TMOs, Asst Refs, Refs...isn't there still s problem with consistency

[Fliegel]

I'm a bit of an old dinasour hankering for a time when there was a bit more "physicality" accepted on a rugby pitch than appears to be the case today. Not dirty play, but acceptance that it's a contact sport where sometimes you get put on your butt and battered as a result of competitive play. Back then there was also always a moan about consistency in refs decisions, different refs interpreting different aspects of the game and it strikes me that even with Asst refs and TMO's there is still a problem with consistency. Decisions and recommendations are still inconsistent and I've seen a number of cases where on field refs, Ar's and TMO's are seeing and recommending different things for a given incident.

I'm not a great fan of George Glancy. But in the games I've seen him ref he seems to take into consideration the intentions of the player when deciding how an offence be penalised. Others including TMO,s don't factor in the players intentions and penalise/recommend cards for the most Innocuous incidents. Barnes carding of the Rumanian 15 against Canada yesterday being one glaring example.

On a separate point. Does anybody else think we need to get back to refs marching up 10mtrs for gobbling off. Just my opinion, but I think there are some players acting a bit footbalerish, questioning refs and Asst Refs about decisions made. Marching up 10mtrs seems to be a thing of the past that should be revisited.

 

[TheOvalBall]

I want things to go back to the old days. I.e. remove technology.

The ref has the final say. That's it! If he missed a try, so what? He didn't see it. End of story.

Technology even with TMO inconsistency has ruined the game. And all these stoppages to see if it is indeed a try ? Ridiculous.

If technology is removed, then full accountability lies on the ref, and his assistants. I will even be for try line assistants to assist in giving tries. But no technology.

 

[ABs2011]

The part I dont like is the inconsistency with respect to who has the final say. Sometimes the on-field ref overrides the video ref and other times he doesnt. IMO if you are going to have a video ref then their decision should be final. Otherwise whats the point.

 

[Perthshire]

IMHO World Rugby need to look at rewriting the TMO Protocol so it states what questions the Referee can and can not ask the TMO

 

[Dirty Ape]

Some of the early matches were negatively affected by the TMO but since that first week I think things are much better. The delays we are seeing now are less to do with the TMO and more to do with scrum resets and some teams deliberately slowing things down, especially in the 2nd half.

There is a balance to be had between the value of getting the right decisions and all of the costs associated with the TMO. I don't think we are a long way off getting the balance right.

Scrums on the other hand are the biggest blight on our game at the moment. If there was an easy fix I think it would have been found by now. Maybe there is a more nuanced combination of fixes that can get the balance between contest, spectacle and safety just right but I have my doubts.

 

[smartcooky]

I want things to go back to the old days. I.e. remove technology.

The ref has the final say. That's it! If he missed a try, so what? He didn't see it. End of story.

Technology even with TMO inconsistency has ruined the game. And all these stoppages to see if it is indeed a try ? Ridiculous.

If technology is removed, then full accountability lies on the ref, and his assistants. I will even be for try line assistants to assist in giving tries. But no technology.

This will never happen.

You want the referee to be fully accountable for his decisions and at the same time, you want to take away the tools he currently has at his disposal to do the best job he can.

Also, if you think the TMO has ruined the game, then you don't know much about its history. I suggest you go back and look at some video of Rugby Union from the days of yore that you so yearn for. Most of it was a dire slogfest. There would typically be 20-30 scrums in a match and 30-40 line-outs; you would be lucky if you ever got past a second phase of play (I can remember a time when a third phase of play after the scrum or lineout was something actually worth remarking on in the match report, a fourth phase was simply unheard of. This is why you routinely had scores like 6-3, and 3-0, and 9-6.

Another reason why it will never happen is because you can't compare the quality of video they had then with now. Back in the day, the quality of the video was so poor that the referee really did have the best view. He could make a mistake, and unless it was a blindingly obvious, no-one watching on TV or in the stands would ever know because the video simply was not good enough. Now, we have HD video that is so good, you can video the gonads on an ant crawling up a white blade of grass just as it is crushed by the rugby ball. The detail is so clear that the millions of viewers at home have the best view of the action while the referee is hamstring and has the worst view of anyone.

I can tell you one thing for sure, and its this; there are more correct decisions and less wrong decisions now since that advent of the TMO. In the professional game, where the careers of coaches and players hang on results not performances, getting the calls right is crucial.

 

[Kiwi_]

Rugby has tooo many things "open to interpretation". There needs to be lines drawn, standards set. Until that happens we will still see so many inconsistencies between officials.

 

[WaterboySA]

I think that the TMO is doing a great job. I just don't want them pressed for time if they are asked do check something. I think Shaun Veldsman was pressed for time too much last night, or acted like it. Think he made some iffy decisions(the forward pass).Can't remember the others but he seemed in a hurry to get to an answer.

 

[TommiG88]

Barnes decision yesterday was correct.

 

[WaterboySA]

What decision is that? I'm speaking about the TMO himself?

 

[Tony Manx]

Barnes decision yesterday was correct.

Wayne is always right....he is the referee!!!

Rugby has tooo many things "open to interpretation". There needs to be lines drawn, standards set. Until that happens we will still see so many inconsistencies between officials.

To reduce the number of interpretations and draw the lines, the rule book would have to be bigger and more complicated than the UK Income Taxes Acts which run to several volumes!!!!!

Good idea but not sure practicable or even workable particularly if, like said Acts, there are many, many people involved in finding loopholes by virtue of their interpretation!!!

 

[TommiG88]

What decision is that? I'm speaking about the TMO himself?

He referred it to the TMO. Rather see a ref think about a decision and not.

It was a sin bin all day long and Habana should have been son binned yesterday.

 

[WaterboySA]

We are speaking about two different games? I'm speaking about the game the SA ref Shaun Veldsman was the TMO. Wasn't it in the Georgia/Namibia game?Anyways, the decision I'm talking about was a possible forward pass, and the TMO decision was forward....looking at only one or two angles, not close up, I would just like the TMO's NOT to be pressured for an answer.

- - - Updated - - -

It was a sin bin all day long and Habana should have been son binned yesterday.

LOL, but he wasn't was he????So next game he will break Lomu's record while the England team vacates that posh hotel....

 

[Fliegel]

This will never happen.

You want the referee to be fully accountable for his decisions and at the same time, you want to take away the tools he currently has at his disposal to do the best job he can.

Also, if you think the TMO has ruined the game, then you don't know much about its history. I suggest you go back and look at some video of Rugby Union from the days of yore that you so yearn for. Most of it was a dire slogfest. There would typically be 20-30 scrums in a match and 30-40 line-outs; you would be lucky if you ever got past a second phase of play (I can remember a time when a third phase of play after the scrum or lineout was something actually worth remarking on in the match report, a fourth phase was simply unheard of. This is why you routinely had scores like 6-3, and 3-0, and 9-6.


Another reason why it will never happen is because you can't compare the quality of video they had then with now. Back in the day, the quality of the video was so poor that the referee really did have the best view. He could make a mistake, and unless it was a blindingly obvious, no-one watching on TV or in the stands would ever know because the video simply was not good enough. Now, we have HD video that is so good, you can video the gonads on an ant crawling up a white blade of grass just as it is crushed by the rugby ball. The detail is so clear that the millions of viewers at home have the best view of the action while the referee is hamstring and has the worst view of anyone.

I can tell you one thing for sure, and its this; there are more correct decisions and less wrong decisions now since that advent of the TMO. In the professional game, where the careers of coaches and players hang on results not performances, getting the calls right is crucial.

Have to disagree that rugby back in the days of yore was a slogfest, there were some great matches with plenty of open rugby. Didn't have access to SH rugby then, other than seeing the great touring teams, so memories are largely around home nations all of whom provided some great memories. Baa Baa's v AB's when Edwards scored that try...pretty open game..IMO! Also even with all the tech and "referference" (new word I just made up...I think) there are still plenty of boring games in this modern age and still plenty of wrong decisions. Remember Mike Philips "wrong ball" try for Wales V Ireland in 6 nations

There are of course more correct decisions, no argument there, but at what cost to the game? I'm not convinced referference lends itself to protecting players and coaches jobs. Poor sides tend to loose because they're poor, not because wrong decisions stacked up against them.

Fallibility of the ref is IMO part of the game, the ref can make mistakes same as the players and give us back those post match beer sessions where even when we got stuffed on the pitch...it was always the refs fault. We did see forward passes, knock on's and balls dropped over the try line etc, on TV and at the games, but we just moaned when the ref got it wrong and got over it with the help of a beer or two and the input from the supporters who's team benefited from the mistake. (Being Welsh this was of course always England and the ref was always Irish!) My old man was a WRU ref, did some decent level stuff and loved the post match analysis in the bar from the players who were of course never wrong!

Interesting that on this thread, nobody has commented about the question I raised about Refs giving an extra 10mtrs for players contesting decisions etc.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Have to disagree that rugby back in the days of yore was a slogfest, there were some great matches with plenty of open rugby. Didn't have access to SH rugby then, other than seeing the great touring teams, so memories are largely around home nations all of whom provided some great memories. Baa Baa's v AB's when Edwards scored that try...pretty open game..IMO! Also even with all the tech and "referference" (new word I just made up...I think) there are still plenty of boring games in this modern age and still plenty of wrong decisions. Remember Mike Philips "wrong ball" try for Wales V Ireland in 6 nations

There are of course more correct decisions, no argument there, but at what cost to the game? I'm not convinced referference lends itself to protecting players and coaches jobs. Poor sides tend to loose because they're poor, not because wrong decisions stacked up against them.

Fallibility of the ref is IMO part of the game, the ref can make mistakes same as the players and give us back those post match beer sessions where even when we got stuffed on the pitch...it was always the refs fault. We did see forward passes, knock on's and balls dropped over the try line etc, on TV and at the games, but we just moaned when the ref got it wrong and got over it with the help of a beer or two and the input from the supporters who's team benefited from the mistake. (Being Welsh this was of course always England and the ref was always Irish!) My old man was a WRU ref, did some decent level stuff and loved the post match analysis in the bar from the players who were of course never wrong!

Interesting that on this thread, nobody has commented about the question I raised about Refs giving an extra 10mtrs for players contesting decisions etc.

no offence, but Rugby, officiating and basically everything else has no choice but to keep up with modern trends. The replays, TMO's, referees etc. are all part of the game now, and making it a world wide spectacle it should be. I've seen the stats about viewership in this world cup and it's staggering about how the minnow nations and some other nations who doesn't even have a team in the world cup has grown in viewers.

The introduction of Hawk-eye technology has done wonders for the modern day cricket scene, and from what I've seen so far in this world cup, it is a massive step in the right direction.

But yes, there will always be the human-error factor in rugby, and it is also an integral part of the game and shouldn't disappear from the modern game. I think the one thing technology has done, was to keep the thugs, divas and bullies in check, and maintain the respect between teams, players, and referees there has always been. I mean I don't see any other sport where a small man in stature appointed as the referee talks to a big guy like Lood de Jager, and then all that Lood responds with is "Sorry Sir".

But,

I feel that World Rugby isn't doing enough with the referees appointed and the topic of Interpretation of Laws is something that is becoming a problem. Most on this forum knows my stance with regard to Romain Poite and Bryce Lawrence. But they aren't the only ones who are doing a crappy job at being elite referees. South Africa's very own Jaco Peyper is another guy who IMHO shouldn't be on the elite panel. But then again who else is left? I know young guys in South Africa is now thinking of making refereeing a career, and one of our universities are even trying to introduce it as a study course in their Sports faculty. But this is a long term idea and I think the problems is at the top and flowing downwards, and if WR isn't going to address the issues now, then the game could be seriously damaged, which would be a massive pity, because this World Cup has been an awesome showcase of the sport, and the cameraderie between nations and traditions and cultures.

 

[TommiG88]

We are speaking about two different games? I'm speaking about the game the SA ref Shaun Veldsman was the TMO. Wasn't it in the Georgia/Namibia game?Anyways, the decision I'm talking about was a possible forward pass, and the TMO decision was forward....looking at only one or two angles, not close up, I would just like the TMO's NOT to be pressured for an answer.

- - - Updated - - -


LOL, but he wasn't was he????So next game he will break Lomu's record while the England team vacates that posh hotel....

Well done, he wasn't sin binned. Well done.

 

[Kiwi_]

Wayne is always right....he is the referee!!!



To reduce the number of interpretations and draw the lines, the rule book would have to be bigger and more complicated than the UK Income Taxes Acts which run to several volumes!!!!!

Good idea but not sure practicable or even workable particularly if, like said Acts, there are many, many people involved in finding loopholes by virtue of their interpretation!!!

It's definitely not an overnight fix, but with a little time and effort they could get there. Refs are open to criticism when the rules are so grey in areas that it's hard to please everyone.

 

[Jakedood]

The introduction of TMO decisions does have one very very large effect on the referees at our disposal.

I was attending an event with Nigel Owens speaking (that man is hilarious, when you hear the stuff he says to players off the pitch), but he was saying how after a game, each referee's performance gets analysed and they get things highlighted where a) they could have had another option, but their decision was reasonable, or b) where they made the wrong call, and there is a points system in regards to the errors made which influence your status as a referee and the type of big matches you are allowed to adjudicate.

If you ever watch Owens, you would see that he takes control on the pitch when a TMO is involved, reviewing footage himself and decreeing what should be done, therefore taking full responsibility. For example in the England game the other day, farrell was Binned, however the referee was originally advised to stay with just a penalty. He then asked the question again "you advise just a penalty" several times before the TMO advised a Yellow card, so I think it was Romain Poite, didn't take the intiative and make the call, or take the responsibility.

Another issue with TMO's is that the aforementioned scoring system doesn't take into account the use of the TMO, so a referee like Owens (who I believe is the best in the world) is loathe to go upstairs when he is certain of a try, and only uses it when absolutely necessary. However referees who are not quite at the international level are achieving very good scores in their post match reviews because they excessively use the TMO, like almost every try is getting reviewed. This is fine with the big decisions, try or no try, I mean I can understand that, but what about the little infringements that they will miss because they are not at the right standard for the match, and they will make mistakes where TMO's are not used, such as knock ons, or scrummaging, and even forward passes (how many of times do forward passes not get picked up by the on field referee), but because they get higher marks they are allowed to referee matches they should not be having responsibility for. Imagine Poite refereeing the World Cup Final ahead of Clancy or Owens, it's possible for sure, but you can guarantee there'd be far more uproar and more chance for people to say after "the ref missed this"

I do also agree that as rugby players we accept there are heavy collision, and there will be injuries, it's natural and sometimes we just need to look at intent. For example, 3 years ago, Ulster had Jared Payne sent off for trying to take a high ball without jumping, he didn't take his eyes off the ball, but because he collided with Alex Goode, who did jump, he was red carded. Sometimes we need to be practical about these things and understand mistakes happen but not every bit of slightly dangerous play deserves a yellow card, and I can tell you now, I know there will be several big sin bins in the coming matches for "high" tackles where the ball carrier will duck down a little and because of this they will look high. This is another reason why I love Nigel Owens, as he does have a very good understanding of malice in rugby games

 

[WaterboySA]

Well done, he wasn't sin binned. Well done.

Why thank you Sir. I take it you refer to the jump where both players got hurt? No way EVER that should be a sin bin, EVER, I don't care how the refs blow the rule these days. If he did something else in the first half(I missed the last 30 minutes of the first half) I do apologize.

 

[psychokiller]

Rules need to be clearly defined and not open to interpretation. Until then we will get nothing but inconsistencies.