He makes obvious points about the scrums...that debacle between the All Blacks and Italy at the San Siro a few years back was tragicOriginally Posted by chassamui
He makes obvious points about the scrums...that debacle between the All Blacks and Italy at the San Siro a few years back was tragicOriginally Posted by chassamui
Welsh lucky to have an easy start with so many forwards missing. Hibbard? Ryan Jones? Ian Evans?
Gatland has had to call up inexperienced replacements.
i agreeOriginally Posted by chassamui
first time i can ever remember us having italy first up...there must have been another occasion but i'm struggling to remember one
i think evans will be lucky not to get banned til the end of the tournament
it was blatant and incredibly stupid stamping for the hell of it
Brian Moore makes some interesting observations on the TMO.
Time to give referees their authority back and bin the TMO bore-fest
In May this year the International Rugby Board will review the Television Match Official amendments allowing TMOs to scrutinise acts other than those of scoring
Gone in slow motion: Ospreys' Ian Evans was red-carded after a long deliberation and numerous slow motion replays by the TMO in the Heineken Cup clash with Leinster at the weekend Photo: GETTY IMAGES
By Brian Moore
11:00PM GMT 19 Jan 2014
116 Comments
Previous 2012 trials were well received and it is likely they will be made law. However, the IRB should pause and consider that the increased use of the TMO, and the time taken, is now seriously annoying a majority of rugby supporters.
This is not easy, as conflicting points are complex, yet it is crucial a balance is achieved, addressing as many concerns as is reasonably practicable. We want as many decisions as possible to be right but the IRB’s own stipulation is that the use of the TMO must not “adversely impact on the character of the game”.
Well, at the moment it is and if left unamended it will get worse. As any watcher will tell you the atmosphere at games is severely diluted when reviews are numerous and lengthy, especially when the reviewed footage is not shown publicly and no explanation is given about what and how a decision is made.
If the ‘correct decision’ principle is taken to its extreme it would mean constant review of all decisions. After reviewing detailed statistics, the IRB concluded the vast majority of tries at elite level are scored from two phases, so limiting reviews to that point would allow TMOs to address most match-affecting incidents. This necessarily means a minority of major decisions are not reviewed and people just have to accept this.
TMOs are supposed to help officials make correct decisions but it is becoming evident that it encourages them not to make decisions until they have TMO assistance. This does not strengthen the officials’ authority; it makes them look indecisive.
Related Articles
- Munster secure home draw
19 Jan 2014- Glasgow push Toulon all the way
19 Jan 2014- Botica keeps Quins alive
19 Jan 2014- Premiership salary cap to rise
19 Jan 2014- English clubs frozen out
18 Jan 2014- Goode in pole position for Six Nations
19 Jan 2014
IRB protocol states that anything reviewed prior to the act of scoring, including foul play, must be “clear and obvious” yet the interminable replays of many incidents shows that they are not. They are often being used to rule on highly marginal points.
It is even more confusing when a referee uses footage played on the stadium screen to make up his mind, in which case you do not need a TMO; stadium screens or a sideline monitor would be sufficient, as per the NFL in the US.
Some may point to the non-obvious, but still important, incidents like the foul-play rulings last weekend on Ian Evans and Nathan White and it is true that they were highlighted by the TMO. These would have been picked up by the citing officer but that would not aid the opposing team as those players would not have been removed from the field. This would be so even if the Rugby League sanction of being put on report was adopted.
In the end, you either have to put up with the ever lengthening reviews of all possible incidents, many of which are no more than handbags-at-dawn, or you leave it to the citing officer. If the latter, you must accept that your team might benefit in an unimportant game and suffer in a crucial game that decides a league or cup.
The IRB has options, none of which are perfect. Although controversial, it needs to decide whether a TMO is needed or just access to footage for game officials.
It could let officials decide everything and have a limited number of challenges per team.
If we do not go back to reviews just for the act of scoring, anything else must be time limited. If it takes more than a minute, it isn’t clear and obvious. If the act of scoring is unclear the benefit of any doubt should be given to the attacking team.
Rugby should adopt something similar to cricket’s ‘umpire’s call’ making a refereeing decision mandatory and then requiring the TMO to find compelling evidence to overturn it. If referees just ask “yes or no” what is the point? Conversions could be taken during reviews – if it is successful and a try, it counts; if not, you have not taken another minute off the game.
Reviewed footage must be shown publicly and the TMO must explain what is being decided and how. Thereafter, it should not be necessary for the referee to explain the decision in detail to various players.
Having seen this situation develop and fearing where it will lead, I am now in favour of binning TMOs and allowing match officials to use technology to back their calls, with citing officers to deal with omissions. This would restore the independent authority of the referee and assistants. Technology has improved things but must be used correctly. Ultimately, you must accept that mistakes, even bad ones, will be made, as they are presently with the new protocol. However, that would be better than the incessant TMO bore-fest that is presently ruining games.
Heart of Gold and a Knob of butter.
I agree, why have referee's if they have to rely on a TMO this also applies to the two linesmen?
I personally think it detracts from the momentum of the game.
In the old days if an infringement or foul was missed by the referee or linesmen
then it was tough titty and everyone just got on with the game. There was no point in arguing the toss.
It is the time wasting at scrum time that upsets the momentum of the game...the speed of the current game means it is difficult for even the best referees to keep up and as was shown in rugby league putting an extra referee in the end zone was a failure.Originally Posted by jamiejambos
It's hard to say really, I can see both sides.
Some vital decisions lead to tries which change the game entirely, literally win it, wrongfully, for one team, so stopping the game for 30 seconds to get the right result seems reasonable. But, there are a lot more stoppages in the game than there used to be; I don't think it detracts from the crowds experience, may add theatre, but I'm not sure that's a good thing either. I'm happy enough as it is; it'd be nice for the scrums to work well though, but in the professional era, a team under pressure just kills the scrum as a lesser of 2 evils...
Cycling should be banned!!!
How about having a touch judge come on and supervise the other side of the scrum?
We all know what devious bastards props are.
I have been saying that for years Chass.
That isn't the problem...unless the referee has been a prop he hasn't a clue...and that Aussie ref who had been a prop...Erikson I think it was...was just as useless...scrums are becoming the bane of the game...but that is worth another thread.Originally Posted by chassamui
You ever played in the front row?Originally Posted by jamiejambos
Sadly true...and there is no easy fixOriginally Posted by Bettyboo
You ever played in the front row?[/QUOTE]Originally Posted by jamiejambos
Yes I have , and if you have you'll know that they are not fun places to be.
Then according to you I will only have played in pretend scrums in pretend teams in Scotland and Ireland both with imaginary pitches and an imaginary host of
Brian O'Driscoll's. So I've done you a favour by posting it for you to save you wasting your time.
loose head tight head or hooker?...I will wait while you Google itOriginally Posted by jamiejambos
scrum half during my school days but after putting on a lot of bulk (5 feet and not much and 14.5 stones) i was a converted hooker for 2 years until i nearly broke my neck after a scrummage collapse at university
that was 20 years ago....never played the game again
So you are JamieJambos from Ireland/Scotland/Wales?Originally Posted by ChiangMai noon
So you guys would know that no front row forward enjoys a collapsed scrum...especially the hooker...most collapses are caused by either poor technique or loss of control because of the pressure from the opposing prop...the problem with the scrums is the traditional requirement for rugby to be a brute force game in the forwards with little thought for the spectators...that is ok for the diehards but rugby league, which was the same game as rugby union for 20 years after its inception soon learned it was just plain boring...over 100 years later Twickenham haven't learned the lesson
I am hoping England can devote some time to teaching the hooker to throw the ball in properly at lineouts. Can't afford to give the French forwards too much ball.
That wasn't the issue, it is the rugby scrum that is the problem, league changed from 8 forwards to 6 to solve it over 100 years ago...it isn't a problem in league now...are you saying there are no problems with the rugby scrum?Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog
It is an important role nowOriginally Posted by chassamui
I have question for you front row experts that you can't Google...what is a loose arm?Originally Posted by jamiejambos
The new 'non-contact' scrum used in the autumn internationals did seem to stop most of the issues with the scrums, so I would leave it like that rather than make more damaging changes to the scrum.
The rules for the scrum are fine, the problem is the referees not enforcing them.
Hartley isn't too bad at throwing in, is decent in the scrum and strong around the pitch. I like him. Plus, his tall Northampton mate is playing really well, could be player of the 6 nations - he's matured, strong, fast, good technique, tackles hard, turns ball over, wins the line-out, a lot to like about the lad.Originally Posted by chassamui
Still short of an entire backline though...
i played as a hooker from 88 to 91
throwing the ball in was the hardest part of my job
i used to have to do it with one hand
can anybody tell me when 2 handed throw ins by hookers became legal?
i've tried to find evidence myself but have failed
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)