TMO Protocol etc.

[Oakboy]

Just where should the authorities be going with this?

I have never liked the business of the referee watching a screen during the game. The part of the process that I accept ('like' is too strong) is the initial questions: 'Try, yes or no?' or 'Any reason I cannot award a try?' After that, it should be the TMO only, IMO. The ref has not had the balls to call it so he should then hand over responsibility totally. If that means upgrading the TMOs to highly trained current refs doing their stint with the equipment, so be it.

There has been talk of some refs not making good assistants because they either dominate or back off to avoid being seen so to do so. Surely, therefore, top refs would be better as TMOs with full responsibility for on-screen decision-making. Then, use more junior refs as touchline assistants and develop teams of three on the field, used to working together.

[Digby]

If they want to use the TMO then I'd still say the ref should make an on field call, and then the TMO can review to see if the ref clearly didn't have a good view and/or has made a mistake. Then like the DRS in cricket we stay with the onfield call unless it's obviously wrong, and obviously wrong without resulting to 16 different camera angles and slowing rocking the frames backward and forward. If the ref doesn't want to make an onfield call then it's play on and no need for a TMO (other than the ref being alerted to serious foul play)

[Mellsblue]

Send to the TMO and then he makes the decision. No input from the ref. How many times have we seen a TMO try and guide the ref to a correct decision only for ref to overrule and the TMO not have the balls to tell him he’s wrong? TMO only for a try - last phase only - and serious foul play.

[Oakboy]

Send to the TMO and then he makes the decision. No input from the ref. How many times have we seen a TMO try and guide the ref to a correct decision only for ref to overrule and the TMO not have the balls to tell him he’s wrong? TMO only for a try - last phase only - and serious foul play.

I'm not sure about 'last phase only'. Ruling only on, say, a grounding when the phase was immediately preceded by a clear forward pass seems wrong somehow. Having said that, I'm not sure how far back is reasonable. With so many short-range multi-phases these days, the preceding phase involving the forward pass could be only a metre or two away from the grounding.

[Puja]

If they want to use the TMO then I'd still say the ref should make an on field call, and then the TMO can review to see if the ref clearly didn't have a good view and/or has made a mistake. Then like the DRS in cricket we stay with the onfield call unless it's obviously wrong, and obviously wrong without resulting to 16 different camera angles and slowing rocking the frames backward and forward. If the ref doesn't want to make an onfield call then it's play on and no need for a TMO (other than the ref being alerted to serious foul play)

I agree with this - cricket has got it right in my opinion. The ref should make a call and then refer to the TMO if necessary, with the ref's call standing if there's no compelling evidence otherwise.

Most importantly, if it goes to the TMO, then the TMO must decide. None of this looking up at screens and "Here's what I'm seeing," and then a pregnant pause where the TMO wonders if they've got the balls to tell the ref they're wrong, followed by, "Let me show you another angle on that." The ref says, "Any reason" or "Try - yes or no" and then it's with the TMO (preferably with non-broadcaster footage).

Puja

[Banquo]

Suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I would be quite happy to not have TMOs. Rugby isn't a game of perfect, and one of the things I like about sport is how adversity is dealt with; they also kill the flow of the game.

[Mellsblue]

Send to the TMO and then he makes the decision. No input from the ref. How many times have we seen a TMO try and guide the ref to a correct decision only for ref to overrule and the TMO not have the balls to tell him he’s wrong? TMO only for a try - last phase only - and serious foul play.

I'm not sure about 'last phase only'. Ruling only on, say, a grounding when the phase was immediately preceded by a clear forward pass seems wrong somehow. Having said that, I'm not sure how far back is reasonable. With so many short-range multi-phases these days, the preceding phase involving the forward pass could be only a metre or two away from the grounding.

I thought I was being generous with ‘last phase’! Ideally I’d just go with ‘in the act of scoring’.

[oldbackrow]

I spend a lot of my time watching Level 6 sometimes Level 5 and they somehow manage without a TMO and often with TJ's (as they aren't necessarily refs!) and mostly it works pretty well!
There are always going to be contentious decisions because, as someone has said, nothing is perfect. In a way I would be quite happy to go back to just the refs decision being final but if not then go along with Puja's post.

[Puja]

Suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I would be quite happy to not have TMOs. Rugby isn't a game of perfect, and one of the things I like about sport is how adversity is dealt with; they also kill the flow of the game.

With games fought as closely as they are, you can't have a game be decided by a legitimate try getting ruled out or a clearly wrong try ruled in. And there would be occasions where the ref was completely guessing.

Quite apart from the tries, the TMOs have made a massive difference with foul play. I remember the Tuilagi-Ashton fight, shortly before the TMOs were allowed to rule on foul play - Manu got a yellow for punching Ashton three times in the face and Ashton got a yellow for being punched. Having the certainty of a replay means that refs are more ballsy because they're confident that they're getting it correct and I think it cuts down on retaliation and scuffles because players know that it won't go unpunished.

The process does definitely need to be improved and streamlined, but overall I'd say they're a benefit to the game.

Puja

[fivepointer]

I think it works pretty well as it is.
You have to try and get a balance between letting the game flow, and arriving at the right decisions. For the most part i think that is achieved.
Its really only in instances of foul play where we get the ref and TMO occasionally at odds. "Would you like to look again at the video" isnt uncommon from a TMO who thinks the ref might be edging towards the wrong reading of a situation. Ultimately the ref has to decide on the sanction, the TMO can really only supply the facts.
I think going back 2 phases is about right, though you could bring that down to the last phase and/or the final pass.

[Puja]

I think it works pretty well as it is.
You have to try and get a balance between letting the game flow, and arriving at the right decisions. For the most part i think that is achieved.
Its really only in instances of foul play where we get the ref and TMO occasionally at odds. "Would you like to look again at the video" isnt uncommon from a TMO who thinks the ref might be edging towards the wrong reading of a situation. Ultimately the ref has to decide on the sanction, the TMO can really only supply the facts.
I think going back 2 phases is about right, though you could bring that down to the last phase and/or the final pass.

That's what I'd want to change - the TMO's got the screen right in front of him, access to all the angles and it should be him that's making the decision, not a ref craning his neck up at a screen with a crappy resolution.

"I'll just show you another angle," really pisses me off - tell him he's wrong and say what you think, rather than hinting at it like a 13 year old girl.

Puja

[Banquo]

Suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I would be quite happy to not have TMOs. Rugby isn't a game of perfect, and one of the things I like about sport is how adversity is dealt with; they also kill the flow of the game.

With games fought as closely as they are, you can't have a game be decided by a legitimate try getting ruled out or a clearly wrong try ruled in. And there would be occasions where the ref was completely guessing.

Quite apart from the tries, the TMOs have made a massive difference with foul play. I remember the Tuilagi-Ashton fight, shortly before the TMOs were allowed to rule on foul play - Manu got a yellow for punching Ashton three times in the face and Ashton got a yellow for being punched. Having the certainty of a replay means that refs are more ballsy because they're confident that they're getting it correct and I think it cuts down on retaliation and scuffles because players know that it won't go unpunished.

The process does definitely need to be improved and streamlined, but overall I'd say they're a benefit to the game.

Puja

Games have always been closely fought. My take is that you either get everything right, or don't bother. The obvious change is of course replays being shown to crowds, and zillions of TV angles, and even now there is a guess every other game. As I said, its a personal view, I'd be happy without them. Course in these days of needing to blame somebody for everything, and people ducking accountability, the TMO is a perfect cop out.

With respect to foul play, no issue with the RL style of on report or citing; that'll still keep people honest.

[Oakboy]

I'd be happy to bin the TMO provided that live TV coverage was prohibited from showing any replays of anything until the end of the game. Where I think there is a real problem is when commentators know a mistake was made (and that means everyone in the crowd too with Skygo etc.).

[Numbers]

I'd be happy to bin the TMO provided that live TV coverage was prohibited from showing any replays of anything until the end of the game. Where I think there is a real problem is when commentators know a mistake was made (and that means everyone in the crowd too with Skygo etc.).

I think not showing it on the big screens they have at most grounds would be the best solution, as that normally means that the ref goes to have a look and the ref then "guides" the TMO, this negates the point of having a TMO in the first place.

Also the crowd won't be able to influence the decision, unless they are watching it on their phones in which case they should be roundly ignored anyway.

For this to work though the standard of TMOs needs to rise.

[Puja]

Suspect I'm in a minority of one, but I would be quite happy to not have TMOs. Rugby isn't a game of perfect, and one of the things I like about sport is how adversity is dealt with; they also kill the flow of the game.

With games fought as closely as they are, you can't have a game be decided by a legitimate try getting ruled out or a clearly wrong try ruled in. And there would be occasions where the ref was completely guessing.

Quite apart from the tries, the TMOs have made a massive difference with foul play. I remember the Tuilagi-Ashton fight, shortly before the TMOs were allowed to rule on foul play - Manu got a yellow for punching Ashton three times in the face and Ashton got a yellow for being punched. Having the certainty of a replay means that refs are more ballsy because they're confident that they're getting it correct and I think it cuts down on retaliation and scuffles because players know that it won't go unpunished.

The process does definitely need to be improved and streamlined, but overall I'd say they're a benefit to the game.

Puja

Games have always been closely fought. My take is that you either get everything right, or don't bother. The obvious change is of course replays being shown to crowds, and zillions of TV angles, and even now there is a guess every other game. As I said, its a personal view, I'd be happy without them. Course in these days of needing to blame somebody for everything, and people ducking accountability, the TMO is a perfect cop out.

With respect to foul play, no issue with the RL style of on report or citing; that'll still keep people honest.

You've seen our citing system, right?

Besides, in-game punishments are more important than post-game ones. A ban for the next three games against other teams is no use to the side who've just lost a player to concussion, and there's less simmering resentment on the pitch if the player who committed foul play is punished straight away. Leave it to the citing boards and there'll be more players taking the law into their own hands.

Puja

[Banquo]

With games fought as closely as they are, you can't have a game be decided by a legitimate try getting ruled out or a clearly wrong try ruled in. And there would be occasions where the ref was completely guessing.

Quite apart from the tries, the TMOs have made a massive difference with foul play. I remember the Tuilagi-Ashton fight, shortly before the TMOs were allowed to rule on foul play - Manu got a yellow for punching Ashton three times in the face and Ashton got a yellow for being punched. Having the certainty of a replay means that refs are more ballsy because they're confident that they're getting it correct and I think it cuts down on retaliation and scuffles because players know that it won't go unpunished.

The process does definitely need to be improved and streamlined, but overall I'd say they're a benefit to the game.

Puja

Games have always been closely fought. My take is that you either get everything right, or don't bother. The obvious change is of course replays being shown to crowds, and zillions of TV angles, and even now there is a guess every other game. As I said, its a personal view, I'd be happy without them. Course in these days of needing to blame somebody for everything, and people ducking accountability, the TMO is a perfect cop out.

With respect to foul play, no issue with the RL style of on report or citing; that'll still keep people honest.

You've seen our citing system, right?

Besides, in-game punishments are more important than post-game ones. A ban for the next three games against other teams is no use to the side who've just lost a player to concussion, and there's less simmering resentment on the pitch if the player who committed foul play is punished straight away. Leave it to the citing boards and there'll be more players taking the law into their own hands.

Puja

The refs and TJ's should be good enough for the in-game ones.

[Puja]

Games have always been closely fought. My take is that you either get everything right, or don't bother. The obvious change is of course replays being shown to crowds, and zillions of TV angles, and even now there is a guess every other game. As I said, its a personal view, I'd be happy without them. Course in these days of needing to blame somebody for everything, and people ducking accountability, the TMO is a perfect cop out.

With respect to foul play, no issue with the RL style of on report or citing; that'll still keep people honest.

You've seen our citing system, right?

Besides, in-game punishments are more important than post-game ones. A ban for the next three games against other teams is no use to the side who've just lost a player to concussion, and there's less simmering resentment on the pitch if the player who committed foul play is punished straight away. Leave it to the citing boards and there'll be more players taking the law into their own hands.

Puja

The refs and TJ's should be good enough for the in-game ones.

But they're not. And, with the best will in the world, they can't be, because even with three pairs of eyes, they've got a dozen things to watch out for, all happening at high speed. Mistakes will be made and more often without a TMO than with.

Puja

[Banquo]

You've seen our citing system, right?

Besides, in-game punishments are more important than post-game ones. A ban for the next three games against other teams is no use to the side who've just lost a player to concussion, and there's less simmering resentment on the pitch if the player who committed foul play is punished straight away. Leave it to the citing boards and there'll be more players taking the law into their own hands.

Puja

The refs and TJ's should be good enough for the in-game ones.

But they're not. And, with the best will in the world, they can't be, because even with three pairs of eyes, they've got a dozen things to watch out for, all happening at high speed. Mistakes will be made and more often without a TMO than with.

Puja

I can live with that, even accepting it is true- as I said, for me part of sport is how one copes with adversity eg mistakes. We just disagree.

[fivepointer]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

[Puja]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

Especially since modern-day touch judges often appear to be spectators that just haven't bought a ticket. The TMO has made them lazy.

Puja

[Banquo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

Especially since modern-day touch judges often appear to be spectators that just haven't bought a ticket. The TMO has made them lazy.

Puja

well quite, another argument against them . I plain don't like the buck passing and faffing about

[Oakboy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

Especially since modern-day touch judges often appear to be spectators that just haven't bought a ticket. The TMO has made them lazy.

Puja

well quite, another argument against them . I plain don't like the buck passing and faffing about

Do you think many of today's referees are up to the job of managing the game in today's environment of law application and player attitude without TMOs? For competitive internationals, I can only think of a few. (Can you believe that I am accusing YOU of being idealistic? )

[Banquo]

Especially since modern-day touch judges often appear to be spectators that just haven't bought a ticket. The TMO has made them lazy.

Puja

well quite, another argument against them . I plain don't like the buck passing and faffing about

Do you think many of today's referees are up to the job of managing the game in today's environment of law application and player attitude without TMOs? For competitive internationals, I can only think of a few. (Can you believe that I am accusing YOU of being idealistic? )

yes, with the right TJ's.

[Which Tyler]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

I'd allow for just-off-top ref.s; or, more specifically, the ones who are too old to run the game, but have a depth of knowledge, and swap around between running the lines, and TMO duties.
That way, we're not stealing from an already limited supply of top ref.s
Whilst someone like Chris White, Ash Rowden, or Nige Owens (in another 3-4 years) would be perfectly up to the job, and a hell of a step up on the current dross.

[Mellsblue]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p05y855d

use top refs as TMOs suggests Ugo Monye. The TMOs are refs, or at least were but his point that the TMO is far more important than the TJ's is a fair one.

I'd allow for just-off-top ref.s; or, more specifically, the ones who are too old to run the game, but have a depth of knowledge, and swap around between running the lines, and TMO duties.
That way, we're not stealing from an already limited supply of top ref.s
Whilst someone like Chris White, Ash Rowden, or Nige Owens (in another 3-4 years) would be perfectly up to the job, and a hell of a step up on the current dross.

Very good idea.