• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

TMO review

Cruz_del_Sur

First XV
TRF Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2011
Messages
3,667
Country Flag
Argentina
Club or Nation
CASI
Just read this:

World Rugby CEO Brett Gosper said that the organisation believes TMOs are too heavily relied upon.

'The feeling in the room is that we would like referees, themselves, to take a bit more control. That's something that we are going to work through.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/world-rugby-could-limit-tmo-use/

Not sure i agree to be honest. People got used to this reliance and it's associated "accuracy". Making less use of TMOs will inevitably lead, one way or another, to more mistakes.
I don't think fans will be ok with that.
 
Just read this:

World Rugby CEO Brett Gosper said that the organisation believes TMOs are too heavily relied upon.

'The feeling in the room is that we would like referees, themselves, to take a bit more control. That's something that we are going to work through.

http://www.sarugbymag.co.za/world-rugby-could-limit-tmo-use/

Not sure i agree to be honest. People got used to this reliance and it's associated "accuracy". Making less use of TMOs will inevitably lead, one way or another, to more mistakes.
I don't think fans will be ok with that.
There were 11 minutes of dead time per half in the last match of the Ireland series.

Thats 22 minutes of fans sitting there wondering what the **** is going on whilst most of the fans at home have switched channels. Not to mention the anti-climax of a try being scored only to be reviewed for 3 minutes. Talk about blue balls.

TMOs ****** yo. A quick review for grounding or concurrent (as in, the game doesn't stop) reviewing of potential dangerous play only. For the rest, there will always be errors. It's rugby. It's part of the game.

Any attempt to reduce errors inevitably affects the flow of the game which affects the viewer experience.

Plus, even with the benefit of the TMO we still get clangers every other week. What's the point?
 
1) dead time doesn't just include TMO review time
2) How does that compare to the average game? Just asking, i do not know.
3) I don't think people switch channels during TMO reviews. I actually think if not abused, they could actually add to the climax.

I do agree with you that they have taken it to a ridiculous level now. I still do not understand why don't they implement something along the lines of tennis' hawk eye.
That would give each team a # of reviews and it would make the team (and not the ref) decide how and when to use those (important: if they get the call right they keep the number of TMO reviews).
It makes more sense since it places the burden on the interested party. You would only go to the TMO if you are quite sure the ref got it wrong.
You can only challenge penalty offenses and plays that end up in a (potential) try.

Let the guy upstairs focus on foul play for the rest of the game (that's the only thing they should contact the ref for).
 
I have no problem with how often the TMO is called upon, I have an issue with how long it takes to make a decision. Particularly hate that Kiwi TMO who speaks extremely slowly and has to repeat everything said very slowly. TMO can be fixed by:

1) If there is a view that shows conclusively the answer to what was asked, don't waste time looking at a load of extra angles. Once you can see the answer, tell the ref.

2) Set a time limit for the TMO to make a decision (say 1 minute, same as for a kick). Work on the basis of something being clear and obvious. If the TMO cannot see anything clear enough to conclusively make a decision, advise the ref and let them make the final call.

3) In cases of serious foul play, allow the TMO to take as long as required to determine if there has been foul play.
 
I have no problem with how often the TMO is called upon, I have an issue with how long it takes to make a decision. Particularly hate that Kiwi TMO who speaks extremely slowly and has to repeat everything said very slowly. TMO can be fixed by:

1) If there is a view that shows conclusively the answer to what was asked, don't waste time looking at a load of extra angles. Once you can see the answer, tell the ref.

2) Set a time limit for the TMO to make a decision (say 1 minute, same as for a kick). Work on the basis of something being clear and obvious. If the TMO cannot see anything clear enough to conclusively make a decision, advise the ref and let them make the final call.

3) In cases of serious foul play, allow the TMO to take as long as required to determine if there has been foul play.
Besides the 1 minute limit this is exactly what happens already...

revolutionary.

I think there is a very large cultural difference between North and South. The North seem to really enjoy the technical elements of the game. Whereas, save for the diehards, no one in the South gives a f*** and so the drawn out analysis of the minutiae bore us.

As the North ostensibly control rugby i don't see it changing and indeed the game has become more technical over time, hence waning interest down South. Neither Super semi-finals were even close to sell outs.
 
I have no problem with how often the TMO is called upon, I have an issue with how long it takes to make a decision. Particularly hate that Kiwi TMO who speaks extremely slowly and has to repeat everything said very slowly. TMO can be fixed by:

1) If there is a view that shows conclusively the answer to what was asked, don't waste time looking at a load of extra angles. Once you can see the answer, tell the ref.

2) Set a time limit for the TMO to make a decision (say 1 minute, same as for a kick). Work on the basis of something being clear and obvious. If the TMO cannot see anything clear enough to conclusively make a decision, advise the ref and let them make the final call.

3) In cases of serious foul play, allow the TMO to take as long as required to determine if there has been foul play.

I'd add to that

4) In the event of a possible try, the referee doesn't not stop to ask for the TMO, he calls "try" or "no-try". The play carries on as if the referee has made the correct call. The TMO reviews all scores and potential scores privately in his booth, and he either informs the referee if he was right, or makes the "check check" call if he was wrong. At that point, play is halted and the review takes place. This way, only likely incorrect decisions are reviewed.

5) The TMO should have the same ability to call in during live play that AR's do, for example, offsides, forward passes, knock ons etc, not a review, but just a call in the way we see ARs call in.

6) The TMO should retain the ability to call in foul play that the referee or ARs have missed. All potential Red Cards should be subject to video review before the player is sent off to make sure that the decision is correct and the correct player has been identified.
 
smartcooky, that looks like an expansion of the TMO's role...?
 
Besides the 1 minute limit this is exactly what happens already...

revolutionary.

I think there is a very large cultural difference between North and South. The North seem to really enjoy the technical elements of the game. Whereas, save for the diehards, no one in the South gives a f*** and so the drawn out analysis of the minutiae bore us.

As the North ostensibly control rugby i don't see it changing and indeed the game has become more technical over time, hence waning interest down South. Neither Super semi-finals were even close to sell outs.

It actually isn't and the idea is to make it work, not revolutionise it. The biggest complain with the TMO is how long it takes for them to make even an obvious decision and the obsession with micro-analysing. That's what I therefore addressed.
 
smartcooky, that looks like an expansion of the TMO's role...?


More is less

4. The game carries on UNLESS the TMO finds that the referee has it wrong, and we use the same criteria that we use in the current protocol; the TMO must find clear and obvious evidence that the referee is wrong. If its not C&O, then the TMO says nothing.

a. in the event of a try being scored and awarded its "dead time" anyway because the kicker has 90 seconds in which to take the conversion.

b. In the case of a try disallowed due to a knock on in, or into in-goal or a held up in-goal call, the next play will be a scrum, so its "dead time" anyway until the scrum is set and fed.

That existing "dead time" could be used by the TMO without delaying the game. This would lead to a significant reduction in further "dead time" due to less reviews.

5. It seems logical to me to have the TMO have the same abilities as an AR. He's frequently in a better position that any of the other three match officials because of his elevated position. Why would you want to cripple the match official in the best position to see by having him remain silent?

6. The TMO already had the ability to call in foul play, so no expansion there

Overall, there would be a slight expansion of his role, but importantly, far less intrusion into the game. Its all very well to say we want the referee in the middle to be making more of the decisions. but don't we still want his incorrect decisions to be caught and corrected?
 
Last edited:
I'd add to that

4) In the event of a possible try, the referee doesn't not stop to ask for the TMO, he calls "try" or "no-try". The play carries on as if the referee has made the correct call. The TMO reviews all scores and potential scores privately in his booth, and he either informs the referee if he was right, or makes the "check check" call if he was wrong. At that point, play is halted and the review takes place. This way, only likely incorrect decisions are reviewed.

5) The TMO should have the same ability to call in during live play that AR's do, for example, offsides, forward passes, knock ons etc, not a review, but just a call in the way we see ARs call in.

6) The TMO should retain the ability to call in foul play that the referee or ARs have missed. All potential Red Cards should be subject to video review before the player is sent off to make sure that the decision is correct and the correct player has been identified.

You're 4 & 5 were how TMO worked during craven week. I don't believe 6 was ever needed.
 
You're 4 & 5 were how TMO worked during craven week. I don't believe 6 was ever needed.

You believe players who commit off-the-ball foul play (undetected by the referee and ARs) should be allowed to get away with it even if the TMO sees them?
 
You believe players who commit off-the-ball foul play (undetected by the referee and ARs) should be allowed to get away with it even if the TMO sees them?
If the moment to punish them has come and gone, they should just get cited and subsequently banned.

The flow of the game at the moment is atrocious.
 
If the moment to punish them has come and gone, they should just get cited and subsequently banned.

The flow of the game at the moment is atrocious.

And what about if that foul play is material to the game, e.g.

a supporting player taken out, who, in the opinion of the TMO, would probably have scored a try.
a potential tackler obstructed who could have prevented a try being scored

You would like these infringements to go unpunished, and the infringing side rewarded for their cheating?
 
And what about if that foul play is material to the game, e.g.

a supporting player taken out, who, in the opinion of the TMO, would probably have scored a try.
a potential tackler obstructed who could have prevented a try being scored

You would like these infringements to go unpunished, and the infringing side rewarded for their cheating?
If the review occurs a short time after the infringement then that's fine. I think anything more than a few phases and it should pass the threshold.

Under the current rules, the TMO can review any potential foul play prior to a try. So if there was an incident 20 phases prior to the scoring of the try the whole game can be wound back, which is just ridiculous. I think the cut off should be several phases and if it's missed by then the player gets cited.
 
You believe players who commit off-the-ball foul play (undetected by the referee and ARs) should be allowed to get away with it even if the TMO sees them?

I guess I included your first part of 6 with number 5 because it's essentially the same thing. We didn't have any red card reviews I believe. We did have TMO call in foul play as well as other calls.
 
If the review occurs a short time after the infringement then that's fine. I think anything more than a few phases and it should pass the threshold.

Oh, I agree with this... I think we had our wires crossed.

Currently, the TMO cannot call in any kind of infringements (except for foul play which could lead to a Card, e.g. punches, tip-tackles, eye-gouging, etc) or in the led up to a try ( which is always reviewed).

What I would want to see is for him to have the same powers as the AR to call in these infringements. As with ARs, these call-ins would not lead to a review, e.g.

"Red 13 offside in midfield"
"Blue 12 holding opponent without the ball"
"White 9 knock-forward at the ruck"
etc.
 

Latest posts

Top