Refereeing, officiating, and the way the game is controlled!

[smartcooky]

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

 

[ncurd]

You realize the only reason they would change it is if the majority of audiences complain about it.

They better sort it out fast if they want to attract new fans and viewers. Nothing worse than watching a Rugby game ruled by the whistle and TMO.

they will not change it during a tournament.

- - - Updated - - -

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

TBH I think this is more to do with people being blindsided by the changes. It was exactly the same after the England Ireland match but those fans seam to much calmer this time around. Once people get use to it I'm sure most will happyish.

 

[Mcfadden]

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

Valid points in terms of the proper adjudication. But a very poor tactic to take commercially. The aim of the game is to grow rugby so popularity Grows and we increase viewership. An extra 20 odd minutes of video replays by bumbling TMOs is not going to help that goal. People are just gonna think "nahhh, boring" and switch channels. Simple as that.

 

[Kiwi_]

I wish the refs themselves could just improve their own performances instead of relying on the TMO.

 

[smartcooky]

The disallowing of Matawalu's try. Now I understand that technically the decision was correct and that anytime up until the conversion attempt, a previously awarded try can be disallowed, BUT, does anyone else have concerns that bias may influence what will and won't gutted picked up? I guess I have questions here more than anything so here goes: Who decides what to put up on the big screen for the crowd to see? Are they World Rugby officials, and are they impartial? I heard the answer is yes to both so if that is the case then I guess all is good. Second, can the TMO intervene at any stage after a try has been awarded. I.e. regardless of what is shown on the big screen, can the TMO advise the ref that there is a potential problem with an awarded try and therefore stop play to get it reviewed? If that later is the case, then does this not effectively mean that every try is subject to TMO review?

OK, so let me explain this to you.

The Hawkeye system does things such as recording all the video streams from all the cameras in real time and making those streams available to replay officials immediately, as well as adding split screens and zoom features to the existing camera angles to give instant access to multiple replays

The most important thing about it though is that it takes the supply and control of game video for replay officials out of the hands of the broadcaster, and gives the TMO direct access to all the video. Hopefully, this will mean no more "home advantage" for the broadcasters who have often been guilty of unbalanced use of replays, e.g. replaying visiting team offences over and over, while ignoring home team offences.

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/sports/rugby-union

The Hawkeye TMO booth at the England v Ireland game (Shaun Veldsman on the left)


Now, even though Jaco Peyper reacted to the replay of Matawalu dropping the ball, in fact it wouldn't have mattered because the TMO would have picked it up anyway, so the try would still have been ruled out.

 

[McTallshort]

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

So Tom Woods clear out was thuggery? or the Fiji clearout on Robshaw? no thats not thuggery its just a bit of biff do you want the whole game sanatising?

 

[smartcooky]

Valid points in terms of the proper adjudication. But a very poor tactic to take commercially. The aim of the game is to grow rugby so popularity Grows and we increase viewership. An extra 20 odd minutes of video replays by bumbling TMOs is not going to help that goal. People are just gonna think "nahhh, boring" and switch channels. Simple as that.

Well, if they are too impatient to wait, then let them watch Wendyball... and that reminds me of a remark I saw on twitter this morning...

"We might moan for a minute about the extra TMO time, but football fans moan for the rest of the season about a wrong decision"

 

[Mcfadden]

I know but we need their money!

 

[smartcooky]

So Tom Woods clear out was thuggery? or the Fiji clearout on Robshaw? no thats not thuggery its just a bit of biff do you want the whole game sanatising?

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Just the illegal dangerous foul play. What Woods and the Fiji player did was unnecessary, illegal and dangerous. There are legal ways to use your macho physicality at the clean out, why not use them instead of unnecessarily endangering your opponent?

Personally, I would rather see those sorts of things result in Post Match Yellow Cards and citings (if serious enough) --- two PMYC = automatic one-match suspension. However, WR has decided at this stage to do this in game. I don't have a problem with it.

Recidivist dirty players like Bakkies Botha, Danny Grewcock and Richard Loe would have sorted out very early in their careers if the current TMO system had been in place in their time. Players have to know they are being watched from many angles by many pairs of eyes.

 

[donmcdazzle]

I turned off the tonga game cause of the stupid TMO piping up about that ruck clear out. Seriously you could find a penalty in almost every single ruck if you looked for it hard enough. Then he doesn't bother to say anything when Tonga pulled the line out move! That warranted a look way more than some 50/50 clear out which had no real impact on the game while the other one was a potential try scoring movement! Ridiculous! Hey need to tell the TMOs to shut up and get out of it.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Just the illegal dangerous foul play. What Woods and the Fiji player did was unnecessary, illegal and dangerous. There are legal ways to use your macho physicality at the clean out, why not use them instead of unnecessarily endangering your opponent?

Personally, I would rather see those sorts of things result in Post Match Yellow Cards and citings (if serious enough) --- two PMYC = automatic one-match suspension. However, WR has decided at this stage to do this in game. I don't have a problem with it.

Recidivist dirty players like Bakkies Botha, Danny Grewcock and Richard Loe would have sorted out very early in their careers if the current TMO system had been in place in their time. Players have to know they are being watched from many angles by many pairs of eyes.

They were not thuggery at all. Woods was a tad over zealous but it didn't have any impact and was hardly dangerous. The Fijian clean out was a nothing event either. It will ruin the game if they chime in and make the refs go back to check all the time. They should only speak up uninvited if it's something egregious or foul okay. Those were neither

 

[The Jones Boy]

There was nothing wrong with either clear out, the game is descending into foppery if you can't stop a cheating opponent from interfering with the ball 18 inches above the ground by blasting him outta there.

 

[McTallshort]

No No Jones boy we need to go back to every ruck and see if anyone broke a finger nail by constantly looking at 20 different camera angles.

 

[The Jones Boy]

100 minutes?
Thats retarded.
If you can't do the job quickly and correctly then forget about it.

- - - Updated - - -

No No Jones boy we need to go back to every ruck and see if anyone broke a finger nail by constantly looking at 20 different camera angles.

Ah yes of course, what was I thinking....

 

[optimuswolf]

So Tom Woods clear out was thuggery? or the Fiji clearout on Robshaw? no thats not thuggery its just a bit of biff do you want the whole game sanatising?

Spot on. It has been a near on a disaster so far for the game as a spectacle. Just when the laws of the game looked balanced to deliver entertaining play in forwards and backs.

 

[Car]

Valid points in terms of the proper adjudication. But a very poor tactic to take commercially. The aim of the game is to grow rugby so popularity Grows and we increase viewership. An extra 20 odd minutes of video replays by bumbling TMOs is not going to help that goal. People are just gonna think "nahhh, boring" and switch channels. Simple as that.

In a German forum I'm active in, one guy who wanted to give rugby a chance said there are too many stoppages for him and there's a TMO debate already. What's the point of having 26 matches on TV (much more than ever before and more than previously announced) and streaming all of them online when interested newbies are turned off like that? Most people won't even give rugby a chance, so that really is bad for people who tune in for the first time?

 

[austingtir]

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

I generally agree BUT the problem is we know the reffs and TMO's are still making major mistakes. The changes they've made are not going to change that.

And theres nothing wrong with a bit of mild thuggery.^_^ Eliminating it entirely is just ridiculous.

 

[ABs2015]

OK, so let me explain this to you.

The Hawkeye system does things such as recording all the video streams from all the cameras in real time and making those streams available to replay officials immediately, as well as adding split screens and zoom features to the existing camera angles to give instant access to multiple replays

The most important thing about it though is that it takes the supply and control of game video for replay officials out of the hands of the broadcaster, and gives the TMO direct access to all the video. Hopefully, this will mean no more "home advantage" for the broadcasters who have often been guilty of unbalanced use of replays, e.g. replaying visiting team offences over and over, while ignoring home team offences.

http://www.hawkeyeinnovations.co.uk/sports/rugby-union

The Hawkeye TMO booth at the England v Ireland game (Shaun Veldsman on the left)


Now, even though Jaco Peyper reacted to the replay of Matawalu dropping the ball, in fact it wouldn't have mattered because the TMO would have picked it up anyway, so the try would still have been ruled out.

Thanks for that, I'm glad it is all neutral, that was my main concern and you have confirmed what I had heard on the radio which was that it will all be done by neutral officials.

 

[austingtir]

Thanks for that, I'm glad it is all neutral, that was my main concern and you have confirmed what I had heard on the radio which was that it will all be done by neutral officials.

Yep agreed thats actually really good for the game as there have been a few instances of outrageous bias going on in the last few years.

 

[ABs2015]

I have absolutely no problem at all, with a game going for 100 minutes if that is what it takes to

1. Get the RIGHT decisions

2. Eliminate thuggery and dangerous foul play from the game.

So it sometimes disrupts the flow the game? Well so what? If that is the price we have to pay to get correct decisions, then its a price I am happy to pay. Those people who are *****ing and complaining about the delays would be the very FIRST ones to moan and whinge if we didn't have TMO and their team was shafted out of the world cup by a poor refereeing decision or through something that referee missed, like a forward pass leading to a match winning try in a quarter final.

In any case, I think the whole "impatience" with the TMO delays is just a symptom of modern day "instant gratification" mentality. People are just too bloody impatient these days. Just chillax while the play is being reviewed instead of getting all agitated about the delays, use the opportunity to pour yourself another beer or make a cup of coffee.

Just to clarify, I have no problem with getting calls right, in fact I made that point earlier and if it takes some time to get us there then by all means. The main issue I have is with the stuff in the rucks and mauls where players are slipping up around the neck and the way it looks like we are heading in this RWC. Presumably you have played a bit of rugby and will know this happens all the time, and often there is absolutely no intent to go round the neck, it just ends up happening because players slip, get pushed, momentum takes them one way or the other, opposition players squirm away etc etc. SO are we going to stop the game every time this happens and penalise the player?

I have noted you said the 2 examples in the Eng Fiji game in your opinion constituted thuggery, and at the least I agree it is found play, but what about the one in the Tonga game as an alternative example? I think it was Lokotui and in that case while Lokutui for sure ended up around the neck and the TMO clearly wanted a penalty, Nigel Owens on the other hand disagreed - so where are we at with this as a result? Ultimately a delay to the game, but worryingly a disconnect between the refs and the TMO on this issue. Should he have actually been penalised? Did the TMO make a mistake? Or are we just happy with stopping the game to re-visit anything that might come close to dangerous play and leave it up to the on-flied ref to make the final decision? It's a concern for me and I'm not sure how they are going to find the right balance.

Anyway, as someone else has said, much of it probably has blindsided many of us. I for one am not used to this amount of stopage, and it is a little frustrating to deal with to watch several phases of play, in some cases some that end up, or could end up in points, be effectively deleted from play with such regularity, particularly when that kind of play has been common place in rugby for a long time and has almost always gone unnoticed.

The bigger picture is where does it stop? Rugby is such a complicated game with so many areas for mistakes to go unnoticed in live action, or foul play to be missed. Are we going to end up having to go back to it all? I'd say a game will end up taking more like 2 - 2 1/2 hrs plus if thats the case.... There has to be some room for things that are missed in game to be left as is.... This is why NFL/tennis and many other sports have the challenge system otherwise every second play would get reviewed - if that's the case then perhaps the challenge system is where rugby is headed!

Also, quick question. What happens to the time elapsed during phases of play that are effectively wiped out? Does the clock get re-set? I've not seen that being the case I don't think, so we are effectively losing game time as a result aye!

 

[Shaggy]

No No Jones boy we need to go back to every ruck and see if anyone broke a finger nail by constantly looking at 20 different camera angles.

Nope, we need none of it; that way we can miss infringements, and moan about biased officiating when our respective teams lose.