TMO Ruling suggestion

[Videoman]

I understand that the TMO, under current law, cannot be referred to for every single penalty decision by the referee, as this would dramatically slow the game down BUT why can't they work it like they do in cricket, where each team has a maximum of 2 "Penalty TMO referrals" per game ... this would then force the referee to check upstairs and in so doing leave no side hardly done by, not to mention the poor ref having to run for his life after the final whistle and being barred from a country for life LOL

 

[PacDuran]

There should be something totally different. Either:

1) We should scrap the TMO system totally and allow the ref to ref the game and ask only for TMO referral to check grounding of the ball.

2) There should be 3 TMO's constantly reviewing footage in breaks of play who are able to give immediate on the spot advice to the ref, and each team's captain is allowed 1 referral request.

 

[smartcooky]

I haven't voted for either because I don't like either of them (needed to have 3. Other (specify) on the Poll

Something has to change, but challenges is not the way to go IMO. I believe that the best option would be an extension of the "check-check" TMO protocol


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 not 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.

 

[ABs2011]

You just have to be SO careful with this thing cause the potential for teams to game the system (if a challenge type system is developed) and/or the disruption to the game if refs have the ability to refer more stuff could be extremely damaging to the game.

I actually really like how things are going now. What happened to Scotland sucks, but the reality is, no matter what you do, no matter how many things are reviewable, mistakes will always be made. Therefore any strive for the prefect system will fail and most probably be detrimental to the game.

The ONLY thing I think could be a possibility is an extension of things the ref can refer to the TMO which would come into effect in the last 5 minutes of a game only - an potentially only when the game is within one score.

For me Rugby is so complicated a game that we just need to accept that mistakes will be made and in the long run, hopefuly teams will all be affected equally.

EDIT: Like the above Smartcocky suggestion - perhaps the best option.

 

[magicaljw93]

Rugby Union has got itself into a horrible, horrible mess with the TMO. I would suggest that it's time to stop digging a deeper hole.

In theory, there is no reason for penalties not to be looked at by the TMO. If you can review the lead-up to a try with the TMO, why not penalties? Both can lead to points, they're not necessarily the scoring act, so if one can be reviewed, the other should be as well. If acts of "foul play" can be reviewed, including deliberate knock-ons, there is no logical reason to prevent standard penalties being looked at either.

However, the problem with the above is that in the end you can conclude that everything can be looked at by the TMO. It's neither practical nor in the interests of the game to attempt that. The logical issues with the current TMO protocols show how badly that will end. We get more decisions right is usually the argument used by those in favour of increased TMO usage. Yes, you do but it's never enough. Perfection is what is being misguidedly sought here. It's time to return to establishing clear factual decisions (grounding, successful kicks) with the TMO and allow an intervention if an act of foul play is worthy of a red card. Unfortunately, you're simply going to have live with the rest if you still want a game.

If you allow to penalties to be reviewed, one day someone will ask "what about the pass in the previous phase that was forward"? What about the penalty that was missed? Does the referee stop the game if he has a possible penalty for a ruck infringement? You can only imagine if the referee wants to look at a scrum to check that he hasn't missed something. It's a never-ending process. A process in which I think it's time to stop digging.

 

[Tony Manx]

Rugby Union has got itself into a horrible, horrible mess with the TMO. I would suggest that it's time to stop digging a deeper hole.

In theory, there is no reason for penalties not to be looked at by the TMO. If you can review the lead-up to a try with the TMO, why not penalties? Both can lead to points, they're not necessarily the scoring act, so if one can be reviewed, the other should be as well. If acts of "foul play" can be reviewed, including deliberate knock-ons, there is no logical reason to prevent standard penalties being looked at either.

However, the problem with the above is that in the end you can conclude that everything can be looked at by the TMO. It's neither practical nor in the interests of the game to attempt that. The logical issues with the current TMO protocols show how badly that will end. We get more decisions right is usually the argument used by those in favour of increased TMO usage. Yes, you do but it's never enough. Perfection is what is being misguidedly sought here. It's time to return to establishing clear factual decisions (grounding, successful kicks) with the TMO and allow an intervention if an act of foul play is worthy of a red card. Unfortunately, you're simply going to have live with the rest if you still want a game.

If you allow to penalties to be reviewed, one day someone will ask "what about the pass in the previous phase that was forward"? What about the penalty that was missed? Does the referee stop the game if he has a possible penalty for a ruck infringement? You can only imagine if the referee wants to look at a scrum to check that he hasn't missed something. It's a never-ending process. A process in which I think it's time to stop digging.

Exactly!

The only other two things I would suggest are that communications are improved as the crowd noise seems to drown the conversation and there instances where even the TMO decisions are equally contentious!!

 

[austingtir]

I think penalities should be ignored unless within the last 10 minutes of the game. Because that last 10 minutes is just critical to get right in a tight game decided by 3 points. In most cases in the last 10 teams will only get one or two chances for a penalty at most.

But it does open a can of worms as you can just see teams pushing the reff to check every damn thing.

It kinda would probably be more of an advantage to the team behind or the team that doesnt infringe as much aswell. Dunno if thats a bad thing or not.

I reckon 1 review for each team within the last 10 minutes only. As if your not withing shooting distance at 10 minutes to go you probably didnt deserve it anyway.

 

[smartcooky]

If you allow to penalties to be reviewed, one day someone will ask "what about the pass in the previous phase that was forward"? What about the penalty that was missed? Does the referee stop the game if he has a possible penalty for a ruck infringement? You can only imagine if the referee wants to look at a scrum to check that he hasn't missed something. It's a never-ending process. A process in which I think it's time to stop digging.

I say no to that, unless they opt for a shot at goal. 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. 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 committs a howler right in front of the posts 40m out, the wrongly-penalsied team cannot defend the shot at goal.

Also on the point in your post that I have higlighted, the AR can call in at any time on those things, so why not accept that the TMO, an exta pair of eyes, can also call in? Change his name to the VAR, Video Assistant Referee since that would more accurately describe his role.

 

[Videoman]

I still don't know why the suggestion of a "2 referrals per game" would not work to resolve this issue ... why would it be any different to the similar team referral system in cricket? IMHO any of the previous suggestions mentioned above would be way too complicated and confusing to the average bloke simply watching a game of rugby.