[2015 RWC] Warm Up Match: England vs Ireland (05/09/15)

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Whatever you guys say.......barritt is the No 1 no 12!!!

Not true, Farrell could post better stats at 12 than that. In fact so could slade, or Haskell stuck at 12, in fact an under 16s player could probably do better!!!

(I realise that got out of hand)

 

[Tony Manx]

I am being realistic and have incredible in sight into Lancaster's mind........Barritt is the man!!!

 

[Maverick1987]

Burgess for 12 !!!!

 

[Tony Manx]

Burgess for 12 !!!!

Might have gone for someone worth his place in the squad!!!!!

 

[TobesHodges]

Shontayne Hape?

 

[chippieolamus]

#BringBackHipkiss

 

[ratsapprentice]

Can we make a late bid to poach Rabeni?

 

[Patchey]

Henry Paul?

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Billy Twelvetrees!


Jk

LOlOlOlolololololololololololollolololol
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha

Can you imagine that.

Seriously though.

 

[Maverick1987]

Billy Twelvetrees!


Jk

LOlOlOlolololololololololololollolololol
Hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahaahahahahahhahahahahahahahhaha

Can you imagine that.

Seriously though.

Please don't I've just started thinking about sleeping now the nightmares will start again .... Rabeni though ....

 

[Maverick1987]

Can we make a late bid to poach Rabeni?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Why not the Tom Baker Dr Who at 12? We can pretend he is 12trees as they look the same...ish. A Tardis could be very helpful

 

[smartcooky]

You shouldnt be allowed to cut back that long after a trt is given....i mean its forward but its been given....

Owens explained that the TMO can intervene anytime before the kick is taken!

Not sure i agree with that ive seen trys given that never should if been and the TMO has done sod all. In this case every team can be aggrivied any time a try is given and the TMO doesnt spot it in a replay...

Tony's right and Owens' explanation was correct.

[TEXTAREA]World Rugby Television Match Official (TMO) Global Trial Protocol

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1 If, after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area (including after a try is awarded and before the conversion is struck), any of the match officials (including the TMO) have a view that there was a potential infringement, within the list of offences (see 2.3) before the ball was carried into in‐goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free‐kick, kick‐off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls.

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

Law 9.A. Scoring points
Law 10.1, 10.4. Foul play: obstruction, dangerous play, tackling a player without the ball
Law 11.1 (b, c). Offside: player in front of the kicker
Law 12, 12.1. Knock‐on or forward pass
Law 16.5 (d). Ruck: offside at the ruck – players not joining the ruck
Law 17.4 (d). Maul: offside at the maul – players not joining the maul
Law 19.5 (a, b). Player in touch
Law 19.2 (d). Lineout: quick throw
Law 22. In goal (including ball grounded by a defending player)
Law 15.5 (f, g). Double movement. [/TEXTAREA]

The TMO having the power to call in infringements is merely an extension to the right that AR's already had.

The whole idea of running the TMO protocol that way it is for the referee to manage the game as he sees it and for his ARs (and under the trial protocol, the TMO) assisting him with calling in offences/infringement that he might have missed.

IMO, this was excellent work from TMO Shaun Veldsman. He gave himself a a couple of looks before he called it in, knowing he had time to do so. Its an example if why Veldsman is among the best TMOs in the game.

@ncurd
The reason why "the TMO has done sod all" in some instances may be because he didn't think the infringement was clear and obvious


ETA:

Here is a pdf of the Global Trial Protocol

http://laws.worldrugby.org/downloads/TMO_Protocol_Aug_14_EN.pdf

 

[ncurd]

As noted smartcookie im happy if its applied consistently. The problem if this is first time I've seen a tmo bother and I think in the future being aware of it I'll see more instances of me others moaning not only why a try didn't go to the TMO. Applied consistently there's nothing wrong with it I just don't think it is.

I mean this is just an example but how was this allowed to stand with Faletu picking the ball from the scrum where he did. From the first angle and real time it's just as blatant as Tom Young pass.
https://youtu.be/WWJ0KAiaOug

Now that's an important 6 nations match a few minutes in. This weekend was a warm up match against Ireland.

Let's say Barnes is reffing NZ Vs SA in the semi final and he misses a forward pass try from SA much the same way as Poite and Owens did on Saturday. In this case the TMO does not intervene and SA end up winning by 3 points.

Who do you think will cop the blame by the NZ supporters Barnes for missing something even the highly vaunted Owen can miss or the TMO? I think you know the answer to that.

Great the system worked on Saturday but I think they'll be countless instances of it not working in the RWC. If that's the case it's better off not having it so at least it's fairly applied. Otherwise just refer every try to the TMO.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It happened in the premiership final when Sarries lost to Saints - Sarries had a Farrell try rightly disallowed after the ref had awarded it.

I don't understand on any level how you can complain that the right decision was made - you're complaining that the system is working.

The only legitimate criticism of the TMO on Saturday was how ****ing glacial he was.

 

[ncurd]

It happened in the premiership final when Sarries lost to Saints - Sarries had a Farrell try rightly disallowed after the ref had awarded it.

I don't understand on any level how you can complain that the right decision was made - you're complaining that the system is working.

The only legitimate criticism of the TMO on Saturday was how ****ing glacial he was.

My complaint isn't the right decision was made on Saturday it's that it probably won't be for much of the RWC. The fact that another instance of it happening from memory was from the season before last probably shows how often this happens in relation to the amount of times it doesn't.

So yeah no complaints about the TMO on Saturday but I'd rather we had consistency on this matter rather than luck of the draw of having a good proactive TMO. To me the TMO should only used when been referred to when the on-field ref wants to review a passed of play or there has been an instance of dangerous foul play. However on equal measure he should be checking the whole two phases of play when referred to not just what the ref told him to look at (which is what usually happens).

My complaint is more about consistency of application than anything else as I bet the next dodgy try that a ref gives for/against England won't be reviewed by the TMO.

 

[Mcfadden]

Yeah right. Wishing for referee consistency is like wishing for world peace. It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. One of my main worries is the replay system by stadium staff. It's not unusual to go to England (and a few other places) and have your teams off the ball indiscretions played over, and over, and over, and over again - yet the same standard isn't applied to the home nation. Funny that. Home advantage apparently means unfair advantage.

 

[ncurd]

Yeah right. Wishing for referee consistency is like wishing for world peace. It'd be nice, but it ain't gonna happen. One of my main worries is the replay system by stadium staff. It's not unusual to go to England (and a few other places) and have your teams off the ball indiscretions played over, and over, and over, and over again - yet the same standard isn't applied to the home nation. Funny that. Home advantage apparently means unfair advantage.

Difference here is consistency of use of application as opposed to the decision making itself, which we can certainly expect.

At the moment incidents like what happened at the weekend are rarely being reviewed when they should (regardless out of the outcome) if they consistently used the technology way more thing should be reviewed. Remember the first try was reviewed because the TMO thought something might be wrong not because he was sure (he took an age to determine if it was forward, even though it clearly was). Now if we are going to use the technology in that way TMO's should be intervening far more often than they do.

Here's the point in a nutshell if we allow TMO's (as the laws currently state) to intercede after a try is given he should be reviewing given try's probably higher than 50% of the time (very few are clean and clear cut and that figure is not including the ones the ref does review) the reality is given try's are not being reviewed anywhere close to that amount they should. Simply a TMO interceding should feel like a normal occurrence not a rarity.

 

[Lé Ddanno]

Difference here is consistency of use of application as opposed to the decision making itself, which we can certainly expect.

At the moment incidents like what happened at the weekend are rarely being reviewed when they should (regardless out of the outcome) if they consistently used the technology way more thing should be reviewed. Remember the first try was reviewed because the TMO thought something might be wrong not because he was sure (he took an age to determine if it was forward, even though it clearly was). Now if we are going to use the technology in that way TMO's should be intervening far more often than they do.

Here's the point in a nutshell if we allow TMO's (as the laws currently state) to intercede after a try is given he should be reviewing given try's probably higher than 50% of the time (very few are clean and clear cut and that figure is not including the ones the ref does review) the reality is given try's are not being reviewed anywhere close to that amount they should. Simply a TMO interceding should feel like a normal occurrence not a rarity.

I agree with the principle but it would be even more painful than the current practice of interminable scrum resets in reality.

 

[smartcooky]

It happened in the premiership final when Sarries lost to Saints - Sarries had a Farrell try rightly disallowed after the ref had awarded it.

I don't understand on any level how you can complain that the right decision was made - you're complaining that the system is working.

The only legitimate criticism of the TMO on Saturday was how ****ing glacial he was.

The TMO should see all the available angles before making a decision, and when there are four or five angles, that is always going to take some time. We have already seen examples, even before the new protocols, of TMOs rushing the job. There was a Super Rugby match (last season I think) where the TMO was asked "any I reason not to award a try", and after seeing three angles in which there was nothing clear and obvious, told the referee to award the try. Then the VTO found a fourth angle that clearly shows the try-scorer dropping the ball over the line....oops!!

For mine, I'd rather he comes to the right decision slowly than a possibly dodgy decision quickly.