- Nov 16, 2014
- Reaction score
- Country Flag
- Club or Nation
Hmmm this is designed to address the particular scenario and it does that, but I don't believe it avoids others. Taken to stupid absurdity say Aus had been trailing by 4 instead of 2? The same things happens, but Aus have to kick for the corner to gain the points required. They set the maul and score the try. You've stated that you think its defensible, based on Scotland's performance it pretty much wasn't!The TMO could deal with this type of incident without any interruption to the game if nothing is wrong, i.e. if the referee hasn't made a mistake.
I posted about this in another thread which I cannot find now, and at rugbyrefs, which I can find. This what I said there...
[TEXTAREA]The TMO keeps eyes the game as usual, and as soon as a the referee awards a PK, the TMO starts to review the play.
1. If the non-offending team opt not to kick at goal, the TMO stops looking.
2. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal, and the TMO finds nothing, he says nothing.
3. If the non-offending team do opt to kick at goal and the TMO finds something he wants to look at again, he calls "check-check" to the referee, and the referee calls time off. The TMO reviews the play and relays his decision to the referee, who will either continue as before, or cancel the penalty decision and give the correct one.
The game is then stopped anyway while the tee is brought on and the kicker prepares to kick, so why not utilise the time to look. [/TEXTAREA]
Doing it this way means the game is only held up if the referee makes an incorrect decision, and the TMO spots it.
My argument for restricting it only to penalties where the non-penalised team opts for poles is simple. If an incorrect penalty is given and the non-penalised team takes a scrum or kicks for touch, at least the wrongly-penalised team has chance to defend whatever happens next. However, if the referee commits a howler right in front of the posts 40m out, the wrongly-penalised team cannot defend the shot at goal.
I see this more as an extension to the AR system. Currently, either AR can call in at any time on this stuff, so why not accept that the TMO, an extra pair of eyes, can also call in? Change his name to the VAR, Video Assistant Referee since that would more accurately describe his role.
A wrong decision that confers advantage is a wrong decision regardless of the outcome.
For me I'm entirely happy with a situation where a human referee on the pitch carries primacy regardless of the "wrongness" of any decision. That's where World Rugby have screwed this for me. Once a decision has been made by a referee to the best of their ability it is "right". Joubert is not a cheat. He's not called it wrong on purpose. He's a man doing a difficult job. That's how sport is. In my view it is literally impossible to ref a RU game correctly. Are you really going to look at where McCaw starts at every breakdown? Are you really going to look each time a Welsh players flaps about on the floor pretending to get out of the way? Are you going to check to see if Stuart Hogg is actually being fouled or acting like a massive Jessie? Are you going to check if Owen Farrell has bothered to use his arms in every tackle? The cumulative effects of minor infractions is massive. The best play at or over the line pretty much all the time. Rugby Union ain't black and white. It's like 10,000 shades of grey, but without any shagging. Well mostly.