Use of the TMO
-
Apart from Wayne Barnes, I don't see a problem. The law doesn't permit the ball to be passed forward. It says nothing about the ball travelling forward.
-
@majorrage said in Use of the TMO:
@gt12 said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@mariner4life said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@rapido said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
Can the TMO work out forward passes please?
Or buy me a new TV
No, because their view via a tv angle is as bad as yours. Refs are in best place to view, but the forward pass rule is currently 'wrong' imo. It's almost unrefereeable. This is of 'our' own making.
Personally, I'd like the rule to be it needs to go obviously backwards, but under current interpretations you'll gets just as many wrong decisions by TMOs IMO trying to rule inside passes on the 45 degree angle. It won't remove the controversy, just shift it.
Aerial camera
Superimposed lines on image
Play tapeJob done
ignore physics?
?
It really didn't help that this video was circulated last year by journo's up here as being bullshit and widely discredited. A classic case of tail wagging the dog.
When the IRB produce a video showing how something is ruled, then thats gospel, isn't it?
Gospel, by Gosper.
Who says this concept is bullshit and widely discredited? It is clearly a part of the laws of the game.
So much so that a couple of years ago WR changed the definition of a forward pass to incorporate the concept:
Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.
There might have been a valid argument about this once, but that ship has sailed.
-
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@rapido said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
Can the TMO work out forward passes please?
Or buy me a new TV
No, because their view via a tv angle is as bad as yours. Refs are in best place to view, but the forward pass rule is currently 'wrong' imo. It's almost unrefereeable. This is of 'our' own making.
Personally, I'd like the rule to be it needs to go obviously backwards, but under current interpretations you'll gets just as many wrong decisions by TMOs IMO trying to rule inside passes on the 45 degree angle. It won't remove the controversy, just shift it.
Aerial camera
Superimposed lines on image
Play tapeJob done
Aerial drone camera - "World Series Rugby" is already doing that...
The next piece, if one wanted to go all sci-fi/magic on this shit... would be some sort of super-futuristic technology (we could call it "HawkEye") which showed where the player passing the ball would be, if continuing at the same speed at the time they passed the ball. If that remains in front of the ball while the ball is in the air - easy, not forward. -
@majorrage said in Use of the TMO:
@gt12 said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@mariner4life said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@rapido said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
Can the TMO work out forward passes please?
Or buy me a new TV
No, because their view via a tv angle is as bad as yours. Refs are in best place to view, but the forward pass rule is currently 'wrong' imo. It's almost unrefereeable. This is of 'our' own making.
Personally, I'd like the rule to be it needs to go obviously backwards, but under current interpretations you'll gets just as many wrong decisions by TMOs IMO trying to rule inside passes on the 45 degree angle. It won't remove the controversy, just shift it.
Aerial camera
Superimposed lines on image
Play tapeJob done
ignore physics?
?
It really didn't help that this video was circulated last year by journo's up here as being bullshit and widely discredited. A classic case of tail wagging the dog.
When the IRB produce a video showing how something is ruled, then thats gospel, isn't it?
Gospel, by Gosper.
Widely discredited by who?
Wasn't it released by the IRB themselves?
-
@damo said in Use of the TMO:
Who says this concept is bullshit and widely discredited? It is clearly a part of the laws of the game.
So much so that a couple of years ago WR changed the definition of a forward pass to incorporate the concept:
Throw forward: When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.
There might have been a valid argument about this once, but that ship has sailed.
The usual crew. It was a classic case of trying to define rules as they wanted them to be played, and therefore calling BS on World Rugby.
Gallagher was leading it.
-
How on earth would a drone and lines solve the problem? It would make it worse.
The problem is that the moment a commentator (eg a Kearns, Marshall or whoever that terrible Irish one is) opens their mouth and says 'that was clearly forward' using an incorrect understanding of the law, a vast majority of watchers and aggrieved fans believe them.
If you want it that the ball cannot travel toward the opposition line after a pass then say goodbye to great tries like this oneBall was never passed in a forward motion from Umaga but was caught ahead of where he let it go.
A drone and lines would only show with clarity how the ball was caught ahead of the passer, not how the ball was passed.
It's a forward pass not a forward catch that is the transgression.
Onto the talk of the TMO and time spent, we have to deal a lot with Ayoub. I hardly ever see a TMO calling from him that doesn't have him take extra and repeat views after the clear and obvious has been seen. With him you also get regular confusion around whether it is 'any reason why I cannot award the try' as happened the other night. Ref said he had seen grounding and was going to award try. That means 'any reason why I can't' NOT 'try or no try'.
Instead Ayoub looked over and over at blurred replays and decided that because he couldn't see it then it didn't happen.
That's the kind of TMO shite we need to get rid of. -
You've just contradicted yourself.
The overhead view clearly showed the passer ahead of the recipient when the pass was made plus the ball travelled backwards from the pass.
Great skills, no forward pass.
I don't believe the same could be said for Scotland's 1st try for example
-
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
You've just contradicted yourself.
The overhead view clearly showed the passer ahead of the recipient when the pass was made plus the ball travelled backwards from the pass.
do You need lines drawn on the screen? The ball is certainly caught closer to the tryline from where it was passed.
-
@crucial said in Use of the TMO:
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
You've just contradicted yourself.
The overhead view clearly showed the passer ahead of the recipient when the pass was made plus the ball travelled backwards from the pass.
do You need lines drawn on the screen? The ball is certainly caught closer to the tryline from where it was passed.
Correct. And under the current laws which I referenced this is fine.
The refs and TMOs obviously do. Did you watch the Scotland clip?
-
-
awesome Fern argument, all but arguing the same point from different angles, just like going through the gate....
-
@crucial said in Use of the TMO:
I’m lost as to how a drone would solve the so called problem. All it would do is how if the ball was caught ahead of where it was passed.
So I take it you saw nothing wrong with the first Scottish try?
-
-
@nepia pretty sure he could have, maybe he bowed to the more experienced TMO that is Georgie Ayoub?
-
@crucial said in Use of the TMO:
How on earth would a drone and lines solve the problem? It would make it worse.
The problem is that the moment a commentator (eg a Kearns, Marshall or whoever that terrible Irish one is) opens their mouth and says 'that was clearly forward' using an incorrect understanding of the law, a vast majority of watchers and aggrieved fans believe them.
If you want it that the ball cannot travel toward the opposition line after a pass then say goodbye to great tries like this oneBall was never passed in a forward motion from Umaga but was caught ahead of where he let it go.
A drone and lines would only show with clarity how the ball was caught ahead of the passer, not how the ball was passed.
It's a forward pass not a forward catch that is the transgression.
Onto the talk of the TMO and time spent, we have to deal a lot with Ayoub. I hardly ever see a TMO calling from him that doesn't have him take extra and repeat views after the clear and obvious has been seen. With him you also get regular confusion around whether it is 'any reason why I cannot award the try' as happened the other night. Ref said he had seen grounding and was going to award try. That means 'any reason why I can't' NOT 'try or no try'.
Instead Ayoub looked over and over at blurred replays and decided that because he couldn't see it then it didn't happen.
That's the kind of TMO shite we need to get rid of.Agree on Ayoub. This sort of thing is exactly why this captains review system lots of people think will magically fix everything will fail. The review will still be sent to an incompetent tmo who will get it wrong 50% of the time.
What i think would help would be a winding back of the tmo's authority. Make the onfield ref the sole judge. He can send sonething for review but it needs to be specific eg. "Can you tell me if there is clear evidence of the ball being held up until i stopped play" rather than "try or no try" or "can you give me a reason not to award the try"
-
@taniwharugby said in Use of the TMO:
@nepia pretty sure he could have, maybe he bowed to the more experienced TMO that is Georgie Ayoub?
Or he didn't actually see the ball grounded but just suspected it was?
-
@pukunui said in Use of the TMO:
Agree on Ayoub. This sort of thing is exactly why this captains review system lots of people think will magically fix everything will fail. The review will still be sent to an incompetent tmo who will get it wrong 50% of the time.
The captain's review idea is flawed for a number of reasons.
It works in cricket because everyone is watching the ball, and the players have a similar view of proceedings to the umpire. They can, in most cases, make a fairly accurate call on LBW decisions.
In rugby, though, everyone is moving all the time. Take the contentious decision in the 76th minute of Ireland/Australia - Tolu Latu is penalised for not releasing the tackled player, though he clearly did and had all rights to the ball. He's penalised unfairly.
But does a challenge fix this? The captain, Pocock, is out in the backline and looking at the Irish backline. He's got no idea what is happening in the ruck. How could he challenge the decision? He just has to take the word of his player, but with all the things going on at ruck time, would the player even know if he was in the right?
It's just too messy to ever work and I really hope it never appears in rugby.
-
@barbarian agree with that. Challenges work in static games, would be a nightmare in a fluid game.
Also what does it actually accomplish? Was that Latu decision clearly wrong? Is the game improved by that penalty being over turned? Would it be over turned on review? (no matter what Kearnsy says). Was it already cancelled out by the suspect one Pocock earned in the first half? Should that have been reviewed. Where does it end?
The captains/coach's challenge actually opens us up to more TMO interference, in more areas of the game, and no one wants that.
