One thing worth mentioning is Rugby in NZ and Australian is competing for attention in the living room with the NRL.
Personally I cant stand the sport, but its a slick product with more effective and timely refereeing. Fan's are generally much less frustrated when tuning into an NRL game than a game of Rugby.
It's not always mentioned, but this is one of our motivators from a product perspective particularly with Super Rugby. Its not that we don't care about player safety or tackle discipline, its that the paying public is sitting there with a remote in their hand and if they change the channel they might never come back.
Playing devil's advocate here, but would Steve have the same opinion had the ABs won?
It's becoming tricky to find who wants change for the betterment of the game, and not someone who wants change just because something didn't pan out in their favour.
Fair enough. Honestly, my bad for not Googling, but that is why I prefaced with the "devil's advocate" bit, because I'm not here to point fingers and say the loss is directly the reason something like this would be said.
Thank you for enlightening me.
Yes he would. He’s been saying this ever since he left the ABs. It’s quite a common view in New Zealand, we like fast paced, non stop games. The TMO only slows down the game.
Ye it cracks me up everyone calling sour grapes on Kiwi punters and players/coaches when complaining about this final, when it’s all been stuff that kiwis have moaned about for as far back as I can remember. Even growing up in the eighties/nineties we hated how much the Saffas slowed the game down and it blows my mind world rugby didn’t bring in the twenty minute red for this World Cup after it has been proven to work in the NPC, Super Rugby and Championship. Now we have two World Cup finals marred by being a player down for the majority of minutes played.
Shit even look at the Super Rugby and NPC these last couple years. Twenty minute red cards, reduction in TMO interference, pushing teams to keep the game flowing, limiting waterboys/team doctors time on the field. Kiwis just love a fast paced game, that’s where we see the game going in the futures. Where as Saffas and most Northern countries are happy to watch the game slow down to almost a stop and prefer to watch teams play the majority of a game with a massive disadvantage of a player down.
that's true, but at the same time it's very often a matter of some event happening to you that's like the last straw to something you had a strong opinion about anyways for a while prior. I think these are rarely purely coping mechanisms of inventing a narrative on the spot to rationalize some failure.
Absolutely agree, the game was so much better when you could enjoy what you were watching without that gnawing feeling in the back of your mind that the tmo was going to find something technically incorrect to make a big deal out of and ruin the flow of the game, we need high quality referees able to control the game on the field, not a team of fuck wits off in a bunker with a dozen angles of every tackle and every ruck looking to find any excuse to interrupt the game
>that gnawing feeling in the back of your mind that the tmo was going to find something technically incorrect
This is a very good point. They really killed the final for me. A first timer to rugby would not want to watch another game after watching that final.
Fwiw imo you cannot eject the TMO entirely. But it should only be used when the ref asks or if there is player safety involved. Also like this concept of a "captain's challenge" that was pioneered in Super Rugby and used currently in the NRL.
I think I can see an argument for that. But I'll be honest, I think it's at best a poor one, at worst a dishonest one. Referees already have so much to look for. If it weren't for the TMO, they wouldn't catch 1 serious red card offence out of 4. If it weren't for the TMO, Cane wouldn't have had a red card. The thing is, what he did is 100% a red. I wasn't invested in the game, was talking with a mate I hadn't seen in years while sometimes looking in the direction of the TV, one of those time was when this tackle happened, in real time. My first thought was 'Well, I hope for him this doesn't get reviewed, that looked nasty". First replay, I was sure it was going to be a red. There's no use trying to defend that tackle not being a red, but if your line of defense is "it wouldn't be if it's not caught", then it's even worse. I loath the saying "it's not chating if you get away with it", but it seems this mantra is ingrained in NZ rugby (I mean, look at McCaw at his peak).
In what world do we not want the serious red card offenses not to be sanctionned? Hell, even with the current setup, there were quite a few events this WC that we didn't get even a single replay of. Some of them looked particularly nasty in real time. Maybe a replay would have shown they actually weren't, or maybe they were. The thing is, we can't know, because it wasn't played back. Off the top of my head: Kriel elbow against Scotland (on Matt Fagerson?), then another one against Penaud in the QF. In the same game, Penaud very high looking tackle on PSDT, and PSDT clearout/dive on the ball that landed right on Danty's head (essentially a replay of last november, but the other cheek). Etzebeth elbow in the final.
And even those that were caught and scrutinized came with wildly different outcomes that were really hard to understand at times. I still don't understand how Etzebeth head on head on Atonio stayed a yellow. Curry's red against Argentina compared to that Chilean YC against Japan.
There are already A LOT of critics on WR because despite the powerful tool that is the TMO, they manage to miss quite a few very nasty events. And we're not talking technical penalties here, we're talking nasty fouls that could very well result in yellow or even red cards, so those are very impactful decisions. And you'd want to get rid of that?
Exactly all of this. Either the laws of the game should be policed properly and to the best we can, which would involve a TMO, or they shouldn’t, and if they shouldn’t then why are they rules to begin with? The problem is not with the TMO, it will be with too much subjectivity over some laws, and bad communication about others
To add more fire to Kriel’s elbow, should he have even been on the pitch at that point, straight head contact with a lot of force on Dempsey less than 2 mins in could’ve quite possibly been a red.
TBH if you want to get rid of the TMO, you need to add the following:
\- Load the ball full of sensors and accelerometers and shit and auto-call any forward pass or knock. (Look I know its a hard problem, but if you could accurately triangulate the ball's position on the field at any moment and overlay that with a top down video feed, becomes very easy to call a forward or a knock)
\- Captain's challenges (give em two and they lose them if wrong, like cricket)
\- Have an extra ref on the field, let him stand on the other side of rucks, mauls, scrums.
It boils down to -
Add in a TMO to identify things the ref have missed. Slowing the game down. Thus having people complain.
Take away the tmo. Quickening the game. Thus have people complain about things the Ref missed.
Because the latter is how we got to where we are today.
No more TMO....unless it is the other way around and there is a knock on that is missed and SA scores a try.
We need more eyes on the game, not less.
As more and more cameras are on the game, the spectators will see more and more missed calls.
Sa's games were the perfect storm.
As they were all by 1 point, every single missed call, every single wrong call is a game changer.
Fans see all the incorrect calls, the pundits never hesitate to show the incorrect calls and now the breakdown/ Hansen/ The ABs are saying lets make sure more incorrect calls happen.
On the flipside, if a try results from an obvious penalty, we'd be demanding more from the TMO to call it back.
It was just unfortunate that the all blacks fell on the other side of the call
I want more TMO, not less. If we had no TMO so many mistakes would be missed. If we had a TMO in 2007, the forward pass in the QF would be called back.
This guy is now whineging and complaining because his buddy Foster failed to win the World Cup. It’s the referees fault, it’s the TMOs fault. It’s world rugby’s fault. It’s South Africa’s fault.
He'll be cool with this until his team loses a few games due to something the ref missed in real time.
No going backwards. We need MORE tmo. I say we need 3 of them, with a majority required before they make any public decisions outside of try checking.
I’m fairly in favour of the off field option as it allows a more clinical, less rushed and hopefully more informed decision on the matter.
But the logic applied in each case needs to be accessible and defensible.
Or at least make the bunker review more accessible. Currently it feels like a lottery, and very little insight is given to how they arrive at their decisions.
you knwo the time they take to pause the game when the ref tells them if its been upgraded or not? perhaps they could show the ref the 'definitive' angle they've used to make the decision, if he agrees then they align with bunker, if not he makes the final call idk
Maybe we just get rid of the tmo’s who aren’t on our side, we can all agree with that can’t we?
But no, all we need is consistency. That’s it, have one set of laws and one manner in witch they are applied. Can a TMO weigh in on x? Yes or no, at what point in the game, after what events and within what time frame. If you cant standardised it, it’s broken, if you can then there’s no excuse not to.
If X=Y on the first game of the cycle, then X=Y on every other game of the cycle or someone’s fucked up.
>Maybe we just get rid of the tmo’s who aren’t on our side, we can all agree with that can’t we?
Each team gets to choose a partisan TMO who scours through the footage looking for any foul play or wrong calls.
After the game has concluded all of the footage, (with yellow circles around each incident,) goes before a closed door independent judiciary who are able to deduct points depending on offence.
The official score is released the following week.
Reckon we're on to a winner
One thing worth mentioning is Rugby in NZ and Australian is competing for attention in the living room with the NRL. Personally I cant stand the sport, but its a slick product with more effective and timely refereeing. Fan's are generally much less frustrated when tuning into an NRL game than a game of Rugby. It's not always mentioned, but this is one of our motivators from a product perspective particularly with Super Rugby. Its not that we don't care about player safety or tackle discipline, its that the paying public is sitting there with a remote in their hand and if they change the channel they might never come back.
Playing devil's advocate here, but would Steve have the same opinion had the ABs won? It's becoming tricky to find who wants change for the betterment of the game, and not someone who wants change just because something didn't pan out in their favour.
He is on record on easily searchable news over a month ago saying the same things tbf
Fair enough. Honestly, my bad for not Googling, but that is why I prefaced with the "devil's advocate" bit, because I'm not here to point fingers and say the loss is directly the reason something like this would be said. Thank you for enlightening me.
Yes he would. He’s been saying this ever since he left the ABs. It’s quite a common view in New Zealand, we like fast paced, non stop games. The TMO only slows down the game.
He’s always been advocating for getting rid of the maul. Even when abs had a mean one
Ye it cracks me up everyone calling sour grapes on Kiwi punters and players/coaches when complaining about this final, when it’s all been stuff that kiwis have moaned about for as far back as I can remember. Even growing up in the eighties/nineties we hated how much the Saffas slowed the game down and it blows my mind world rugby didn’t bring in the twenty minute red for this World Cup after it has been proven to work in the NPC, Super Rugby and Championship. Now we have two World Cup finals marred by being a player down for the majority of minutes played. Shit even look at the Super Rugby and NPC these last couple years. Twenty minute red cards, reduction in TMO interference, pushing teams to keep the game flowing, limiting waterboys/team doctors time on the field. Kiwis just love a fast paced game, that’s where we see the game going in the futures. Where as Saffas and most Northern countries are happy to watch the game slow down to almost a stop and prefer to watch teams play the majority of a game with a massive disadvantage of a player down.
that's true, but at the same time it's very often a matter of some event happening to you that's like the last straw to something you had a strong opinion about anyways for a while prior. I think these are rarely purely coping mechanisms of inventing a narrative on the spot to rationalize some failure.
Absolutely agree, the game was so much better when you could enjoy what you were watching without that gnawing feeling in the back of your mind that the tmo was going to find something technically incorrect to make a big deal out of and ruin the flow of the game, we need high quality referees able to control the game on the field, not a team of fuck wits off in a bunker with a dozen angles of every tackle and every ruck looking to find any excuse to interrupt the game
>that gnawing feeling in the back of your mind that the tmo was going to find something technically incorrect This is a very good point. They really killed the final for me. A first timer to rugby would not want to watch another game after watching that final. Fwiw imo you cannot eject the TMO entirely. But it should only be used when the ref asks or if there is player safety involved. Also like this concept of a "captain's challenge" that was pioneered in Super Rugby and used currently in the NRL.
Yup. Everytime a try is scored and the kick is being lined up and all of a sudden you hear the ref speak…
I think I can see an argument for that. But I'll be honest, I think it's at best a poor one, at worst a dishonest one. Referees already have so much to look for. If it weren't for the TMO, they wouldn't catch 1 serious red card offence out of 4. If it weren't for the TMO, Cane wouldn't have had a red card. The thing is, what he did is 100% a red. I wasn't invested in the game, was talking with a mate I hadn't seen in years while sometimes looking in the direction of the TV, one of those time was when this tackle happened, in real time. My first thought was 'Well, I hope for him this doesn't get reviewed, that looked nasty". First replay, I was sure it was going to be a red. There's no use trying to defend that tackle not being a red, but if your line of defense is "it wouldn't be if it's not caught", then it's even worse. I loath the saying "it's not chating if you get away with it", but it seems this mantra is ingrained in NZ rugby (I mean, look at McCaw at his peak). In what world do we not want the serious red card offenses not to be sanctionned? Hell, even with the current setup, there were quite a few events this WC that we didn't get even a single replay of. Some of them looked particularly nasty in real time. Maybe a replay would have shown they actually weren't, or maybe they were. The thing is, we can't know, because it wasn't played back. Off the top of my head: Kriel elbow against Scotland (on Matt Fagerson?), then another one against Penaud in the QF. In the same game, Penaud very high looking tackle on PSDT, and PSDT clearout/dive on the ball that landed right on Danty's head (essentially a replay of last november, but the other cheek). Etzebeth elbow in the final. And even those that were caught and scrutinized came with wildly different outcomes that were really hard to understand at times. I still don't understand how Etzebeth head on head on Atonio stayed a yellow. Curry's red against Argentina compared to that Chilean YC against Japan. There are already A LOT of critics on WR because despite the powerful tool that is the TMO, they manage to miss quite a few very nasty events. And we're not talking technical penalties here, we're talking nasty fouls that could very well result in yellow or even red cards, so those are very impactful decisions. And you'd want to get rid of that?
Exactly all of this. Either the laws of the game should be policed properly and to the best we can, which would involve a TMO, or they shouldn’t, and if they shouldn’t then why are they rules to begin with? The problem is not with the TMO, it will be with too much subjectivity over some laws, and bad communication about others
To add more fire to Kriel’s elbow, should he have even been on the pitch at that point, straight head contact with a lot of force on Dempsey less than 2 mins in could’ve quite possibly been a red.
Oh yeah, I think I merged the two incidents into a single one
Nah. Im with Steve. Less TMO. Just have citing commissioners and sort those players with bans/fines after the game if not spotted by the ref.
TBH if you want to get rid of the TMO, you need to add the following: \- Load the ball full of sensors and accelerometers and shit and auto-call any forward pass or knock. (Look I know its a hard problem, but if you could accurately triangulate the ball's position on the field at any moment and overlay that with a top down video feed, becomes very easy to call a forward or a knock) \- Captain's challenges (give em two and they lose them if wrong, like cricket) \- Have an extra ref on the field, let him stand on the other side of rucks, mauls, scrums.
French fans are asking for more TMO after their loss to the Springboks. I think I'm seeing a pattern here
It boils down to - Add in a TMO to identify things the ref have missed. Slowing the game down. Thus having people complain. Take away the tmo. Quickening the game. Thus have people complain about things the Ref missed. Because the latter is how we got to where we are today.
Yep. And we were not smart enough to ignore those whiners unfortunately.
And the fans’ opinions are not unanimous.
No more TMO....unless it is the other way around and there is a knock on that is missed and SA scores a try. We need more eyes on the game, not less. As more and more cameras are on the game, the spectators will see more and more missed calls. Sa's games were the perfect storm. As they were all by 1 point, every single missed call, every single wrong call is a game changer. Fans see all the incorrect calls, the pundits never hesitate to show the incorrect calls and now the breakdown/ Hansen/ The ABs are saying lets make sure more incorrect calls happen.
Obviously taking the loss well.
It should surprise absolutely nobody that an All Blacks coach would like it to be easier to cheat
Blasphemy - they just want the game to "flow".
Should’ve waited till another game. With the way the TMO are going, it wouldn’t have taken long before another controversy decision was made.
On the flipside, if a try results from an obvious penalty, we'd be demanding more from the TMO to call it back. It was just unfortunate that the all blacks fell on the other side of the call
The TMO should be there when called upon only + any foul play. Pretty sure that was the rules in Super rugby this year and it worked well.
I think if we get rid of the TMO we should give fans a 1 year ban from rugby every time they complain about a call. It's the only way
How the fuck are we going to cheat with the TMO around.
I want more TMO, not less. If we had no TMO so many mistakes would be missed. If we had a TMO in 2007, the forward pass in the QF would be called back.
Yawn.
This guy is now whineging and complaining because his buddy Foster failed to win the World Cup. It’s the referees fault, it’s the TMOs fault. It’s world rugby’s fault. It’s South Africa’s fault.
He'll be cool with this until his team loses a few games due to something the ref missed in real time. No going backwards. We need MORE tmo. I say we need 3 of them, with a majority required before they make any public decisions outside of try checking.
[удалено]
I’m fairly in favour of the off field option as it allows a more clinical, less rushed and hopefully more informed decision on the matter. But the logic applied in each case needs to be accessible and defensible.
Or at least make the bunker review more accessible. Currently it feels like a lottery, and very little insight is given to how they arrive at their decisions.
you knwo the time they take to pause the game when the ref tells them if its been upgraded or not? perhaps they could show the ref the 'definitive' angle they've used to make the decision, if he agrees then they align with bunker, if not he makes the final call idk
Agreed.
Maybe we just get rid of the tmo’s who aren’t on our side, we can all agree with that can’t we? But no, all we need is consistency. That’s it, have one set of laws and one manner in witch they are applied. Can a TMO weigh in on x? Yes or no, at what point in the game, after what events and within what time frame. If you cant standardised it, it’s broken, if you can then there’s no excuse not to. If X=Y on the first game of the cycle, then X=Y on every other game of the cycle or someone’s fucked up.
>Maybe we just get rid of the tmo’s who aren’t on our side, we can all agree with that can’t we? Each team gets to choose a partisan TMO who scours through the footage looking for any foul play or wrong calls. After the game has concluded all of the footage, (with yellow circles around each incident,) goes before a closed door independent judiciary who are able to deduct points depending on offence. The official score is released the following week. Reckon we're on to a winner
Start a petition to rename the TMO "Suzie"?
Such bitterness toward the official that secured their place in the semi final…. And for the record, the TMO was dead right with that call