Expanded rights for TMOs on cards
6 Mar 2012
Head of referees in South Africa Andre Watson says the IRB will test scenarios where the TMO is given more power to advise the referees on the legitimacy of tries.
The Bulls profited from a TMO’s limited capacity in responding to a referee’s question when Dean Greyling was incorrectly awarded a try against the Cheetahs at the weekend.
Greyling executed a double movement before placing the ball over the tryline. Referee Craig Joubert missed the infringement and asked TMO Johann Meuwesen: ‘Is there any reason not to award the try?’. Meuwesen was bound by IRB protocol to respond only to the question asked despite clearly knowing the Cheetahs should have been awarded a penalty.
Watson told Die Burger changes have been proposed to expand the TMO’s rights in a bid to avoid similar incidents.
‘According to protocol from the IRB a referee is not allowed to respond to any additional information from the TMO which doesn’t relate to his original question. Johann wanted to give Craig extra information, because it clearly wasn’t a try. But both of them would have ended up in hot water,’ he said.
‘The problem started with Craig not spotting Greyling’s transgression. In this case the protocol led to the wrong decision being made and Craig has taken full responsibility.’
Watson added: ‘[The proposed changes] will allow the TMO to point out foul play and to give additional information to prevent a situation like what happened at the weekend. If there is, for example, a forward pass which leads to a try 30 metres on, he’ll be able to point it out. I really hope the Currie Cup is one of the competitions in which the protocol will be tested. A decision will be made next month.’
48 Comments
6 Mar 2012, 07:34 am
It is amazing how now they decide to go back to something that happened before and make it legal. They changed the rules to stop the tmo’s authority because during the lions tour in sa it happened where the tmo said there was a forward pass and ol paddy wasnt angry. Always happening.
6 Mar 2012, 07:41 am
wow!
the end of the all blacks…
6 Mar 2012, 08:18 am
‘Is there any reason not to award the try?’. Meuwesen was bound by IRB protocol to respond only to the question asked…
well the question asked is there ANY reason…
surely he could have responded…
errr… yes… the player made a double movement in reaching for the line…
6 Mar 2012, 08:36 am
aaaag man imo they (refs) are becoming like children, screaming and ranting and trying to hard to be part of the show.
Imo there is NO consistency. Nothing!
Ek meen… Lawrence is way to arrogant imo… have spoken to a few players and they just don’t trust him.
6 Mar 2012, 09:07 am
This still wont fix TMO’s making the wrong decisions.
6 Mar 2012, 09:17 am
oh kak, bryce lawrence with even more power??????
6 Mar 2012, 09:26 am
@Staal(Staal)-4: i agree with you, mark lawrence is a doos, especially in the way he speaks to players. i was cringing listening to his comments during the stormers vs sharks game. he has adopted such a condescending tone..
i’m waiting for one of the players to deck him soon!
6 Mar 2012, 09:31 am
@Transformation(Transformation)-7: “i’m waiting for one of the players to deck him soon!”
i will rip myself if that happens. 
6 Mar 2012, 09:39 am
@ufo(ufo)-3:
Unfortunately, no – he can’t.
He is not allowed to highlight any incident which occurs outside of the in-goal area apart from a player in touch.
6 Mar 2012, 09:42 am
This has been bugging me since the commentators talked about it on Saturday. Maybe I’m missing something, but surely in this case the question Joubert asked makes no difference? (As far as I can tell the question asked merely has implications for the onus – ie what happens if the TMO cannot give a definite answer)
To me the issue on Saturday was whether the TMO is allowed to consider Greyling’s failure to “reach out and ground the ball… immediately”. If he can rule on that, then it surely doesn’t matter whether the ref asks “try or no try” or “any reason not to award it”?
Am I being dof? (cue floodgates opening)
6 Mar 2012, 09:46 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-9:
yeah i know…
just trying to highlight that the questions asked by the refs are not adequate…
6 Mar 2012, 09:49 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-9:
personally i believe the “act of scoring a try” should be expanded to the include the whole phase of play which leads up to the try…
you don’t want to get ridiculous and go back half the game…
but mistakes in the final phase leading to the try i reckon should be considered…
6 Mar 2012, 09:54 am
@ufo(ufo)-3: Exactly. I don’t think anyone (including the refs, the keo writers and most of the bloggers here) has a fcking clue how that question should be answered. In fact, I think this whole issue has been complicated to such an extent that it makes no sense whatsoever.
If a ref asks “Is there any reason I cannot award the try?” and there is a pretty damn good reason why not, what protocol on god’s sweet earth would prevent Meuweson from answering, “Why yes, now that you ask, there is a reason. In between going to ground and placing the ball over the line, the blue fat guy had time to pick and inspect a booger before wiping it on the white fat guy’s shorts, and I think this is just too long.”
In future the TMO should simply be asked whether a try was scored or not. And if there was a knock on, a foot in touch, a double movement, a ball held up, a forward pass etc, then he should offer up this info.
6 Mar 2012, 09:55 am
@Indiana(Indiana)-10:
The two questions really covers the two following scenarios:
When the ref asks ‘Try or no try?’ he believes that there is a possibility a try has been scored but he could not see clear and legal grounding of the ball.
The TMO then looks for two things mainly – whether he can pick up a clear and legal grounding of the ball, and/or if the player was in touch or touch and goal before grounding the ball.
When the ref asks ‘Is there any reason I cannot award the try?’ he saw the ball grounded legally, but was un-sighted in the action or instance just before the ball was grounded.
The important part to remember here is that the TMO can only rule on the actual ‘act of grounding’ or whatever happened in the in-goal area of play. Nothing outside it.
So if in the ‘act of grounding’ the ball is knocked or the player stepped in touch he has a reason to give the ref not to award the try.
If however another transgression took place before that, like entering a ruck from an off-side position just before scoring, a forward pass, a knock PRIOR to ground, double movement etc. he may not give that as a reason.
6 Mar 2012, 09:55 am
@ufo(ufo)-12: Amen, let them consider the preceding phase in toto.
There are no excuses for hiccups like these in a digital age.
6 Mar 2012, 09:57 am
@ufo(ufo)-12:
Problem with that is that whatever ‘leads up’ to scoring a try can happen 60 meters back (think intercepts). Should TMO’s now call a player off-side on his own 10 meter prior to the intercept at the previous set phase or ruck?
6 Mar 2012, 10:01 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-14: And that makes no sense at all. What is the difference between putting a foot in touch just before dotting the ball down, and making a double movement just before dotting the ball down? What if the player knocked the ball on just before the line and dragged it across for the “score”? Either a try was scored, or it wasn’t. And if the TMO knows that it wasn’t, what’s the use in having him there if he can’t say so?
6 Mar 2012, 10:03 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-16:
if those things occur in the final phase of play… yes… IMO…
most phases don’t last that long… and although an intercept may be 60m back… it isn’t long ago in time… and it won’t take a long time to review…
6 Mar 2012, 10:07 am
@willievz(willievz)-15:
ja… that would stop 90 percent of all bad calls… if something happened several phases ago that the ref missed… well it really becomes irrelevant…
what really upsets supporters and players is when an obvious error occurs in the lead up to the try…
6 Mar 2012, 10:09 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-16:
Exactly. How many phases will they be allowed to go back. It’s going to be very difficult.
André Watson is an idiot in any case. He NEVER criticizes a South African referee. Some of these guys should not be close to the game.
And btw, if we start looking for mistakes then the first try scored by Basson may as well have been given.
And the last minute penalty given to the Stormers should not have been. Duvenhage stepped on the touch line while touching the ball, before Daniel came in from the wrong side. Should that also be refereed?
6 Mar 2012, 10:12 am
who in their right mind would listen to 1 word this cheating Yappie tosser said ?!
6 Mar 2012, 10:18 am
@ufo(ufo)-3: no he can’t the IRB protocol states:
The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).
The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).
6 Mar 2012, 10:20 am
@ratel(ratel)-20: My point exactly ratel. This will not help with TMO’s incompetence like Basson’s try. Or what if the TMO refereral is not used consistently, like the Sharks try against the Bulls, where a clear forward pass resulted in the try. If the Ref doesn’t know the pass was forward why whould he refer it to the TMO under the supposed new rules.
6 Mar 2012, 10:27 am
Thanks PissAnt, and I apologise if I’m missing your meaning and repeating myself.
I’m not querying whether double movement should be included in the TMO’s powers (I think there’s no question it should, but that is part of a bigger debate I’m not trying to get into), merely whether there is any difference in the TMO’s powers (as opposed to the effect of what he sees) depending on the question asked.
Scenario 1.1 – “try or no try” – TMO sees no problem, tells ref, try awarded.
Scenario 1.2 – “try or no try” – TMO unsure, tells ref, no try awarded.
Scenario 1.3 – “try or no try” – TMO sees problem, tells ref, no try awarded.
Scenario 2.1 – “any reason not to award” – TMO sees no problem, tells ref, try awarded.
Scenario 2.2 – “any reason not to award” – TMO unsure, tells ref, try awarded.
Scenario 2.3 – “any reason not to award” – TMO sees problem, tells ref, no try awarded.
So it is only in the middle scenario of each set where the question asked should only affect the outcome (ie when the TMO is unsure). I don’t see how the TMO would only be given an expanded set of powers (eg to look at double movements, earlier knock-ons, etc) because of which question is asked.
6 Mar 2012, 10:31 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-17:
Stepping out would make the grounding illegal. Remember his call is limited to the grounding only. I.e the player was outside the field of play when he grounded the ball. But yes, it is silly and I am agreeing with much that is said here, I am just highlighting the protocols currently in place.
@ufo(ufo)-18:
I used an intercept as a simple example, but remember it can get much more complicated than that.
For instance, a scrumhalf could put up a box kick, a Bjorn chases and out-ranks the defender, catches the ball, scores the try.
Now the ‘lead up’ to that try starts with the kick – should we now go back and ensure Basson was behind the kicker when it was kicked?
Another example. There is a ruck on the 10 meter line. A player comes off-side and picks the ball up from the ruck sprints 40 meters down the blind to score – if the TJ’s and ref were unsighted do we now go back to that ruck to highlight playing the ball from an offside position as a reason not to award the try?
What if the ref saw that and judged the ball was out when the video evidence suggests a different scenario? Can the TMO override an on-field decision like that?
I agree the TMO scenario needs some refining but it can also open up a can of worms if changes are not carefully considered.
My other feeling on this is since the introduction of the TMO ref’s became lazy and arrogant. Extending TMO responsibilities will also carry the risk of making refs more lazy and even less accountable for decision on the park where they will simply shift responsibility to the next guy in fear of getting his *** in trouble.
Rugby is not as simple as cricket. Yes there is a place for technology in the game I agree, but by trying to eliminate human error by too large an extent will firstly cause analyses paralyses (time being taking up for review upon review), and secondly not address the real issue which is improving referee performances on the park!
There is little wrong with the laws of the game, our refs are just plain ****. Don’t change the laws to make life easier for refs, produce better refs. If players can train for hours upon hours to perfect their game nothing should stop refs from doing the same.
6 Mar 2012, 10:37 am
@Indiana(Indiana)-24:
No matter what question was asked by Joubert, the TMO could not highlight the double movement.
Joubert and his assistants missed the double movement, that is where the problem was.
6 Mar 2012, 10:37 am
@Indiana(Indiana)-24:
No matter what question was asked by Joubert, the TMO could not highlight the double movement.
Joubert and his assistants missed the double movement, that is where the problem was.
6 Mar 2012, 10:39 am
@Indiana(Indiana)-24:
Perhaps to explain it better.
If the question is asked try or no try and the TMO cannot see the ball grounded, he will tell the ref no try.
If the question is asked ‘give me a reason not to award the try’ and the TMO cannot see the grounding he will answer ‘there is no reason, you may award the try’.
The ref will only ask the second question if HE saw the grounding.
6 Mar 2012, 10:41 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-25: But what if he stepped out just before crossing the line, and was back inside the field of play by the time the ball was grounded? There is no difference between this and going to ground short of the line and executing a double movement to place the ball. Both infringements happened a second or two before grounding, and both rendered the try illegal. Yet the TMO can act on one but not the other?
6 Mar 2012, 10:44 am
@willievz(willievz)-15: paddy has said this will be reviewed already, so no need for all this wailing
IRB boss: Bigger role for TMO
PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, 1.NOVEMBER, 2011
International Rugby Board referees boss Paddy O’Brien
says the authority of television match officials is
likely to be extended on a trial basis next year and
could be permanently increased.
O’Brien said protocols were currently being drafted which
would “extend the use” of TMOs in trial matches in both the
Northern and Southern Hemispheres in 2012. Television match officials
currently can only rule on incidents in the in-goal area.
The new protocols would likely extend their authority to the field
of play, allowing them to advise the referee of foul play or forward
6 Mar 2012, 10:47 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-28:
Thanks for the clarification. It seems we agree that any mention of the ref’s question (in some articles about the game, and certainly by the commentators, although I’m amazed that I still expect them to talk any sense) was a red herring.
6 Mar 2012, 10:47 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-29: The International Rugby Board has a protocol for how the TMO may or may not be used. The protocol states:
The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:
Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.
This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.
The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
Touch down by a defender
In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
All kicks at goal including dropped goals.
6 Mar 2012, 10:57 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-29:
Difference is the protocols currently makes a clear exception for being in touch – not any other exception.
6 Mar 2012, 11:07 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-33: Doesn’t make them logical or right though.
I understand the need to keep the decisions to the immediate act of scoring to prevent them from going back 5 phases and wasting everyone’s time. But if you’re going to rule on foot in touch prior to crossing the line or grounding short of the line, then you should also rule on knock ons and double movements in the act of crossing the line or trying to ground the ball.
If we remove our “rugby loyal” blinkers for long enough to view the rules and their application completely objectively, then we have to admit that, to an outsider, some things will appear arbitrary and made up on the spot. And selective applications such as these just add to the shoddy, unprofessional image.
6 Mar 2012, 11:18 am
@>^..^< katman(katman)-34:
Never said it was either logical or right. Just mentioned that is what it currently is.
There is very little wrong with the laws of the game imo. It is how they are interpreted that is the issue.
The IRB are forever trying to ‘adjust’ laws and in my view they are wasting their time.
Improve the quality of individual that applies them and the structures (in this case you can include TMO) in which they get applied.
6 Mar 2012, 11:58 am
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-25:
sorry been busy…
yes PA… that’s what i AM suggesting… those plays really are no more than 10 or 15 seconds… most pauses only last 20 or so seconds (thumb such on my part here but way less than 30 seconds) so i don’t believe is complicating things at all…
would not be difficult for the too to check out such things and yes, if there is an error to point it out to the ref… i don’t think it would be a problem because after all… isn;t that what everyone wants… the correct calls to be made…?
6 Mar 2012, 12:18 pm
most phases…
thumb suck…
tmo to check…
6 Mar 2012, 13:17 pm
@ufo(ufo)-36:
But where does it stop? And what will rugby become? a 4 hour marathon like NFL with 60 refs involved?
Technology has its benefits but it also comes with loads of problems.
We have covered time wasting to an extent, but also remember images on a screen is only 2-dimensional. You also have to consider angles of cameras which can easily distort what is viewed and what actually happened.
Question is to what extent do we take this? Do we actually still need a ref on the field or TJ’s?
As much as supporters accept that players make errors in a game we also have to accept ref’s will make errors. Technology can go some way in helping with this to eliminate most of the blatant ones but I would much rather see a concerted effort being made to improve the referee’s themselves.
6 Mar 2012, 14:02 pm
f@PissAnt(PissAnt)-38:
it stops at the beginning of the phase that lead to the try… think about it… that will be less than 20 seconds in most cases…
and you may be taking it to an extreme to make your point… these really controversial cases of errors in the lead up to tries only happen a few times a season… not 40 times in each game…
we already do check for foot-in-touch etc… so to check controversial tries (on average based on history) less than once per game… is not going to turn rugby into a bore-fest… and will ensure the results are correct and fair…
and i would make it up to the tmo to offer the relevant info so that the ref doesn’t have to ponder his wording too much and miss the mark because he asked the wrong question…
and yes, where the footage is inconclusive the tmo can simply say so… and then it wil be up to the ref to make the call based on his gut feel…
i really don’t see it detracting from the game… in fact it would enhance the game imo because more correct calls will be made…
i do however, wholeheartedly agree with you about improving the skills of the refs and tjs… but that is a longer term solution… the video stuff could literally be introduced overnight…
but while the refs act as a semi-autonomous body it will never improve… you simply can’t have the judges judging themselves… there needs to be a transparent, meaningful and effective means of gauging their performances…
i remember when i lost all respect for andre watson when he first (and has repeated several times since) said that “you can’t hang refs out to dry in public”… and this is the crux of the whole debacle… the refs as a group care more about their egos than about properly rating their own performances…
the fact is refs sanction, penalize and card players all the time… in public… and it has a great bearing on the players image and careers… so why can’t refs be judged in the same way…?
of course they make errors and we all understand and accept that… just like players all knock on or forward pass from time to time… but when refs stuff up big time… just like players… they need to sanctioned more severely too…
i have many times suggested that after each game… the officials, captains and coaches all watch the game on video… with two independent assessors… one an ex player and one an ex ref… and compile a report analyzing the refs performance and rating it…
yes… i know it will take several hours… but sorting out the reffing is going to require time and effort,… and if the refs, players and coaches are not prepared to put in those extra hours well it will demonstrate just why we are where we are…
if we can all agree there is a problem… surely everyone would be prepared to put in the extra time and effort…
but it’s only after such a system is introduced… imo… that we will begin to sort the problem out… where the refs are accountable to the players and coaches off the fired just as the players are accountable to the refs on the field…
i also believe this would foster much greater understanding and mutual respect between the two groups… and result is better refereeing…
6 Mar 2012, 14:31 pm
Agree with UFO. There was a reason not to award the try. The second movement was an illegal action which occurred partly in goal and should have been pointed out.
6 Mar 2012, 14:37 pm
@Staal(Staal)-4:
Ek stem.
6 Mar 2012, 15:05 pm
the varsity cup tested a possible new rule where a captain could “appeal” a decision of a referee and it was referred to the tmo.
Thought it worked quite well and didn’t really slow the game up.
6 Mar 2012, 15:19 pm
@ufo(ufo)-39:
At this point I do not agree on the time wasting aspect. Simply because we have not seen this in practice.
What I have seen in practice however under current protocols that IF the ref in any way feels ‘unsure’ about a try he is more than happy to go to the TMO to make the call – mostly to cover his own *** not willing to take on responsibility to make calls themselves.
The shortest time I have seen a TMO decision being made for a try is about a minute from the time the time-out is called. The longest – well I am sure we agree we have seen some pretty long ones but yes, it’s not the norm.
The amount of time the TMO will be called into play is directly related to how many possible tries have been, or could possibly have been scored so in dull dreary kick-fest TMO’s are not called upon that often.
Perhaps we can do a little experiment this weekend to see in try-scoring situations how many times a ref makes a decision right away, or how many times he goes the TMO route.
My guess is, TMO’s are used far more than not.
But let’s be conservative and say it is an average of 30% of the time…
That is just with the current protocols in place.
If TMO’s are now called upon to view every single play leading up to tries with not only a handful of protocols but the entire rugby law book as reference, this figure would explode because ref’s will now suddenly think they might just have missed a knock 30 meters back or at the last ruck which they will get lambasted for if they don’t check it with the TMO first before awarding a try.
Refs will now ask a TMO was that line out just before the try straight? Was the scrum feed straight? Did the prop bind legally? Did the loosies stay bound?
You see if you open the can of worms of saying they must look at everything in the last phase or lead up to the try that can include just about everything currently in the law book.
How do you limit this circus then? Final phase? Certain amount of meters from the tryline only?
6 Mar 2012, 15:47 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-43:
ja PA… i’m generally on the same page but didn’t make myself clear perhaps…
i’m saying it should be up to the tmo to introduce relevant incidents… based on what we all see on tv with an elevated view the ref is not privy too… so the ref is to make calls as usual… but the tmo… in this weekends example could simply have said… “there was a double movement in lead up therefore no try…” so i really can’t see it taking any more time than it already does…
if for example a guy intercepted and ran 70 metres to score from an offside position that the ref somehow missed… the tmo could be asking the producers to ready the footage even before the try is scored… just to make sure…
but of course your point is a very good one… so perhaps limit it to the final phase as i suggest… but also refine it as you suggest and limit it to things such as forward passes (i think these would be the majority incidents), knock ons, double moves, foul play and foot in touch etc…
not to worry about put in straight in scrums (as that hardly matters these days) but yes for line outs etc… narrow it down to those that make a real difference to the actual try being scored or not…
less easy to define… but easier in practice (maybe) would be to limit it to the “obvious” errors… that incense us all… when things are marginal or open to interpretation or angles, marginal offsides etc… then right or wrong leave whatever decision the ref made…
but we all know those obvious blatant things that so get up everyones noses…
so what i’m saying is let the tmo and ref exercise common sense… (which we all know is not so common….) but most will know what i mean..
6 Mar 2012, 15:51 pm
@ufo(ufo)-44:
I think that is the trick.
We all know the system needs to be improved, to what extent is going to be the tricky part.
With rugby being such a diverse game with so many things happening at once you need to be careful in what you include and what not.
6 Mar 2012, 15:54 pm
@PissAnt(PissAnt)-45:
yip you’re right…
maybe leave it to the tmo’s discretion and then make him accountable for his decisions…
6 Mar 2012, 19:04 pm
Ai tog mense!
The second movement (the illegal part of the double movement) IS the act of scoring the try!
How difficult can it be?
6 Mar 2012, 22:15 pm
@Transformation(Transformation)-7:
This Mark Lawrence chap is an arrogant man especially when conversing with players. I remember the first international he reffed OZ v Maori and he addressed Matua Parkinson as “yes you Ugly.” Very true in Matua’s case but very unprofessional
Have your say
You must be logged in to post a comment.