Use of the TMO
-
If the choice is between quick decision and correct decision then i would choose correct decision every time. Who am i kidding, i have nowhere else to be other than sitting on my arse watching the rugby.
Problem is that the tmo still often manages to get it wrong. -
@pukunui said in Use of the TMO:
If the choice is between quick decision and correct decision then i would choose correct decision every time. Who am i kidding, i have nowhere else to be other than sitting on my arse watching the rugby.
Problem is that the tmo still often manages to get it wrong.Indeed, and then the judiciary still has a chance to over rule the TMO, regardless of anything.
Too many layers, too much inconsistency.
Nothing else to add.
-
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
@mariner4life 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:
@mariner4life 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:
If we want multiple phase, flowing rugby then the TMO process has to start where the first transgression is thought to have happened. If that's 15 phases back then so be it. We've just enjoyed a 15 phase high speed chess match which may or may not have resulted in a try
what. the. fuck.
and what, precisely, should we be looking at 15 phases back michael? tiny knock ons? suspect side entry? at some point in that 15 phases i can guarantee someone transgressed. Why do you hate points michael? is it because you are Welsh and you don't really know what they are?
So if I've read your reply correctly, rugby union is all about scoring points (tries) and it doesn't matter if there were single or multiple infringements leading up to the scoring of said points (tries) as long as it was dotted down ok and we don't have to sit through interminable seconds or minutes of TMO procrastination then 'it's all good'.
kinda. I'm saying any stretch of phases is going to involve a heap of infringements that would be picked up by slow motion and endless replays. That's rugby. If you give carte blanche powers to a TMO to just go back and look at shit, nearly every try is going to get rubbed out.
IMO the game is so fluid it is actually about what you get away with.
Ah the old Antipodean 'beg for forgiveness, not ask for permission '
That's my mantra as a married man, yes.
Just seen your edit. yes. if you get away with it in real time, you get away with it.
Due to human nature, this will unfortunately favour the rule breakers over the play makers IMHO
all rugby players are rule breakers. all of them. some of them intentionally, some by accident, some out of desperation. But everyone, everyone breaks the rules of rugby during the game to gain an advantage.
It's that first group of bastards which worries me.
Next stop, wendyball.
That was me. Definitely deliberate when required
-
In my opinion there needs to be a balance between time taken on the TMO and bad decisions that are still made. Cut down the time taken and don't use a TMO too much. Not sure if it would help to have a limited time for the TMO to make a decision (or should I say they can only view it so many times /different angles). TMOs seem to be used for every try at times and bitchslap (but then the ref just gives a penalty).
-
Don’t know what you’re all going on about.
It’s grand.
When’s the next game?
-
@pukunui and that's the problem, even with the technology of HD Slo-Mo replays, they still get it wrong, so they need to have specific directives about their scope of authority, what the ref can ask them to look at otherwise we end up with these multiple replays which ruin the flow of games, and like reset scrums, bores the shit out of people.
-
Just read this World Rugby statement. https://www.worldrugby.org/news/346401
"Additional camera angles were made available to determine that Fall was knocked off balance immediately prior to the challenge"
Our referees and TMO's now have a much harder time it would seem. All I can see after many viewings is Fall brushing Lienert-Brown a few metres before the collision. What happened immediately prior? Fall kept his eyes on the ball throughout - and perhaps not on the player waiting where it was falling.
If he was so obviously off balance, then surely he was not in a realistic position to challenge for the ball, being unable to react to what the person under the ball was doing... What is 'realistic' defined as then?
This worries me as a precedent for referee, tmo and judiciary. If a player is in any contact within a few seconds of a challenge, does this exonerate them for mis-timing a challenge, regardless of the outcome?
I am very worried for player safety if players are now encouraged to ignore the first player setting to take a high ball. How can they then judge how high that player will jump to take it, and what time do they have to react.
Please correct me on what I am inferring here, as it just does not seem to make sense.
-
@arhs no way was he 'off balance'
If he was so 'off balance' not only the collisions would have looked more clumsy, I expect that someone off balance would also have stopped looking up at the ball as they checked to see who they were going to clatter into after being so violently pushed off balance.
so are they also saying that the Judiciary had access to camera angles the TMO didn't?
-
@taniwharugby said in Use of the TMO:
@arhs no way was he 'off balance'
If he was so 'off balance' not only the collisions would have looked more clumsy, I expect that someone off balance would also have stopped looking up at the ball as they checked to see who they were going to clatter into after being so violently pushed off balance.
so are they also saying that the Judiciary had access to camera angles the TMO didn't?
No, but the TMO is under pressure to make a decision in a timely manner. It was pretty obviously a red card under current interpretations and they didn't think to examine what happened 5 metres away. 'Neutral' gif makers were flooding twitter, so it was visible in the game coverage. But i think from coverage aired after the red decision had been made already.
I wouldn't expect the TMO to see that, I actually don't think it had a material effect anyway, I think only the biased, 'neutral' and legal minded would pick up on those two brushing together, I wouldn't expect a neutral TMO to see that. But I'm ok with legal representation being able to convince a judiciary that there was some doubt. I'm not OK with criticism of the TMO, he was actually correct.
I think Fall is very lucky to be playing again this week under current interpretations, even if i don't agree with how WR currently rule on accidental/reckless incidents.
-
@arhs said in Use of the TMO:
This worries me as a precedent for referee, tmo and judiciary. If a player is in any contact within a few seconds of a challenge, does this exonerate them for mis-timing a challenge, regardless of the outcome?
Didn't this happen to Naholo last year or the year before when he got bumped by a defender and then made a clumsy challenge as his body position changed? The degree of contact in these situations is very subjective though.
-
@bovidae said in Use of the TMO:
@arhs said in Use of the TMO:
This worries me as a precedent for referee, tmo and judiciary. If a player is in any contact within a few seconds of a challenge, does this exonerate them for mis-timing a challenge, regardless of the outcome?
Didn't this happen to Naholo last year or the year before when he got bumped by a defender and then made a clumsy challenge as his body position changed? The degree of contact in these situations is very subjective though.
-
The difference in outcome is the telling factor there, although I will say that's well refereed.
-
I think the brief contact with ALB and the "off balance" argument is used because they can't say openly that the Judicial Committee was wrong. I think they just want to reinforce the rule and that Gardner got it right.
If I were a ref, I would go about it in the same way as Angus Gardner has. I'd give red again in the same situation. Let them find the excuse to dismiss the red card afterwards if there was one that wasn't obvious enough to not give a red in the first place. Player safety is too important.
This is an entirely different discussion from whether there should be an orange card instead of a red card. So, as long as there isn't, this same situation warrants a red all day, every day.
-
Whether or not you agree with rule, Gardner was right to give red. If the same thing happens in the next 100 games of rugby, the refs will give out 100 reds.
World Rugby are just massively throwing him under the bus here, contradicting their entire last few years of campaigning for and punishing against anything around player safety. Which is the same as they did the week prior for Ofa.
But they let Ofa off, and to appease the masses, they are now letting Fall off.
-
-
@majorrage although interestingly, seemed people were split as to who deserved a card on that; some both, some neither, some Cane, some Ofa
-
It may have been said but I'll reinforce it.
Fall had responsibility to
A. know where players were and
B. avoid the collisionThat includes players running a straight line backwards which supposedly contributed to the collision. To me it reinforces his guilt not excuses it.
I'm not going into the politics of the Judiciary cop out.
The Naholo incident was very different, in the action of the catcher, the action of the interfering player, the timing of the interference and the landing of the catcher.
I agree with @taniwharugby that I could see justifiable outcomes ranging from no action through to bans for both Cane and Ofa. However I think they got close to getting it 100% correct, although Cane may have been lucky.
-
Can the TMO work out forward passes please?
Or buy me a new TV
-
@mikethesnow said in Use of the TMO:
Can the TMO work out forward passes please?
Or buy me a new TV
No.
x2
