR

 

[cyclopath]

Watching how Owens, and Barnes thus far in this game, have used the TMO, I am happy to see the changes.
I have no problem with it at all.

 

[No4918]

Some instances will still be great to have a TMO. For example, watching replays of Battleships tackle on Carter.. A few years ago replays of such incidents were not shown, I assume so as not to rile crowds up, this seems to have changed.

 

[hughbert]

Most screens at most big rugby venues are not sufficiently high definition at the distance from which the ref can view them to make the very tight line calls (Cueto 2007 RWC). The issue you then have is that Joe Slapdick at home can see detail that the refs can't. Imagine the howling from fans then when a line call goes against them?

It's relatively trivial to set up the required monitor in the booth at each stadium so the TMO has the best possible footage available to him.

 

[Muttonbird]

It just looked and sounded so amatuer. Owens looking up at the screen and talking over the top of the TMO for us all to hear. He was almost challenging the TMO on three occasions: the second Habana try, the Nonu non-try, and The Beast shoulder charge to Richie's head.

There'll be trouble with this new development unless the IRB tighten up the rules.

 

[Muttonbird]

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugby...-screen-to-rule-after-irb-protocol-amendment/

Turns out Owens didn't take the Law into his own hands as there was a directive on the morning of round 3 before the Hamilton and Brisbane games telling the refs they could use the big screen for all reviews. Not much of a briefing and it has showed. Poite didn't use it a week later and Owens got it wrong twice when he used it.

 

[ChargerWA]

He was almost challenging the TMO on three occasions: the second Habana try, the Nonu non-try, and The Beast shoulder charge to Richie's head.

There'll be trouble with this new development unless the IRB tighten up the rules.

So basically 3 things went against the AB's as you see it, so the system is broken.

 

[wamberal]

Someone has to press rewind on the VCR

Actually I think there are genuine issues to do with the placement of the cameras, and the visual errors (maybe illusions) that can transpire, depending on where a camera is placed when ruling on, for example, a forward pass. Apart from anything else, life exists in three dimensions, on a flat screen it only exists in two dimensions, which can create misleading effects.

 

[Muttonbird]

So a week and a bit has passed since Ellis Pork and Nigel Owens has been interviewed by Oprah about his role in "the-greatest-game-on-earth" and I'm still nonplussed about his use of the big-screen for decisions.

I think what annoys me most is the IRB announcing this change of policy via twitter on the morning of international matches (round three) upon which the changes were to be applied. The RC is not an experimental comp!

This is a major change to the process as far as I'm concerned but because rugby laws are changed more often than posters' underpants, it's another change that has been buried because of familiarity.

 

[Bullrush]

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugby...-screen-to-rule-after-irb-protocol-amendment/

Turns out Owens didn't take the Law into his own hands as there was a directive on the morning of round 3 before the Hamilton and Brisbane games telling the refs they could use the big screen for all reviews. Not much of a briefing and it has showed. Poite didn't use it a week later and Owens got it wrong twice when he used it.

You must be kidding Muttonbird. Got it wrong twice?

Habana try - correct.
Nonu non-try - correct.
McCaw shoulder charge - debatable.

C'mon bro.....you're kidding yourself if you think Poite's use (or non-use) of the TMO has been better than Owen's?!

 

[Dam0]

All three of the decisions that are in issue in this thread were correctly decided. The only one where there might be an argument was in Beast's shoulder charge which could have gone either way.

I think if one was going to make an argument that the big screen TMO policy isn't working then one might be advised to find an example where a decision was made incorrectly.

 

[Braveheart81]

At the end of the day, the referee on the field is the number one official. The TMO and the two assistants are both there to support him.

I think it's a good step that the on field referee can use the replay screen. Much of the time all that is required is a second look at what happened and it doesn't require 20 replays from different angles and a TMO with a law book in front of them to decipher a complex ruling.

I would much prefer the main referee to take ownership of decisions where possible and use the technology to help them arrive at what they believe is the correct decision.

I think this is particularly good for incidents of foul play. That should create better balance between decisions because the same referee is mostly making them with the benefit of seeing a replay. It is great for the assistant referee to put their flag out and suggest that an incident happened and what their thoughts are on it but I like that the on field referee can take a quick look at the replay on the big screen and make a final ruling on how they saw it.

 

[D-Box]

Is there place for the on field Ref to have access to a TV on the try lines for the scoreing desicions NFL style? It's not like it will slow the game down anymore than the TMO doing it. You could even make it a decent size tablet that gets run to the ref when requested.

 

[Rob42]

Is there place for the on field Ref to have access to a TV on the try lines for the scoreing desicions NFL style? It's not like it will slow the game down anymore than the TMO doing it. You could even make it a decent size tablet that gets run to the ref when requested.

It's a good suggestion D-Box, for grounds where the big screen isn't big enough, but the technical difficulties give me a bad feeling.

 

[D-Box]

I would think it would be easy enough to run two hard wired TV located next to the tryline. It could be right next to the camera man who is wired up to the tv producers anyway so you wouldn't have to have the ref linked up to any more mikes. A quick jog over to check the TV, make your decision and then award the try or not is all that it would take.

 

[Baldric]

These laws are tinkered with after discussions with all the interested parties and heavily trialed at lower levels if I'm not mistaken.

This is the crux of the issue. New laws are trialled at lower levels. However the use of the TMO is not afforded this luxury because at lower level they do not have the facilities so they have to be trialled at higher levels which in some instances, depending on scheduling, could be test matches.
Unfortunate, but I cant see any other way.

 

[Mank]

http://www.sanzarrugby.com/therugby...-screen-to-rule-after-irb-protocol-amendment/

Turns out Owens didn't take the Law into his own hands as there was a directive on the morning of round 3 before the Hamilton and Brisbane games telling the refs they could use the big screen for all reviews. Not much of a briefing and it has showed. Poite didn't use it a week later and Owens got it wrong twice when he used it.

No, he didn't.

 

[Muttonbird]

No, he didn't.

I believe close inspection of the Louw pass would show it to be forward. In real time it was flat enough and that's the footage Owens based his decision on. The Beast lead with his shoulder but Owens had to be lenient given what had happened after Eden Park. He even gave Matariwa a pat on the back afterwards which was weird.

The hit on McCaw aside (because the political implications affected Owens' decision there), I would like to have seen the Louw pass go to the TMO without Owens interjecting. The Nonu non-try was inconclusive but he also pre-empted the TMO's decision.

I'll go back to the original question, if the referee is going to call off the big screen, then why have a TMO at all?