Use of TV referrals

[scrum1/2]

When the use of the TV officials started I thought it was a good idea for the critical decisions in the games. But the at the game yesterday (Sale), was I the only one who got frustrated with the number of times the official used this and the length of time it took to reach the decision? I’m guessing that at least 10 minutes was added to the game for no real reason. Is it time that this was revisited and unless it is clear and obvious within say 20 seconds then the game restarts with the refs decision - I think something needs to happen to prevent the stopping and starting of the game and the break up in the flow that I felt spoiled some of the game yesterday? Thoughts....

[Mark62]

I would agree that something needs to be done, just not sure what.
2 issues to my mind, the over reliance of certain refs on use of the referral system, and players being patently aware of the cameras and blocking angles particularly on the goal line.

2 suggestions that unless the ref or assistants are totally unsighted then the decision be made there and then, and that unless there has been foul play the game is not bought back past the current phase of play.

[upandunder]

We should be grateful that it was not worse. Sean Davey and his ego often ruin games and he is no friend if Tigers. Remember the Tom Varndell try at Gloucester a while back when he was a good meter inside the deadfall line and Davey refused to go to the tv ref? Sundays delays were a real pain to deal with for those in the stands. Almost lost the will to live!
I believe it should only be referred in exceptional circumstances like in the England /Aussie match last Saturday.

[Roly]

When the use of the TV officials started I thought it was a good idea for the critical decisions in the games. But the at the game yesterday (Sale), was I the only one who got frustrated with the number of times the official used this and the length of time it took to reach the decision? I’m guessing that at least 10 minutes was added to the game for no real reason. Is it time that this was revisited and unless it is clear and obvious within say 20 seconds then the game restarts with the refs decision - I think something needs to happen to prevent the stopping and starting of the game and the break up in the flow that I felt spoiled some of the game yesterday? Thoughts....

But the whole point of using the video referee is that it isn't clear and obvious, and the amount of time taken to review some decisions only serves to reinforce that.

[ourla]

There was one on Sunday where to be fair to Luke Pearce he told the TMO I am happy there is no foul play and the TMO insisted on showing him "one more angle" which was unnecessary and didn't change the decision.

Overall though I don't have a problem. I would rather them get it right and it gives time for the physio's and water boys to do their job.

[LE18]

Big article in today's Telegraph on this matter, by Mick Cleary.

[mightymouse]

I suspect the OP is not the only one to be frustrated judging by the grumbling, booing, cat calls, slow hand clapping and general malcontent seeping out the terrace (I should know, I started a few of them!)
Everyone is heartily sick of it. Nobody has a problem checking with the TMO on important decisions ... foul play and tries .... but this inability of a referee to make a decision on his on or with the mere brief help from his 2 assistants is reaching epidemic proportions.
Each decision takes an eternity and blow me if it isn't wrong sometimes. The decision not yellow card the All Black for example because the ref was talked out of it by the TMO, then not to TMO the All black in front of the posts deliberately knocking the ball forward. The whole system needs overhauling and speeding up before it becomes a complete joke and brings the whole refereeing authority into question. It is no wonder Football is so reluctant to bring it in ... they are denying good technology because they see it badly executed in other sports.

[Roly]

I suspect the OP is not the only one to be frustrated judging by the grumbling, booing, cat calls, slow hand clapping and general malcontent seeping out the terrace (I should know, I started a few of them!)
Everyone is heartily sick of it. Nobody has a problem checking with the TMO on important decisions ... foul play and tries .... but this inability of a referee to make a decision on his on or with the mere brief help from his 2 assistants is reaching epidemic proportions.
Each decision takes an eternity and blow me if it isn't wrong sometimes. The decision not yellow card the All Black for example because the ref was talked out of it by the TMO, then not to TMO the All black in front of the posts deliberately knocking the ball forward. The whole system needs overhauling and speeding up before it becomes a complete joke and brings the whole refereeing authority into question. It is no wonder Football is so reluctant to bring it in ... they are denying good technology because they see it badly executed in other sports.

I think you might be over reacting somewhat.

No, I think you might be over reacting a lot. Not to mention grossly exaggerating.

On the whole, the introduction of the TMO has provided timely and accurate resolution to on pitch ambiguity.

[ourla]

I agree with Roly and boy does it hurt

[ellis9]

If it takes time to make the decision but the correct decision is reached, then I am fine with it.

If it takes a long time but the incorrect call is made, then it's very frustrating.

[Tiglon]

I think more decisions are made correctly now than they were before TMO. I'm happy to put up with delays for this.

[Bunchy]

I would like more clarity on when they should be used - and also the criteria for the question asked - such as "any reason" versus try yes or no??
Overall the example of TV's yellow card and no penalty try award still came down to judgement that AT would have made a cover tackle - there's no way of proving that. Also BY's kick forward for England's try - one angle showed some grass between ball and line and another did not.

It's not perfect but it has stamped out some dangerous play as players know they are being watched more than ever and I think it gets more things right than wrong - perhaps a time limit on decisions would help?

[ellis9]

I would like more clarity on when they should be used - and also the criteria for the question asked - such as "any reason" versus try yes or no??
Overall the example of TV's yellow card and no penalty try award still came down to judgement that AT would have made a cover tackle - there's no way of proving that. Also BY's kick forward for England's try - one angle showed some grass between ball and line and another did not.

It's not perfect but it has stamped out some dangerous play as players know they are being watched more than ever and I think it gets more things right than wrong - perhaps a time limit on decisions would help?

The try yes or no or any reason I cannot award a try is very clear in my opinion. If the ref thinks a try has been scored, he will ask if there is any reason it cannot be awarded. If the ref cannot tell if a try has been scored, he will say "try yes or no" to find out if a try has been scored. That's the only two criteria needed.

[Yorkshire man]

There were issues in the England Australia match on Saturday as well which were ludicrous and went on forever particularly with the Elliot Daly try. The touch judge was really well placed to assess the question of whether the ball went in touch from the clearance kick, and waved play on. The referee chose to review the matter and we suffered numerous replays of a bouncing ball. If you are not going to accept the flag waggers decision then what is the point of him being there. We might as well just have numerous cameras and just one official on the field. The referee must have faith in his assistants or there is no point in them turning up.

[Jimmy Skitz]

There were issues in the England Australia match on Saturday as well which were ludicrous and went on forever particularly with the Elliot Daly try. The touch judge was really well placed to assess the question of whether the ball went in touch from the clearance kick, and waved play on. The referee chose to review the matter and we suffered numerous replays of a bouncing ball. If you are not going to accept the flag waggers decision then what is the point of him being there. We might as well just have numerous cameras and just one official on the field. The referee must have faith in his assistants or there is no point in them turning up.

maybe the assistant said he wasn't sure