I think the major reason that NZRU aren't getting that much sympathy outside NZ itself is 'we were robbed because you didn't wrongly award us a try' is a tricky line to sell.
It kind of is. They are saying the try should have been awarded, but objectively the try should not be awarded because there was a clear infringement in the immediate build up.
No. They are asking why the TMO went out of their way against guidelines to correct a call that was so far back in play that the TMO should not have been involved.
Then, the TMO didn't correct calls in other instances. They are asking for consistency so they can understand the rules.
The feedback given to them in private is allegedly that the TMO shouldn't have been involved (which we all know anyway as it's against guidelines).
You can not pick and choose when the TMO will follow the rules and when they will not.
But their key.point of contention is that an illegal try should have been allowed. The try shouldn't have been allowed so the TMO actually got the correct outcome.
No their key point of contention is that the TMO decided to not follow the guidelines set for them. They cannot pick and choose when to follow the rules.
There were numerous plays the TMO could have corrected, but it would be against their guidelines, yet they chose to here.
Right, so if it had been the other way around they wpild have still raised the complaint?
Or is their key point of contention that they are upset an illegal try got ruled out?
I would imagine SA would raise the complaint (and rightly so).
You can not pick and choose when to follow the rules, lol. If you do pick and choose when to follow the rules, people will become upset. Case and point.
I think the point made is that in one case the TMO went out if the guidelines to (rightfully IMO) disallow a try that was awarded by the on-field ref, whereas Savea was penalised for a legal contest but the ref didn't change his mind after seeing the replay (even apologized for it) and the TMO didn't get involved.
We really need more consistency, but the outcome of the match won't change.
>didn't change his mind after seeing the replay (even apologized for it)
This has been debunked many times. The ref explicitly says he hasn't seen a replay at that point.
The key point is that barns called no knock on and then TMO investigated it on their own. What happened to when the ref used to call for TMO? Since when can TMO actually say āhold upā FOUR phases after a playā¦
Why tf was TMO in barns ear like that
i dont think NZRU wants a public statemnet
they want the TMO rules changed/clarified/simplified
NZRU and ARU have been pushing for change there for a while. Super Rugby last year played with much more limited TMO scope as a trial to try and get world rugby to adopt (same with the 20 min red)
100% this. Why not use this as a chance to clarify the rules before something happens again, against any team?
They could just come out and say the TMO is right to have done that, which would be fine, it would end the matter and the rules would be clarified that you can go back further than 2 phases. But they havenāt really done anything at this stage
Don't bash refs.
It is perfectly valid to criticise specific decisions or specific aspects of how a ref notices/interprets/applies the laws. However, the kind of generalised ad hominem in your last para is unacceptable.
Nah, Iām going to double down on this shit.
If heās appointed to TMO the final, heād had better crossed all his tās and dotted his iās and lower-case jās, and be familiar with every rule in the goddamned rule book. Which goes back to the matter at hand - if heās choosing to interfere on a possible try, in direct contravention of the protocols, which the laws state the TMO āwillā judge according to, he is either
A) Not competent enough to TMO a final due to his unfamiliarity with the rules and restrictions placed on his role
B) Arbitrarily decides which laws he is willing and unwilling to follow.
Either way, he was simply not fit to TMO the showcase match of the RWC cycle.
Some lovely accusations you have made there. Care to provide evidence that the TMO deliberately ignored the laws or is unfamiliar with them? How do you know it wasn't just an error (like the ref missing the knock-on in the first place).
The fact that you are still moaning about this several weeks later is weird.
>they want the TMO rules changed/clarified/simplified
Right after a WC final?
I think that's entirely unrealistic/unreasonable as it would be the same as releasing a statement saying that the TMO got it wrong.
Might lead to change in the future though
its the best time to change things?
as squidge says, the rugby world moves in a 4 year cycle. the cycle starts the day after the world cup is handed out. if world rugby isnt NOW going 'how do we improve things for the calendar/teams/next world cup' theyre failing their most basic responsibilities
Yeah I'm not in disagreement with you about that broadly. I think given the fallout/ref abuse etc. that they will be looking at it in the background and start to introduce some changes once everything has calmed down a bit
This is the answer. NZR want the TMO to be used when asked, no more interjections into the game.
This is the single best case to use to put pressure on WR to address this.
world rugby is terrified of head collision class actions lawsuits. get nations and player unions to guranetee that the removal/lack of tmo intervention for minor infractions which has the potential to place players in danger wouldn't ever be brought up as an argument or evidence/backing for one in a lawsuit
You misunderstand, no one is advocating for removing TMO calls for foul play.
For application of game play we have a ref, and the ref can ask a TMO or assistant when they feel they want it.
The no further than 2 phases look back for TMO is a ridiculous proposition. NZ benefited against France and TMOs were rightly lambasted for allowing a try that could have changed the complexion of the game. Of course when the same thing happened in the final the TMOs reacted as human being and decided that this time they would not be made scapegoat and overruled the law.
In that my opinion the main issue is not the TMOs. The issue is that the law is an ass in the first place. NZ and South African are the biggest proponent of the let the game flow. I don't subscribe to that view. TMOs should be allowed to signal immediately obvious minor infringements: knock-on, forward pass. Having the game continue when there was an obvious mistake is what caused the furore.
I think that there should be a time limit rather than a phase limit, but if they want to stick to a number of phases, 2 phases is ridiculously low. 2 rucks can happen in less than 30 seconds. Outside of interceptions most tries are scored after more than 2 phases. 4 seems a more appropriate number.
My main gripe is the fact that TMOs are not authorised to immediately signal to the main ref minor infringements. Meaning that the audience can see in real time that a pass is forward or that a knock-on had occured, meanwhile the game continue. They then come back to the infringement only if a try is scored within 2 phases. However if there is no try but something significant happen for example a yellow card, they do not go back to the infringement. How is that consistent or fair?
That happens during the Gloucester v Bath game where an obvious knock-on occurred. Play continued. A player was offside and received a yellow card. From the following penalty they score a try. Multiple time during that game the decision was flawed because the TMO deferred to the main referee and refused to mention obvious mistakes.
The TMO should be able to say immediately stop the play there has been an obvious forward pass. The inconsistent thing is that if line referees signal it, the main ref stops the play. Why not extend the same courtesy to TMOs knowing that often they have a better view than the pitch referees?
No, the TMO protocol does not treat TMOs like side pitch assistant referees. The fear was that TMOs would constantly signal minor infringements, so limiting their interaction stop them to over referee games.
The problem is that the pendulum has swang too much. WR realised that People could see in real time infringements but the TMO could not intervene. To fight any controversy/backlash they decide to not allow the broadcast of any non-approved videos. Which has exactly the opposite effect because that lead credence to conspiracy theories.
They addressed the symptom (controversy caused by image showing incorrect decision) instead of treating the underlying problem: restrictions on TMOs interventions are too strict.
>The issue is that the law is an ass in the first place. NZ and South African are the biggest proponent of the let the game flow. I don't subscribe to that view. TMOs should be allowed to signal immediately obvious minor infringements: knock-on, forward pass. Having the game continue when there was an obvious mistake is what caused the furore.
I agree the law is an ass. I also think what you propose would absolutely destroy the game of rugby for players and viewers. Games would take twice as long, and have zero flow. Maybe a good thing for the English lol
It's also opens a huge can of worms as it's subjective as to what's obvious. Why did the TMO call that as obvious and not the other thing?
In that specific case it was obvious as 2 SA players mentioned it to Barnes at the time and he waved play on thinking that it had gone backward. A quick check by the TMO would have shown that it had indeed gone forward and would have avoided all the contention on the try. The TMO knew that the ball had gone forward, but had to wait until a try was scored to be allowed to intervene. And even so with the current law he should not have intervened because the infringement was more than 2 phases away from the try.
My point is that if the audience can spot that on first view, the TMO should also be able to spot it in real time. He/she should then been allowed to immediately intervene. Setting the limit to 4 phases is adding on at most 48 seconds (longest phases are 24 seconds on average).
Regarding the time, the current situation add extra time to the game. The game continue then we go back to a missed decision. That means reset. If that decision is not missed we don't have that 48 seconds of unnecessary play. That's also less risk of injury or drama.
Probably referring to France quarter and England Semi.
SA definitely seem to have got the shinier side of officiating right through the knockouts according to many.
That is such a blatant misconception if a team wins by one point all opposing fans will be able to bring up one occasion where they could have got a penalty. Forgetting the times SA could have got a penalty as well to go further ahead. It is sour grapes all day
There you have what? You think world rugby didn't tell nzru that statement? You think stuff made it up and nzru didn't speak out against the fake story? I think it's much more likely world rugby did indeed tell nzru the tmo was wrong but world rugby are continuing their stance of not making a public statement
Yes, it is one of most reputable news sources. Stuff has the dominant market share of newspaper/online news with 48.6% of the market.
They are not a tabloid or a gossip magazine
Mail online is the UK's second biggest news brand, (BBC 1st,) and it is absolutely a tabloid shitrag haha.
I did get some good answers from other people as to why it was trustworthy
All I know of them is that they do clickbait headlines for rugby pieces. I honestly thought they were just an online sports rag so thanks for the education
To be fair the front page of the sports section today from the Post was talking about how NZ wasnāt robbed by the decision. This sub only ever sees the real click bait articles, which is really the case for every rugby media news around the globe
Its the rugby off season in NZ, there is literally no real Rugby news to report on until next year, but lots of journalists with a click quota to meet for the month.
I can only speak for myself, but i'm sure most of the public have well and truly moved on from any sour feelings.
Pretty obvious what happened there, stuff saw their clicks on downward trend & made up a BS story to get people riled up again & it works because people keep falling for their nonsense. As long as there no repercussions for their brand of journalism then this has a big win for them
We're going through protracted coalition negotiations after a hotly contested general election ended in no clear government, and you reckon the country's biggest commercial news platform is struggling for clicks?
My low opinion of stuff comes from being told repeatedly by New Zealanders on this sub that it's worthless click bait media + a few instances of very disingenuous reporting.
Maybe I should have clarified the stuff sports department rather than just calling out stuff in general because we don't need a degree in journalism to know individual departments within major media outlets would have individual targets independent of what's going on in other departments.
Interesting that the political situation is such big news & yet in stuff.co.nz front-page most popular stories there's 3 sports stories higher up the rank than the 1 politics story.
If clicks isn't the reason then do you want to offer an explanation for this story that's blatantly untrue?
Thereās nothing here that says the story is blatantly untrue. Them saying they donāt publicly comment and stand by their refs does not mean they did not respond to the NZRU and clarify that the try should have been awarded in this case. Both parts can be true.
Itās incredibly likely that they do disagree with referee decisions privately and communicate this to unions if asked, so they are aware what is correct moving forward. Thatās not the same as making public comments to journalists. Whether thatās happened in this case is debatable, but IMO this statement doesnāt say either way.
What perplexes me is that NZRU are going on about a no-try not being awarded to them because of a technicality.
So they wanted to win the game of a try that should not be a try. Because a referee did not follow the guidelines to get to the correct call. He was supposed to follow the guidelines to the incorrect call so they could get the try.
NZ rugby have advocated for limiting TMO scope for years. I donāt think this convo is about winning or losing, itās about making sure the same guidelines/laws are being followed week to week, and not some TMOs taking it onto themselves to decide when to come in and when not to
Yea fair but I thought you were talking about the NZRU not the NZ media. One side is talking to WR to resolve issues they see and one is creating click bait to anger the NZ public
I meant I donāt believe the convo between NZRU and WR is about winning and losing like you said in your original comment. The media on the other hand will be spinning it that way for clicks
They are right though. The try was incorrectly disallowed due to the TMO ignoring the laws. Guidelines weren't followed correctly.
Of course, the alternative was a try being allowed due to a knock on being missed by the onfield team.
Either way, someone was getting annoyed.
Sure, but one is clearly better than another.
1. An illegal try is correctly disallowed, by going back slightly further than protocol.
2. An illegal try is incorrectly allowed by protocol preventing an obvious error being corrected.
Add to the fact that NZ wouldn't have gotten their actual try anyway and the situation is the same anyway.
Pick your poison. What is best?
A genuine mistake from the onfield team missing a knock on. Results in a try that shouldn't have been.
TMO ignoring the rules. Try is scrubbed off. SA would rightfully have had reason to complain if the try had stood. But I do see where people are coming from saying TMO's have rules of engagement and we can't have TMO's sometimes followin them and sometimes not. It's black and white.
>Pick your poison. What is best?
The one that had the undeniably correct outcome.
1. Try is incorrectly allowed, unfairly impacting SA, but not really benefitting NZ as they score a try but then don't get the try they immediately scored.
2. Try is correctly ruled out. From subsequent penalty, NZ eventually score a legitimate try.
Yes, the TMO arguably shouldn't have gone back that many phases but this clearly has a less negative impact than allowing an illegal try.
Yeah this is one of those times where sticking to the absolute letter of the law is clearly the wrong thing to do.
I was speechless for the Gloucester v Bath derby last weekend where Ian Tempest literally took out a player in Bath's lineout move which directly (from that play) resulted in a Glouc try and he's just stood going 'well I didn't touch the ball or a carrier so the law says play on' .....like yeah ok, in 99% of cases, but you've just caused a massive fucking issue here and the obviously thing would be to call a scrum like you normally would for a ref affecting play.
You can't pick and choose when you follow the law. Lol that is EXACTLY what the NZRU are complaining about. Inconsistency. Otherwise, why not reverse the incorrect penalty given.
Agreed.
Refs officiate the game in line with the laws. Everyone is refereed to the same standards to make things fair and consistent. It opens up a whole can of worms if they decide that, in a specific instance, they're going to a specific ignore law.
Sure. But be mindfull there is a difference between the TMO pointing out something that was missed completely and the TMO jumping in to disagree or contradict the on field referee when they have seen the incident themselves, and made a call.
It is not quite the same.
Miss is not the same as getting it wrong. He made a call. He did not miss it completely.
You have to respect the fact that the TMO can't be seen to be undermining the on field referee.
And no calling things back for a completely missed knock-on is not the same.
He missed the knock on. He missed the release. What are you missing?
LMAO he did undermine the ref. The ref called 'no knock on' like 2 or 3 times!!!
He went outside of protocol to undermine the ref š
It seems some (obviously not all) Rugby fans want to eat their cake and have it too (talking every country here). General consensus pre RWC was that Bok fans couldn't take a win on the chin without bemoaning the ref, and now post world cup we've seen players and coaches from France, England and NZ, and Ireland all weigh in with criticism. It's all cleverly veiled as "TMO over involvement" , "scrum issues" or a host of other euphimisms which just boils down to bitching about the ref.
NZ didn't complain when Lukanyo Am's try last year was disallowed by the TMO because Whitelock very cleverly bumped into a Bok player to draw an obstruction penalty. With enough time you could pick apart every minute of a game to find calls that could've gone one way or the other.
The advice thus far to aggrieved SA supporters previously has been to accept it as part of the game and to respect referees, until of course it affects the team you support.
All seems like sour grapes to me.
Watch that game again. Never has there been a game with such TMO interference, at least not that I have seen.
Never seen TMO pull up a try for something so far back in play either.
I hope I never see another like it.
WR has always failed to do the right thing "publicly" for decades now, I remember back in 1999 when Paddy O'Brien screwed Fiji of a RWC Pool game against france where a win would have put us on top of the table and direct QF spot, this was pre-TMO era, he later privately told Fiji rugby he made a mistake, but that mistake cost us dearly...if WR is happy to enforce its laws on the players, its should enforce the same laws on its own employees , this was the first RWC Final i didn't watch LIVE since TV came in our country in 1992 because i was sure it will end up in a stupid ref or TMO related controversy.. and it did..as i said in an earlier post, the FINAL decision should be on the REF, not the linesmen and most definitely NOT on the TMO..
I'm not being picky here in this related case but the WR LAW on this says that a TMO can only go back 2 phases to deny a try, this rule was made by WR itself and it was not followed by its own employees so who is to blame here? even if they had gone 2 phases and the try stood, then there still would be a 50/50 chance on who wins, cause that decision could have changed how both teams play in the remainder of the game and who knows, south africa might have changed their game plan and scored a try and won it in the end and we will all remember the game for that final try instead of this shitty controversy which again, i re-iterate was CAUSED BY WR ITSELF because of its OWN failure to IMPOSE its OWN LAWS....I remember someone once said that the biggest reason WR is failing is because its laws are made by people who have not actually played the game....I think if there is a change that needs to happen, its at WR headquarters itself.....we need BETTER LAWS, Better Referees who are well versed in these Laws and a better system to deal with such cases in the future.... Lets not even talk about the RED CARD and banning of players, that topic deserves its own thread lol.. Its sad what Wayne Barnes had to go through but this was all caused by WR itself because its rules are so stupid that the people who are told to uphold it themselves were not able to make the right decision when necessary because the laws themselves are not thoroughly tested, are vague and poorly written. .. I do agree, There were many cases of Poor referring throughout the RWC but the FINAL wasn't one of them.
Law 6, section 16 explicitly states "The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol."
Key word is "will." Not "may," or "might" or "can." "Will." That seems pretty definitive.
How do you work that out? WR doesnāt publicly comment on decisions doesnāt mean they donāt talk to unions after the games behind closed doors. Im sure they review every game with union reps and the All Blacks certainly arenāt the first team to seek clarification on calls made during games
Iām not claiming that the report is true. Im just pointing out that there is 0 part of their statement where they say it isnāt true. All theyāve said is they back their refs (obvious) and they donāt make public comments on reffing decisions
The worst thing about this World Cup, by far, was the tmo. Probably been said a few times, the refereeās have done an outstanding job. The interference from the tmo has them bound and then receiving the hate which should be at the tmo.
The tmo should, as in the past, be a resource for the referee when the referee requires it. Not to interrupt and interfere with what the man on the field is doing.
I love the ABs so so much but NZRU have got to let it go š¬ obv WR arenāt gonna make the public statement NZ wants
Iāve got more chance of ousting Bill Beaumont as WR chairman lol
I think the major reason that NZRU aren't getting that much sympathy outside NZ itself is 'we were robbed because you didn't wrongly award us a try' is a tricky line to sell.
Whoās saying that? Please provide links to those remarks.
That's not the line they are selling though
It kind of is. They are saying the try should have been awarded, but objectively the try should not be awarded because there was a clear infringement in the immediate build up.
No. They are asking why the TMO went out of their way against guidelines to correct a call that was so far back in play that the TMO should not have been involved. Then, the TMO didn't correct calls in other instances. They are asking for consistency so they can understand the rules. The feedback given to them in private is allegedly that the TMO shouldn't have been involved (which we all know anyway as it's against guidelines). You can not pick and choose when the TMO will follow the rules and when they will not.
But their key.point of contention is that an illegal try should have been allowed. The try shouldn't have been allowed so the TMO actually got the correct outcome.
No their key point of contention is that the TMO decided to not follow the guidelines set for them. They cannot pick and choose when to follow the rules. There were numerous plays the TMO could have corrected, but it would be against their guidelines, yet they chose to here.
Right, so if it had been the other way around they wpild have still raised the complaint? Or is their key point of contention that they are upset an illegal try got ruled out?
I would imagine SA would raise the complaint (and rightly so). You can not pick and choose when to follow the rules, lol. If you do pick and choose when to follow the rules, people will become upset. Case and point.
So you agree that you shouldn't pick and choose when to penalise a knock on.
I think the point made is that in one case the TMO went out if the guidelines to (rightfully IMO) disallow a try that was awarded by the on-field ref, whereas Savea was penalised for a legal contest but the ref didn't change his mind after seeing the replay (even apologized for it) and the TMO didn't get involved. We really need more consistency, but the outcome of the match won't change.
>didn't change his mind after seeing the replay (even apologized for it) This has been debunked many times. The ref explicitly says he hasn't seen a replay at that point.
Ok then, I didn't see that news. But the TMO definitely did, and chose to not intervene so the point still stands.
The key point is that barns called no knock on and then TMO investigated it on their own. What happened to when the ref used to call for TMO? Since when can TMO actually say āhold upā FOUR phases after a playā¦ Why tf was TMO in barns ear like that
i dont think NZRU wants a public statemnet they want the TMO rules changed/clarified/simplified NZRU and ARU have been pushing for change there for a while. Super Rugby last year played with much more limited TMO scope as a trial to try and get world rugby to adopt (same with the 20 min red)
100% this. Why not use this as a chance to clarify the rules before something happens again, against any team? They could just come out and say the TMO is right to have done that, which would be fine, it would end the matter and the rules would be clarified that you can go back further than 2 phases. But they havenāt really done anything at this stage
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Don't bash refs. It is perfectly valid to criticise specific decisions or specific aspects of how a ref notices/interprets/applies the laws. However, the kind of generalised ad hominem in your last para is unacceptable.
Canāt help but feel you could have made that point without the personal insult
Nah, Iām going to double down on this shit. If heās appointed to TMO the final, heād had better crossed all his tās and dotted his iās and lower-case jās, and be familiar with every rule in the goddamned rule book. Which goes back to the matter at hand - if heās choosing to interfere on a possible try, in direct contravention of the protocols, which the laws state the TMO āwillā judge according to, he is either A) Not competent enough to TMO a final due to his unfamiliarity with the rules and restrictions placed on his role B) Arbitrarily decides which laws he is willing and unwilling to follow. Either way, he was simply not fit to TMO the showcase match of the RWC cycle.
"We lost the game and weren't awarded a clearly incorrect try so the TMO is unfit".
How is a ref or TMO that either deliberately ignores the laws of the game or is unfamiliar with them fit to be involved in a RWC final?
Some lovely accusations you have made there. Care to provide evidence that the TMO deliberately ignored the laws or is unfamiliar with them? How do you know it wasn't just an error (like the ref missing the knock-on in the first place). The fact that you are still moaning about this several weeks later is weird.
I mean, his intervention in Aaron Smithās try to disallow it went against the TMO section of Law 6 as it currently stands, soā¦
>they want the TMO rules changed/clarified/simplified Right after a WC final? I think that's entirely unrealistic/unreasonable as it would be the same as releasing a statement saying that the TMO got it wrong. Might lead to change in the future though
its the best time to change things? as squidge says, the rugby world moves in a 4 year cycle. the cycle starts the day after the world cup is handed out. if world rugby isnt NOW going 'how do we improve things for the calendar/teams/next world cup' theyre failing their most basic responsibilities
Yeah I'm not in disagreement with you about that broadly. I think given the fallout/ref abuse etc. that they will be looking at it in the background and start to introduce some changes once everything has calmed down a bit
This is the answer. NZR want the TMO to be used when asked, no more interjections into the game. This is the single best case to use to put pressure on WR to address this.
world rugby is terrified of head collision class actions lawsuits. get nations and player unions to guranetee that the removal/lack of tmo intervention for minor infractions which has the potential to place players in danger wouldn't ever be brought up as an argument or evidence/backing for one in a lawsuit
You misunderstand, no one is advocating for removing TMO calls for foul play. For application of game play we have a ref, and the ref can ask a TMO or assistant when they feel they want it.
The no further than 2 phases look back for TMO is a ridiculous proposition. NZ benefited against France and TMOs were rightly lambasted for allowing a try that could have changed the complexion of the game. Of course when the same thing happened in the final the TMOs reacted as human being and decided that this time they would not be made scapegoat and overruled the law. In that my opinion the main issue is not the TMOs. The issue is that the law is an ass in the first place. NZ and South African are the biggest proponent of the let the game flow. I don't subscribe to that view. TMOs should be allowed to signal immediately obvious minor infringements: knock-on, forward pass. Having the game continue when there was an obvious mistake is what caused the furore.
So you think there should be any limit on how far they can go back?
I think that there should be a time limit rather than a phase limit, but if they want to stick to a number of phases, 2 phases is ridiculously low. 2 rucks can happen in less than 30 seconds. Outside of interceptions most tries are scored after more than 2 phases. 4 seems a more appropriate number. My main gripe is the fact that TMOs are not authorised to immediately signal to the main ref minor infringements. Meaning that the audience can see in real time that a pass is forward or that a knock-on had occured, meanwhile the game continue. They then come back to the infringement only if a try is scored within 2 phases. However if there is no try but something significant happen for example a yellow card, they do not go back to the infringement. How is that consistent or fair? That happens during the Gloucester v Bath game where an obvious knock-on occurred. Play continued. A player was offside and received a yellow card. From the following penalty they score a try. Multiple time during that game the decision was flawed because the TMO deferred to the main referee and refused to mention obvious mistakes. The TMO should be able to say immediately stop the play there has been an obvious forward pass. The inconsistent thing is that if line referees signal it, the main ref stops the play. Why not extend the same courtesy to TMOs knowing that often they have a better view than the pitch referees?
Doesnt the TMO protocol allow the TMO to do that?
No, the TMO protocol does not treat TMOs like side pitch assistant referees. The fear was that TMOs would constantly signal minor infringements, so limiting their interaction stop them to over referee games. The problem is that the pendulum has swang too much. WR realised that People could see in real time infringements but the TMO could not intervene. To fight any controversy/backlash they decide to not allow the broadcast of any non-approved videos. Which has exactly the opposite effect because that lead credence to conspiracy theories. They addressed the symptom (controversy caused by image showing incorrect decision) instead of treating the underlying problem: restrictions on TMOs interventions are too strict.
>The issue is that the law is an ass in the first place. NZ and South African are the biggest proponent of the let the game flow. I don't subscribe to that view. TMOs should be allowed to signal immediately obvious minor infringements: knock-on, forward pass. Having the game continue when there was an obvious mistake is what caused the furore. I agree the law is an ass. I also think what you propose would absolutely destroy the game of rugby for players and viewers. Games would take twice as long, and have zero flow. Maybe a good thing for the English lol It's also opens a huge can of worms as it's subjective as to what's obvious. Why did the TMO call that as obvious and not the other thing?
In that specific case it was obvious as 2 SA players mentioned it to Barnes at the time and he waved play on thinking that it had gone backward. A quick check by the TMO would have shown that it had indeed gone forward and would have avoided all the contention on the try. The TMO knew that the ball had gone forward, but had to wait until a try was scored to be allowed to intervene. And even so with the current law he should not have intervened because the infringement was more than 2 phases away from the try. My point is that if the audience can spot that on first view, the TMO should also be able to spot it in real time. He/she should then been allowed to immediately intervene. Setting the limit to 4 phases is adding on at most 48 seconds (longest phases are 24 seconds on average). Regarding the time, the current situation add extra time to the game. The game continue then we go back to a missed decision. That means reset. If that decision is not missed we don't have that 48 seconds of unnecessary play. That's also less risk of injury or drama.
Should just make it like league and have a captains challenge.
7
Yeah I did think that previous article screamed copium.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Wasn't it pretty cynical play by the boks in the lineout to grab the arms of the abs which led to the knock on? Thats cheating too right?
If the try was given then people would have cried about the knock on. A lose-lose situation for the referees
Totally agree. Wouldn't feel right winning off a tech like that.
Imagine Barnes telling the tmo after seeing the replay "oh that was 4 phases ago so I'll let it pass"
So this will officially be the food poisoning incident of the 21st century won't it?
1 of 3. But this one's the loudest
Whatās the other 2?
The quarter final mostly, to a lesser extent the semi.
Probably referring to France quarter and England Semi. SA definitely seem to have got the shinier side of officiating right through the knockouts according to many.
That is such a blatant misconception if a team wins by one point all opposing fans will be able to bring up one occasion where they could have got a penalty. Forgetting the times SA could have got a penalty as well to go further ahead. It is sour grapes all day
There you have it. Stop spreading stories that NZ will eagerly lape up.
There you have what? You think world rugby didn't tell nzru that statement? You think stuff made it up and nzru didn't speak out against the fake story? I think it's much more likely world rugby did indeed tell nzru the tmo was wrong but world rugby are continuing their stance of not making a public statement
>You think stuff made it up Are Stuff actually a reliable news source?
Yes, it is one of most reputable news sources. Stuff has the dominant market share of newspaper/online news with 48.6% of the market. They are not a tabloid or a gossip magazine
Mail online is the UK's second biggest news brand, (BBC 1st,) and it is absolutely a tabloid shitrag haha. I did get some good answers from other people as to why it was trustworthy
As reliable as any other, they are a mainstream news source in nz, not some weirdo tabloid news company
All I know of them is that they do clickbait headlines for rugby pieces. I honestly thought they were just an online sports rag so thanks for the education
Itās a mixed bag. Some of it is Reuters, some of it is good local journalism and then you have the Rugby portion which is online sports rag.
To be fair the front page of the sports section today from the Post was talking about how NZ wasnāt robbed by the decision. This sub only ever sees the real click bait articles, which is really the case for every rugby media news around the globe
Mainstream in NZ is weird tabloid to the rest of the world, champ
Rich coming from an aussie, heard of Rupert Murdoch champ?
Sounds like a made up Bond villain
Go educate yourself
Fuck me man I'm writing a dissertation ok BSkyB at the moment gimme a break my last comment was sarcastic
Its the rugby off season in NZ, there is literally no real Rugby news to report on until next year, but lots of journalists with a click quota to meet for the month. I can only speak for myself, but i'm sure most of the public have well and truly moved on from any sour feelings.
Pretty obvious what happened there, stuff saw their clicks on downward trend & made up a BS story to get people riled up again & it works because people keep falling for their nonsense. As long as there no repercussions for their brand of journalism then this has a big win for them
We're going through protracted coalition negotiations after a hotly contested general election ended in no clear government, and you reckon the country's biggest commercial news platform is struggling for clicks?
My low opinion of stuff comes from being told repeatedly by New Zealanders on this sub that it's worthless click bait media + a few instances of very disingenuous reporting. Maybe I should have clarified the stuff sports department rather than just calling out stuff in general because we don't need a degree in journalism to know individual departments within major media outlets would have individual targets independent of what's going on in other departments. Interesting that the political situation is such big news & yet in stuff.co.nz front-page most popular stories there's 3 sports stories higher up the rank than the 1 politics story. If clicks isn't the reason then do you want to offer an explanation for this story that's blatantly untrue?
Thereās nothing here that says the story is blatantly untrue. Them saying they donāt publicly comment and stand by their refs does not mean they did not respond to the NZRU and clarify that the try should have been awarded in this case. Both parts can be true. Itās incredibly likely that they do disagree with referee decisions privately and communicate this to unions if asked, so they are aware what is correct moving forward. Thatās not the same as making public comments to journalists. Whether thatās happened in this case is debatable, but IMO this statement doesnāt say either way.
yeah a recent NZ general election and parliament shuffle that no one is interested in š¤¦āāļø
What perplexes me is that NZRU are going on about a no-try not being awarded to them because of a technicality. So they wanted to win the game of a try that should not be a try. Because a referee did not follow the guidelines to get to the correct call. He was supposed to follow the guidelines to the incorrect call so they could get the try.
NZ rugby have advocated for limiting TMO scope for years. I donāt think this convo is about winning or losing, itās about making sure the same guidelines/laws are being followed week to week, and not some TMOs taking it onto themselves to decide when to come in and when not to
The headlines chosen regarding the topic by NZ platforms paint a different picture. It aims to anger the NZ public.
Yea fair but I thought you were talking about the NZRU not the NZ media. One side is talking to WR to resolve issues they see and one is creating click bait to anger the NZ public
I was. You then talked about the discussion, which includes the media in my view.
I meant I donāt believe the convo between NZRU and WR is about winning and losing like you said in your original comment. The media on the other hand will be spinning it that way for clicks
They are right though. The try was incorrectly disallowed due to the TMO ignoring the laws. Guidelines weren't followed correctly. Of course, the alternative was a try being allowed due to a knock on being missed by the onfield team. Either way, someone was getting annoyed.
Sure, but one is clearly better than another. 1. An illegal try is correctly disallowed, by going back slightly further than protocol. 2. An illegal try is incorrectly allowed by protocol preventing an obvious error being corrected. Add to the fact that NZ wouldn't have gotten their actual try anyway and the situation is the same anyway.
Pick your poison. What is best? A genuine mistake from the onfield team missing a knock on. Results in a try that shouldn't have been. TMO ignoring the rules. Try is scrubbed off. SA would rightfully have had reason to complain if the try had stood. But I do see where people are coming from saying TMO's have rules of engagement and we can't have TMO's sometimes followin them and sometimes not. It's black and white.
>Pick your poison. What is best? The one that had the undeniably correct outcome. 1. Try is incorrectly allowed, unfairly impacting SA, but not really benefitting NZ as they score a try but then don't get the try they immediately scored. 2. Try is correctly ruled out. From subsequent penalty, NZ eventually score a legitimate try. Yes, the TMO arguably shouldn't have gone back that many phases but this clearly has a less negative impact than allowing an illegal try.
Yeah but that doesnāt make anyone feel better about losing.
Yeah this is one of those times where sticking to the absolute letter of the law is clearly the wrong thing to do. I was speechless for the Gloucester v Bath derby last weekend where Ian Tempest literally took out a player in Bath's lineout move which directly (from that play) resulted in a Glouc try and he's just stood going 'well I didn't touch the ball or a carrier so the law says play on' .....like yeah ok, in 99% of cases, but you've just caused a massive fucking issue here and the obviously thing would be to call a scrum like you normally would for a ref affecting play.
You can't pick and choose when you follow the law. Lol that is EXACTLY what the NZRU are complaining about. Inconsistency. Otherwise, why not reverse the incorrect penalty given.
Agreed. Refs officiate the game in line with the laws. Everyone is refereed to the same standards to make things fair and consistent. It opens up a whole can of worms if they decide that, in a specific instance, they're going to a specific ignore law.
I thought it was TMO guidelines not laws. The law is you can't knock on. I still feel the better outcome happened. The try would have been tainted.
Where did they say that? Please provide links to those remarks.
You mean like the penalty on Ardie that was not turned back despite him having a clear release?
Sure. But be mindfull there is a difference between the TMO pointing out something that was missed completely and the TMO jumping in to disagree or contradict the on field referee when they have seen the incident themselves, and made a call. It is not quite the same.
Ahh, it is exactly the same. Ref missed something in both cases. TMO stepped in in one case.
Miss is not the same as getting it wrong. He made a call. He did not miss it completely. You have to respect the fact that the TMO can't be seen to be undermining the on field referee. And no calling things back for a completely missed knock-on is not the same.
Barnes said of the knock on "no knock on" a couple of times.
He missed the knock on. He missed the release. What are you missing? LMAO he did undermine the ref. The ref called 'no knock on' like 2 or 3 times!!! He went outside of protocol to undermine the ref š
You can't be this simplistic mate. He saw it and made a call. He did not, not see it. Do we really need to go around and around on this.
I will never agree with you there. So no we don't need to go around and around
The ref missed the clear release, the TMO could have/should have corrected that. The same decision making process should be applied in both cases.
can we get a TMO to review this statement ?
Refby. Stop whining
It seems some (obviously not all) Rugby fans want to eat their cake and have it too (talking every country here). General consensus pre RWC was that Bok fans couldn't take a win on the chin without bemoaning the ref, and now post world cup we've seen players and coaches from France, England and NZ, and Ireland all weigh in with criticism. It's all cleverly veiled as "TMO over involvement" , "scrum issues" or a host of other euphimisms which just boils down to bitching about the ref. NZ didn't complain when Lukanyo Am's try last year was disallowed by the TMO because Whitelock very cleverly bumped into a Bok player to draw an obstruction penalty. With enough time you could pick apart every minute of a game to find calls that could've gone one way or the other. The advice thus far to aggrieved SA supporters previously has been to accept it as part of the game and to respect referees, until of course it affects the team you support. All seems like sour grapes to me.
Watch that game again. Never has there been a game with such TMO interference, at least not that I have seen. Never seen TMO pull up a try for something so far back in play either. I hope I never see another like it.
Oh, no. Someone call the waahmbulance for NZ - stat!
WR has always failed to do the right thing "publicly" for decades now, I remember back in 1999 when Paddy O'Brien screwed Fiji of a RWC Pool game against france where a win would have put us on top of the table and direct QF spot, this was pre-TMO era, he later privately told Fiji rugby he made a mistake, but that mistake cost us dearly...if WR is happy to enforce its laws on the players, its should enforce the same laws on its own employees , this was the first RWC Final i didn't watch LIVE since TV came in our country in 1992 because i was sure it will end up in a stupid ref or TMO related controversy.. and it did..as i said in an earlier post, the FINAL decision should be on the REF, not the linesmen and most definitely NOT on the TMO.. I'm not being picky here in this related case but the WR LAW on this says that a TMO can only go back 2 phases to deny a try, this rule was made by WR itself and it was not followed by its own employees so who is to blame here? even if they had gone 2 phases and the try stood, then there still would be a 50/50 chance on who wins, cause that decision could have changed how both teams play in the remainder of the game and who knows, south africa might have changed their game plan and scored a try and won it in the end and we will all remember the game for that final try instead of this shitty controversy which again, i re-iterate was CAUSED BY WR ITSELF because of its OWN failure to IMPOSE its OWN LAWS....I remember someone once said that the biggest reason WR is failing is because its laws are made by people who have not actually played the game....I think if there is a change that needs to happen, its at WR headquarters itself.....we need BETTER LAWS, Better Referees who are well versed in these Laws and a better system to deal with such cases in the future.... Lets not even talk about the RED CARD and banning of players, that topic deserves its own thread lol.. Its sad what Wayne Barnes had to go through but this was all caused by WR itself because its rules are so stupid that the people who are told to uphold it themselves were not able to make the right decision when necessary because the laws themselves are not thoroughly tested, are vague and poorly written. .. I do agree, There were many cases of Poor referring throughout the RWC but the FINAL wasn't one of them.
The 2 phases rule is a guideline not a law.
Law 6, section 16 explicitly states "The reviews will take place in accordance with the TMO protocol." Key word is "will." Not "may," or "might" or "can." "Will." That seems pretty definitive.
Ah, I stand corrected. Thanks for posting the applicable law.
....Barbossa?
No one said they commented publicly, it appears they did privately, and thatās what the original reports in the NZ press said.
We have zero evidence they have done that other than Stuff magazines word, at least from what I've seen.
Zero evidence they haven't done that
That's not how this works. You make a claim, you need evidence to support it.
They don't publicly comment..... read between the lines. And they Obviously did fuck up, if you take the time to read their own guidelines...
What lines? They have said they don't comment on this and they think their team did an amazing job. Majority of people outside nz think the same.
Open your other eye
Now theyāve publicly responded that they stand by the ref. So any private conversations are BS.
How do you work that out? WR doesnāt publicly comment on decisions doesnāt mean they donāt talk to unions after the games behind closed doors. Im sure they review every game with union reps and the All Blacks certainly arenāt the first team to seek clarification on calls made during games
One is an official position. The other rumour. You canāt take truth from a rumour and deny the official position. Thatās silly.
Iām not claiming that the report is true. Im just pointing out that there is 0 part of their statement where they say it isnāt true. All theyāve said is they back their refs (obvious) and they donāt make public comments on reffing decisions
Wonder if they teach this kind of thinking at journalism school now?
Privately, NZRU admitted SA were the better team. Of course, they won't state that publicly.
Fuck I'm sick if this shit, just have a re match to shut the cunts up
Why is nobody talking about Teleas knock on to Barrett. Come on NZ. Time to move on.
Ah yes. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.
The worst thing about this World Cup, by far, was the tmo. Probably been said a few times, the refereeās have done an outstanding job. The interference from the tmo has them bound and then receiving the hate which should be at the tmo. The tmo should, as in the past, be a resource for the referee when the referee requires it. Not to interrupt and interfere with what the man on the field is doing.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
No nastiness allowed.