TMO question

[amazing tiger]

Most recently it seems now that the referee has to give an on field decision as to what he think has happened in regards to a try. This never used to be the case as if the ref was unsure and in a lot of cases the question used to be try yes or no? This change in approach has seemingly led to quite a few tries being given when they have not been scored ie held up just look at today’s example. Has there been a clear directive that the ref must give an on field decision if so I must have missed this but I do feel it’s a strange change from what we used to see.

[ourla]

The idea is that the referee is the decision maker and they don't defer to the TMO.

[OakhamTiger32]

I feel that if a quality referee had been on the whistle yesterday a few decisions may well have been different. Would it have effected the result, unlikely but once again it's just consistency that I am after, which we didn't get yesterday.

- The Newcastle try: strange one for me but the referee is in the best position possible to see a potential grounding. Not me sat at home on my sofa or anybody else. If Dickson has seen a grounding and is absolutely certain then fair enough. The questions he asked were about the build up play and any other infringements he may have missed. The TMO says 'it's held up' but if Dickson thinks he's seen a grounding then fair enough he sticks with his on field decision.

- The Disallowed Steward try - Dickson was very weak to be over ruled by the TMO imho. When the TMO said 'I'm going to show you him leading with the elbow', A quality referee would have said.. 'I can't see it from any of that footage, please show me another angle' and if those are the only angles they have then he sticks with his on field decision and awards the try. Dickson just simply gave in to the TMO repeatedly saying 'he led with his elbow and it is foul play'.

- Wiese in at the side: TMO is only supposed to intervene if it's potential foul play which this wasn't so Dickson stuck to his on field decision which was better from him.

- Wiese yellow card: definitely worthy of note by the TMO and worth a look. Very close to being a red but right call for me.

- Head contact on Stewart: I would have like this to be looked at. It may well have been and dismissed but I didn't hear any chat between the TMO and referee so don't think anything was done. Given the current interpretation of the rules this is a yellow card imho. Head contact mitigated down from a red to yellow by the fact he's tackled and is falling. Strange this wasn't even looked at.

Lots of input from the linesmen and the TMO which is tough for any referee as it leads them down the 'referee by committee' route. I'm not a fan of Dickson, I think he has too many old mates still playing in the Premiership to be completely impartial and I think he is definitely one of the weaker referees but none of his assistants really helped him out yesterday. Perhaps he should have gripped it earlier.

[tjs10inOz]

While the ref may now give a clearer opinion in his question to the TMO, in principle I don't think it has changed significantly.

Previously, the ref used to ask one of two questions as follows:

- "Is there any reason I cannot award a try?" (ie on-field decision: Try, as the TMO has to find a reason to disallow it)

- "Is it a try, yes or no?" (ie on-field decision: No try, as the TMO needs to find evidence as to why the try CAN be awarded).

[voice of the crumbie]

The idea is that the referee is the decision maker and they don't defer to the TMO.

If only that were true in reality.

[BengalTiger]

The strangest incident was the disallowed Tigers try in the second half, the ref said he just saw two players running into each other with the TMO venement that it was foul play, Dickenson seemed to be unwilling to argue with the TMO and asked several times about what the TMO saw but he did not seem to want to disagree.

I thought the ref was there to make decisions and the TMO is there to show him the footage so he can review stuff he has missed, very strange behaviour

[wellstiger]

Compare League with Union. There is a distinct disconnect in the way the TMO is used in union.
The ref in League asks the distinct question and the TMO talks with a degree of knowledge.

Union allows the TMO to offer opinion in which some refs are dissuaded from there original decision.
There are big screens which the play back is projected. Surely the refs can see in closer detail what they have immediately missed and then decide to listen to the opinion of TMO or not.

I'd sooner the ref take control and make the decision rightly or wrongly let the TMO only interject if serious or potential injury is evident and not to micro manage a game, as happened on Sunday. This leads to the inevitable anx' when even the TMO misses a foal play and then the shouts of where was the TMO there then and the pundits saying - that needs to be looked at again. For it not to be.
We want the game to flow. The players want to let the game flow and we are getting to a point where open games are won or lost by refs and TMO's rather than forwards and backs.

[ay2oh]

It really racks me off the way that there is constant chirping now from the TMO /Assistant referee throughout the whole game. As someone on another thread said earlier I love the Tigers but am falling out of love with the game because of the questionable law changes and inconsistency of the officials

[Scott1]

I've watched the De Bruin incident several times and I'm just lost with it. I even tried to give an obstruction but couldn't no matter how hard I tried.

[Scott1]

The thing is if it was a deliberate act of foul play with an elbow Dixon had a duty of care to study point of contact,and if its neck or head its red and anywhere else it's most likely a yellow. That's what makes the situation ever more farcical! Did he even ask the question where the point of contact was?

[CrumblingTerrace]

I felt what happened in the Falcons game was the opposite of the norm.

Typically, the TMO shows a replay and starts suggesting what they think happened. Then the ref confidently asserts a different opinion and asks if the TMO agrees. The TMO then meekly agrees.

[ourla]

I've watched the De Bruin incident several times and I'm just lost with it. I even tried to give an obstruction but couldn't no matter how hard I tried.

I think most would agree but it's done, let's move on.