walsh and the tmo

Steve walsh asked the tmo if there was foul play in the 22 leading up to the keith earls non try.

If he can do that why don't we see more of it?

Edited by KID A - 10 March 2013 at 1:22pm

Its going a bit too far now if they're going to go back through game play looking for infringements.

scarletman wrote: They can still look for incidents "in the act of scoring a try" ! Although it was a "non try" as you put it, it could well have been a Penalty Try .. !

I personally though it was at least a penalty. I'm very surprised the referee doesn't ask the TMOs opinion of events in the 22 leading up to try scoring chances more often, if they are allowed to.

John wrote: I thought the Aviva trial meant that the TMO could bring to the referee's attention any act of foul play at any time. So for instance Hore's assault on Bradley would have been punished there and then.

Has that trial been extended to other rugby then?

I'm in favour of any change in protocols giving the TMO more authority if it 'cleans' up the game and if it helps the referee.

The referee has a pretty hard task - lets be honest, so anything which gives him help in getting decisions correct I'm in favour of.

How many times have we seen players commit foul play during a match and get away with it?? I'd prefer a player to get a red or yellow card DURING A GAME, rather than in a citing hearing after the game as it doesn't really penalise the team during the match when the incident took place.

I also think that if this system is used in ALL televised rugby games, then it may deter players from committing 'professional' fouls while trying to prevent players either re-gathering chips ahead or chasing the ball towards the try line for example, as they will know that if the ref can see a replay of the incident they could be penalised, because at the moment there isn't that deterrent available.

So for me, I'm all for change if it rewards teams playing within the laws but also penalises teams and players if they break the laws.

haydn_davies wrote: I'm in favour of any change in protocols giving the TMO more authority if it 'cleans' up the game and if it helps the referee. The referee has a pretty hard task - lets be honest, so anything which gives him help in getting decisions correct I'm in favour of. How many times have we seen players commit foul play during a match and get away with it?? I'd prefer a player to get a red or yellow card DURING A GAME, rather than in a citing hearing after the game as it doesn't really penalise the team during the match when the incident took place. I also think that if this system is used in ALL televised rugby games, then it may deter players from committing 'professional' fouls while trying to prevent players either re-gathering chips ahead or chasing the ball towards the try line for example, as they will know that if the ref can see a replay of the incident they could be penalised, because at the moment there isn't that deterrent available. So for me, I'm all for change if it rewards teams playing within the laws but also penalises teams and players if they break the laws.

It's a difficult one.

I have no problem with the idea that refs should consult the TMO if they suspect there has been serious foul play; however, I'd hate rugby to start resembling American Football, with lengthy delays every 5 sec to check the recording for other more technical infringements. I'd prefer to leave decisions on those to the ref and assistants.

KID A wrote: aber-fan wrote: KID A wrote: scarletman wrote: They can still look for incidents "in the act of scoring a try" ! Although it was a "non try" as you put it, it could well have been a Penalty Try .. ! I personally though it was at least a penalty. I'm very surprised the referee doesn't ask the TMOs opinion of events in the 22 leading up to try scoring chances more often, if they are allowed to. 'At least a penalty'? Are you suggesting it might have been a penalty try - if so, I have to disagree - it was a minimal nudge, and in any case Earls was clear second favourite to reach the ball. I'd say, rather, that it was marginal - it might just about have been a penalty, if the ref wanted to judge the incident harshly. As the Irish are past masters at appealing to the ref, I wasn't sorry that they didn't get this decision! No, it was probably just a penalty. The guy clearly impeded Earls.

Fair enough. I saw it as a 50:50 call.

tigerburnie wrote: Not sure if I like "trial/reffing by television" I'd prefer proffesional full time refs who are up to the job and consistent. Crouch,touch  set at varying speeds adds to the scrum mess, wheres as a consistant rhythm(can't beat a bit of rhythm method in the scrums!!) would help oh and straight feeds into both scrum and lineout would be nice too. Sort that out and the game can run without asking the TMO all the time.

What's your take on the effect of this dispensation on the game - are there too many pauses? (I haven't been watching the Aviva on TV.)