This is a slap in the face for us English. We, Ireland and fellow Brits have rightly highlighted the French TV bias and avoidance of replays. Now we find out that our own English house is not in order. How many times can rugby keep shooting itself in the foot? Time to start living up to our increasingly empty promotion of ‘rugby values’ of fairness, standards and integrity.
I think this is the exception, not the rule amongst English rugby broadcasting. It would be a hard stretch to assume one colossal eff-up is the tip of an iceberg. It’s very British to make a one-off gaff and be caught with your pants down.
I’m Irish and watching the French games is always infuriating. Even against the English u20 I was annoyed to see them give the English kicker a kids tee for his conversion
Im Irish and England clearly had a foot in touch for one of their tries against Ireland and it was clearly the TMOs job to call it, and 100% they seen it. So it’s not just NZ or France.
It’s not that bad. Bit melodramatic. It’s a broader issue and no bias was involved. I think the TMO actually made a good statement because he did not want to be influenced, but hearing the commentary meant if he saw it after the fact it shows influence. They need a separate feed and no commentary somehow. It wasn’t bad, and it wasn’t influencing etc
@@whenisasnakeatail4933 it’s been 10 days since Earl cost England the game against France so time to leave it. Oh and Argentina hammered England in Mexico in the soccer World Cup 🤣🤣
The world cup in france felt like average coverage, everything I'd normally get a replay on in NZ they would cut to staring at the coaches or other irrelevant things. Slow motion and panning cameras are also terrible. When Dupont broke his cheek he slammed himself into a pretty much stationary opposition and they played a sideways panning slow motion view over and over on repeat.
Surely it doesn't matter what the TV crew says. It's the TMO's job to do his job. If there is foul play, he has to investigate and confirm it, either way.
Yeah, exactly. The officiating team shouldn't be influenced by what pundits say, which is why they didn't look at it. Doesn't seem like an ego thing at all to me, it seems like the officiating team wanted to reamin objective and not allow random broadcasters to influence how they do their job. You say that if there's foul play it should be looked at, but the TMO doesn't know if there's any foul play unless he sees it or another official let's him know about it, which they didn't. A pundit saying something shouldn't influence what the officials do, so they probably did the right thing. If it were foul play, he'll still get sanctioned.
@@thecuttingsark5094 Oh wow, I always thought the TMO had access to the raw feeds from all cameras, I didn't realise that they were only able to see the broadcast footage! That definitely feels like it would be easy for broadcasters to manipulate situations 😦
Would be sad if a good system, that makes better decisions with more information, is scrapped because that information is being gated by partisan actors.
It seems to be the obvious solution would be that the TMO is not able to listen to any commentary/broadcasters (I can’t think of any reason why they would need to in the first place) which would remove any risk of them being influenced (or indeed remove any accusations of being influenced). Also I don’t know if this would be feasible for smaller club games, but for internationals/European games I would also look into whether the TMO can have more control over replays and not be so dependent on the national TV directors and the replays they may or may nor decide to show.
Yeah, ABs crap at rugby. They only win because of colluding TV coverage and blind refs. Unless it is a WC quarter final when that director and ref did not get the memo. Haha, you knob.
Imagine the TMO saying 'Austin's made us look a right pair of pricks there, best not review it...'. Mass firings and changes in regulations needed. Crazy he could listen to the commentary. He is supposed to be a referee. Next, they'll be piping colour commentary into the on-field referee's ear-piece.
The whole QF French sense of injustice was caused by outrageous directorial bias. Penaud would have been red-carded if the same superslowmo multi-angle replays were applied to his headshot on PSdT as for Etzebeth’s yellow.
France should never complain about a QF after 2007. And then world rugby decide to get the all blacks hitman Wayne " Black Death" Barnes to make sure the all blacks have to play 16 on 15 in most big games@@jacqloock
I think the first step would be to show no replays in the stadium at all. If we want the on field referee to continue to be involved in slow-mo decisions it shouldn't be hard for broadcast teams to get a sideline box and at least that way they can stand in front of a 4K monitor at a reasonable distance rather than trying to watch from 50m away on a giant pixelated big screen. In fact in NZ NPC I think they've already done a low-budget version of that for refs.
@@JimmyKip I think in the NFL they have something like that. Suppose they need to balance it with being a spectator sport, and being out of touch in the stands sucks - ref link is brilliant for that, as well as seeing replays. Fair shout though.
Agree with everything you said. Healey is an excellent analyst, French coverage is frequently questionable, we weren’t meant to hear the TMO’s words and so on. It’s also not acceptable, is it really beyond them to separate the TMO from the commentary? I get it’s difficult as the TMO relies and has to communicate with the broadcaster for replays and angles, but if they then ignore something, not even discuss it because the commentary team spotted it, then surely they are just as compromised, if not more so, than by refusing to review. On a side note, what a fantastic performance by Saracens, Farrell and Daley in particular. Worth some words in a video perhaps?
Just a comment about the lack of a slow motion replay at the end of the recent France vs England game - the Ben Earl tackle. French TV were obviously loathe to show that. Did it exonerate Earl? I don't know. At the time I thought that the lack of a replay was just to cynically boost numbers watching the post game show on French TV. But perhaps there were other factors at work.
The director was really shitty for the entire game, not the usual one too so that might explain a lot. We basically had no replays of all the potential foul plays, whichever team committed the potential offense.
YES thank god someone else noticed. There was no replay. Plus commentator said 'no arms tackle from number 7', but No. 7 wasn't even on the pitch Underhill had gone off 25 minutes ago which he must have known. France got 2 wins gifted to them this year against England & Scotland. Both wins awarded under the TMO, TV + REF, smoke and mirrors trick.
It has been this way in cricket for some time. The Ashes series before the Sandpaper Gate series against South Africa, there was an agreement between ABC and the Australian cricket team not to broadcast them polishing the ball.
Just putting this particular on-field incident to one side, the actual comments made by the TMO in the immediate aftermath of the incident should be grounds for that official to be removed from all officiating. World Rugby has been basically doing a 'kick the can down the street' with the entire field of Match Officiating for decades. Referees continue to interpret rules/laws differently in every country & hemisphere. Corrections & Adjustments seem only to happen when external pressure becomes overwhelming - case in point the ramifications of repeated concussions as first shown in the NFL. Finally World Rugby realizes that the 'just ignore it' strategy wont work any more so we get a plethora of guidelines & instructions for officials and players about Player Safety & Proper Tackling. Yellow Cards & Red Cards & Bunker Reviews & Suspensions are tools to be used to enforce these necessary changes - TV Broadcasters are (SUPPOSEDLY) under the control of the Rugby authorities in terms of video footage used to determine incidents of foul play. On Saturday in the Leinster v Zebre match we have another example of this crazy inconsistency in the Rules/Laws of the game. The Leinster #13 gets a Yellow card for a bad tackle, mitigated by the Zebre player abruptly changing direction - BUT there's no Bunker Review at this level of the professional game!!! We are apparently now on the cusp of diluting the impact of Foul Play (a straight Red Card offense) by allowing the offending team to replace the ejected player after 20 minutes!! This is World Rugby bowing the knee to TV MONEY at the expense of Player Safety. It's nigh near impossible to expect substantial change to the uniformity of officiating when the governing bodies refuse to recognize the need.
There are only really a couple of possibilities here. 1. The TMO regulations say that they can only take instruction from themselves and the ref. In which case, the TMO has done things by the book. If he feels that he had not seen, and was not going to review that footage anyway, integrity is maintained. (to a degree). It's also REALLY simply to block out sound from elsewhere. eSports teams have been blocking using ear defenders and white noise for a long time. 2. There is no such restriction, or there is a specific reference to the TMO being allowed to review based on comments overheard from commentry team. 3. I guess option 3 is that Austin really did "lean over to chat" somewhat with the TMO, which would probably not be ideal. I can totally understand the TMOs viewpoint, and, in some ways, while it shines a light on a problem, the problem would be much worse if people thought that anyone could yell at the TMO can instigate a review (imagine a Welsh water boy gaining access to the TMO). Ultimately it will still not look good for refereeing if a broadcaster points out a glaringly obvious foul (it was a pretty shocking off the ball hit), replays it several times on broadcast and stadium screens, yet the ref and TMO do nothing about it, even without the overheard conversation. And finally - it really needs to become a truth that the TMO has control of reviewing replay angles fully independent of the broadcaster. Not hard in a modern world of digital streamed content I'm sure.
It is quite common when a player has dived over the line to score for the defending tackler to go in with the knees with not a chance of preventing a score. I think referees should pay more attention to this. Chris
There was no French director there as the game was in Murryfield. But the Referee had said on field decision no try, so the TMO needed conclusive evidence to overrule and he didn't have the balls to do that.
I have oft thought that TV whether it be local TV or TNT etc have influence over the TMO and this unfortunately proves it. We have seen before the local TV Channel showing an incident and the Ref having seen it stopping the game (French TV do this all the time). The TMO and Ref should not be influenced by anything other than what they see NOT what they are told by outside influence.
I've thought this in the past. There appears to be no issues then the commentary mentions something and then it gets reviewed. (not exactly the commentators curse), but TMOs shouldn't have the commentary. They should be watching themselves without TV commentatry. If a TV commentator is biased, then it could influence a TMO.
Disagree entirely soley on the point of foul play it’s very easy for the TMO to have a brief look see if further actions are warranted or something of nothing, foul play is supposed to be protocol driven in which case as long as they are consistently followed there shouldn’t be room for bias. I know this doesn’t always work in practice but I don’t think as the person responsible for reviewing these it should become invalidated because you didn’t do your job well initially.
Please provide everyone with an update once the RFU has concluded their investigation. Is there really fairness and integrity even at the highest levels. The latest rule changes may also be because of biasness. Its inevitable. Having said this, a great game of rugby will always remain a great game of rugby even if there is drama and controversy. Keep up the good work!!!
It is great you have highlighted the TMO to commentary team interaction. It often "appears" as if the TMO reacts to what he hears more than what he sees. With 30 players interacting it is impossible to see everthing, That is why the game should be run by the referee. If The TMO is used by the commentary team or by repeated slow motion shots from the director then the referee is out of control of the decision path. I agree the TMO should be isolated from commentry but also a broadcaster should not be allowed to show a slow motion shot more than once during live play unless at the bidding of the referee. I also think some of the "Rugby clever" players are using repeat slow motion to turn fine --line decisions into penalties. They know repeated slow motion shots distort the intent and consequence of play at speed and are playing to marginalise the referee by getting a play referred to TMO. This includes for example accidental knock on becoming a yellow card when an attacking player sees an outstretch palm of a defender and plays the ball into it, to force a the decision into an interception penalty.
Great video and always great to get your insight, i believe the question should be, do the World rugby or any governing body allow TV broadcasters dictate what they act on, if the TMO did not see what Austin Healy commented on should the TMO go back and review? if the answer is yes then you open the door to all TV broadcasters painting the picture to get the ref to act, as in the Wasps example. In my opinion if the ref, 2 lines person and the TMO miss something then we move on, there will always be human error.
Kind of talking about two very different topics Healy mentioning something warrants a closer look is quite different to Broadcasters almost manufacturing footage to make it look as bad as possible by only presenting select worst case angles and slow mo, if we had of heard something along the lines of what’s Healy seen yes it warrants another look would anyone really have an issue, they will still be following the same foul play protocols if one of them spot or wave on if after a quick review not wanting to look further.
The biggest issue with the bunker system right now is the application of the high tackle law. What we are seeing currently is the attacking player dropping low into a commited defender drawing a shoulder to head contact. But it is the attacker making the dangerous play not the defender, yet we are always seeing the defender getting penalised, when it is crystal clear the attacker is at fault.
TMO process has been working really well in Super Rugby over the last 6 weeks. Similar to last year where it worked really well down under & then somehow once World Rugby got their fingers on it it became way more contentious.
I think TMOs generally do a very good job and often have useful rapport with the on field officials. My problem here is that Stuart Terheege, the TMO, didn't want to do the right thing because Austin Healey spotted the issue first and he didn't want it to look like he was being influenced by the TNT Sport coverage. It should be irrelevant that Healey saw it and talked about it on commentary because the most important thing is that the right decision is made. In this case, Lewies should have been given a second yellow card and sent off; Christophe Ridley should have told Terheege that he didn't care who spotted the foul play, just that he wanted to investigate it further.
Two things clear from this: (1) the TMO should have control of images and not be dependent on a local director; (2) the standard of refereeing on and off the pitch is sub standard and the rugby authorities need to sort it out in a public and in a transparent way
Give the referees on the field the technology. No TMO,no bunker and lots of accountabilty an openness about decisions. If home director wont show footage asked it should be a fine, and broadcaster should be blacklisted by IRC.
I would rather an incorrect decision was made than the host broadcaster have any influence on which decisions are looked at. The TMO is correct to not review the decision if he only thought to do so following commentary from Austin. An honest official makes mistakes for both sides a host broadcaster shows only incidents that advantage the home side......
The thing is, it's not the job of the commentator to tell the ref (or the TMO) what happened. Water carriers coming on shut up, players that are not the captains shut up, even the captains are often dismissed by the central ref. The question is, do you let commentators do what tens of other non-ref participants to the game can't, which is speak into the ref's ear ? I think you shouldn't. Then, there's the question of directors trying to nudge the ref into a decision, and same thing they shouldn't have the rights to do so, but it's more difficult to enforce
For years - YEARS - we, the fans, have been lied to. This isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s lies. How can we believe anything rugby says it’s doing, ever again?
They shouldn’t have interaction with the referee he should stop play tell the ref what has happened take the play back tell the referee to issue a card if needed. After all he or she is a high standard referee ? No mother’s meeting where they think it’s a court case!!!
It's ironic that many people are calling vehemently for the match officials to respond to a commentator's demand to review an incident, while also complaining vehemently about French TV trying to influence the officiating!
Problem with TMO and The Bunker is two fold. 1. You could go through every ruck, maul, line-out or scrum and find an issue. 2. In any area of life, as soon as you give a person a job, they feel obliged to do something to justify there existence. Hence, the TMO and The Bunker are always looking for anything, because they feel pressure to justify their existence. It is human nature.
It's very simple The TMO should be in a separate truck with splits of ALL feeds deemed necessary to do the job (i would exclude commentary as this can introduce bias) and a full team of technicians. Further it should be part of the broadcast contract that when an incident is under review the director plays clips deemed relevant by the TMO. Whilst this does incur expense (duplication of equipment personnel etc) for the integrity of the game I feel it is worth while, after al,l is this not why referees are appointed to be impartial.
That brings up another interesting point in the Aaeon Smith try in the RWC final and their own rules to not rule on plays 3 or more fazes behind the play in progress. I agree Ardie Savea did knock the ball on but they went back 7 plus fazes, after a try was scored. Which wasn't in their own rulebook at the time. How many decisions was at the disgretion of the TMO outside of his jurisdiction during the RWC??? Just using the Aaron Smith disllowed try only as an example. They (TMO) maybe weren't following their own rules.
I once again remind you of the Nov-22 Paris game Boks vs France... last try by France was a double movement, ref sends for review, TV replay screen suspiciously goes off... which has NEVER before happened. TMO also couldnt get the correct footage either. French broadcaster clearly intervened. Which makes it even more funny that they lost in quarters.
I am a life long player coach and spectator. I am sickened by the officialdom of the last couple of years. In my view there is a greater and higher agenda and the whole thing is corrupt. Clearer pictures are withheld. In the Scotland/France game match although desperate not to give Scotland a try at the last moment the TMO started to say it was a try when he suddenly changed his mind. My view was he had been told he could not allow France to loose. The same with the goal kick by Italy at the end of their game against France. Obvious foul play is played down and minimal played up. Touch Judges see nothing. The whole thing stinks and in my view it’s down to money
TMO caught with their pants down, it appears! The main and obvious thing is to isolate the TMO from the commentators- even if its a bit of a cost issue, it should be done and really wouldn't be that difficult if they made it a rule.
Very clear dissection of the important facts of the incident, as it relates to the process, Tim. (I'm glad you didn't focus on the potential foul play itself). I'm also glad you didn't bring up the accusation that it was the TMO's "ego" that was behind it all (an accusation that I believe Healy himself has levelled at the TMO - not helpful). I agree with your assessment, that the more likely explanation is that the TMO was concerned about the optics and didn't want it to look like he was influenced (whether fairly or unfairly) by the commentary. Personally, I think the TMO should avoid, whenever possible, being able to hear the commentary. There are a number of one-eyed commentators who would introduce bias into the process, if the TMO could hear them. Let the TMO go by what he/she sees, and what he/she sees only. We already have four official match officials, we don't need to be adding three unofficial officials (commentators) to the process. Chaos would ensue, and people would be even more upset at the possibility of bias. It's unfortunate for the TMO that he had a live mic, but it's fortunate in the sense that it has opened up a discussion about the process.
Another great video Tim. Just wondering if you'll be uploading any videos about the women's 6N? Would be a good chance to put them in the spotlight just over a year out from the World Cup on your doorstep!
The issues between ref and TMO are happening. Look at Scotland v France in the six nations this year. Scotland scored in the last minute, the ref could have (old school) peeled bodies away to see if the ball was over the line. Then asked his TMO for a grounding he didn't see. Which was visible on the footage. BUT because the ref says a certain phrase and the interaction is not right, Scotland's try is not awarded. There is room for manipulation of the rules between TMO, TV footage and the Referee.
I lost all faith in the TMO after that. He clearly said "There's the ball on the ground" but then didn't award the try. Ireland had already beaten France. It would be beneficial to Ireland for France to beat Scotland. TMO was Irish. It's at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I know it's easy to say now but I've thought for a long time that TMOs tune in to commentators. Commentators often spot something easily missed that the ref hasn't picked up and the TMO chimes in almost immediately to draw the ref's attention to it. Of course, they could have spotted it independently but there are occasions when the 'coincidence' feels a bit too much!
French TV producers are the worst at this. Been doing it for years. Irish producers are starting to pick it up too as we saw from James Lowe's foot in touch try from the six nations a couple years ago.
English producers are also starting to pick it up too unfortunately after eng winger stood on the sideline in the lead up to eng try this year against ireland
@@101MIGHTYJOE Except that incident was broadcast by the English producers... hence us all knowing about it. So it only really goes against the point you're trying to make. I thought the issue with that play was that a certain number of phases had passed for it to be called back.
Spot on. I've got no issue with the TMO listening to the commentary, if it triggers investigation into some foul play the TMO can then decide whether it's foul play. My problem in this case is chosing not to investigate! Let's not worry about fair play or player safety, so long as it doesn't look like we're biased and listening to the commentators? Madness. Always had a hunch that the TV directors were potentially biasing things with what they showed replays of. Anecdotally I can remember a few instances in recent years where there's conveniently been no replays of a forward pass or grounding during a match, that then become available post game.
I remember quite perfectly a recent game between Ireland and France in Dublin, in which the irish scored a try and when the ref asked for the video review on a suspicion that the irish try scorer might have had his foot in touch, on the big screen there were just two camera angles shown that didn't help the refs make their minds and so they stuck with their on-field decision : try. It's only after the try was awarded and the conversion attempt kicked that the TV director immediately showed a third camera angle that proved without a shadow of a doubt that the foot was indeed in touch and it should've been no try. That was as good as saying "yes, we're cheaters, deal with it s***ers". And no, if or when the officials saw this they didn't change their decision which they could have. Also the director at Twickenham absolutely loves putting potential foul play on the big screen and the crowd loves to overreact and try and milk a card. Basically every country in the rugby world does exactly the same but you seem to discover today what many have known for ages. Maybe if you brits could take an honest look at yourselves sometimes instead of just pinning everything you hate on the french and act like they had a monopoly on it, this game would be in a better place.
In the URC over the weekend, Sharks game, clear hand in the ruck by an Ulster player leading to a try which should have been dissallowed. Try given, how the 3rd TV ref missed it is beyond me. Clear mistakes even with all the technology.
When TV producers fail to show replays of obviously controversial refereeing decisions, or lack of them, I’ve always just put it down to incompetence, or lack of knowledge of the laws of the game. After all, remember Hanlon’s Razor. The thing with the TMO is a different matter altogether. TMOs have not been covering themselves with glory over the past few years: missing obvious things and picking up others that are very questionable. Again, I’ve always assumed it was down to incompetence, but maybe it is deliberate after all.
This is a serious issue in my opinion. It goes much deeper. Broadcasters definitely have an impact on the game and now we know the TMO picks their incidents. If there was foul play then it must be dealt with. Shouldn't matter if someone else has seen it first.
I think the ref and tmo are instructed to keep the game flowing as much as possible, and therefore ignore incidents that happen off he ball in order to do so.
Our greatest concern is always the safety of the players... (unless the commentators spot the foul play, in which case it's vitally important to ignore it)
Isn't what is happening here, the *opposite* of what Tim is concerned about - in that the TMO is refusing to let himself be swayed by the commentary team? Of course the TMO should be completely independent of the commentary team (I agree they should not be able to hear the commentary), and should ideally have control or visibility of all the angles and replays.
Exactly. The problem has arisen because the TMO was able to hear the commentary and (if the implications of the RFU investigation are to be believed), the TMO had some sort of interaction with Healey at the time. Post hoc, the TMO has realised he shouldn't be talking with Healey, but by then the can of worms has been opened and the social media pile-on is in full swing.
The TMO is absolutely correct to avoid the commentators. That is a no brainer...He should not even be able to hear them because imagine how commentators could influence the game???? So your playing in France and the powers that be in French broadcasting decide he can only get a French feed. This relates to the same issue with the broadcasters highlighting opposition fouls...
So the TMO doesn't have his own replay facilities, they have to ask the TV team for replays. And they see whatever the TV teams replay. I assumed they had live feed of all cameras and their own independent ability to rewind and replay them. If that isn't the case, they yeah, TV has way too much influence to bias the TMO. Why is the TMO even hearing commentary?
There was a match in the six nations where the TMO actually says to the ref something along the lines if :sorry I can't get the director to show the shot i need to make a decision. Interestingly enough that was in France as well.
Good to see the sport keeping its amateur tradition alive. (On a more serious note: it's an inditement of the sport's administration and one which fundamentally undermines its integrity.)
I was at that test match in Marseille where Barnes couldn’t hear the TMO for some reason and there were no replays of the double movement but when I saw it from the stands, I thought it was. But, hey, JUSTICE WAS SERVED BECAUSE THE BOKS BEAT FRANCE AND WON THE RWC!!
Honestly, it never occurred to me the useless TMOs would be watching with the commentary turned on, and now am convinced of it. As for tv director influence, the French have been really suspect in recent years, though am sure others are at it. Both situations are disgraceful.
It has happened before in the southern hemisphere. Bakkies Botha head-butted Justin Marshal on the ground. The ref missed it but after the NZ director insistently played it again and again on the big screen the ref stopped play to sort the issue. Bakkies was disciplined correctly but it was only because of a non officials meddling. TMO’s, in all sports, are under the microscope and it’s taken some time for rugby fans, not to necessarily trust the TMO’s but to at least have faith that their mistakes are honest. The VAR system is a shambles and there is little to no faith in it. We don’t want or need rugby to go down the same path. This needs an immediate response from World Rugby.
I can’t understand why the TMO isn’t in their own room. They shouldn’t be watching the TV edit (where the director chooses which camera is live), they should see all cameras and should be able to choose which they want to see replays of. I know this is possible, because I worked on a production system that could do this 20 years ago.
I remember many years ago a certain commentator who thought that he was judge and jury of any incidents that didn't include Bath players. His influence certainly caused several players to be suspended. Austin was one of them.
The Ref should just Ref The TMO should only react when he/she wants to Commentators should just commentate, they shouldn't have any bearing on any part of the game whatsoever
The take home for me is both partialism from broadcasters but also the TMOs everywhere are really not good enough. Lots of examples in the RWC and the 6Ns. Scotland's try v France; Tom Curry's red card. Not good enough.
As a French politician once said: "Always prefer the hypothesis of stupidity to that of conspiracy. Stupidity is commonplace. Conspiracy requires a rare intellect. " ... And when it comes to French TV, incompetence rather than conspiracy...
Shouldn't the TMO have independent access to any footage/angles? I mean, if broadcasters can manipulate what the officials see then it's rife for corruption. As for the TMO being worried about optics; I believe that most people know that referees can't see everything, most people who watch rugby also know that commentators often spot things in the game or in replays/slowmo that the referee has missed and would have no problem having the TMO's attention drawn to it in that way. A fowl is a fowl. How it's brought to the official's attention is irrelevant. The right outcome is all that matters to me.... or maybe I'm a bit mad 😂
Why should it matter where the tip-off comes from? We often hear the ref ask the TMO if anything happened after there's been a crown reaction to an incident, I don't see it as being any different if the TMO hears something from a pundit.
Yeah, like you said, the broadcast can pull and shoot whatever they call and want to see. The TMO shouldn’t be influenced by the broadcast, they should get just the angles from the live cameras and then able to pull angles as they want. Get them nice noise canceling headphones so they don’t hear the broadcast if they are in the same area,
Great point on TV directors influencing games. On another point. Over the weekend Andrew Brace did not ref consistently both sides that were playing Ospreys vs Lions in the URC). Ball held up when the Lions crossed the line? Even the commentators were surprised. Later in the game, ater a final warning to Ospreys, they transgressed with a high tackle, and then an offside. Lions finally scored, but no consequences to Ospreys. The Lions lost a man earlier, and so should Ospreys have done. Lions left it late and could ha e made a game of it. The refereeing was not up to standard. I do not mind when the other team is playing the better rugby and win, but when the ref (and his assistants, including TMO) is not making it a fair contest, it annoys me.
You have answered your own question. The TMO should be entirely unbiased and only asked to review footage at referees request. He cannot be influenced by a broadcaster who is part of the production team. The catch 22, as you mention, is the fact that the home side broadcaster in tests and international club fixtures is run by the match director who decides which replays to show when not asked by the TMO which can sadly be bias. Unfortunately, here’s the killer, the TMO is normally the least experienced ref of the 4 officiating the match and is often a ref who has been downgraded to a TMO. These are the facts sadly. I don’t have the solution. 🤷🏼♂️
I think you are asking the wrong question. Are the decisions being made punishing the player or the fans? I'd argue some of these technical red cards are punishing the fans. If they were all given yellow cards and the the judiciary left to punish the player... but that would mean having a "credible judiciary system" which is almost an oxymoron. Would also take the decision making/pressure off the refs.
To add to my last message. The TMO has gone way beyond its remit. It’s only function should be try or no try without any indication from the referee as to what he thinks. If he has t seen it then he should not opine. The game should not go back to see if there were previous knocks ins or forward passes. That is for the ref and touch judges who do t ever seen forward passes anyway.
There was another incident this past weekend with the TMO in the Connaught v Lions match where the TMO missed what was clearly punch of the ball by Connaught in the ruck which led to a try. The Viaplay commentators saw it on the replay & called it out but the TMO didn’t.
This is a slap in the face for us English. We, Ireland and fellow Brits have rightly highlighted the French TV bias and avoidance of replays.
Now we find out that our own English house is not in order.
How many times can rugby keep shooting itself in the foot?
Time to start living up to our increasingly empty promotion of ‘rugby values’ of fairness, standards and integrity.
I think this is the exception, not the rule amongst English rugby broadcasting.
It would be a hard stretch to assume one colossal eff-up is the tip of an iceberg.
It’s very British to make a one-off gaff and be caught with your pants down.
I’m Irish and watching the French games is always infuriating. Even against the English u20 I was annoyed to see them give the English kicker a kids tee for his conversion
Im Irish and England clearly had a foot in touch for one of their tries against Ireland and it was clearly the TMOs job to call it, and 100% they seen it. So it’s not just NZ or France.
It’s not that bad. Bit melodramatic.
It’s a broader issue and no bias was involved. I think the TMO actually made a good statement because he did not want to be influenced, but hearing the commentary meant if he saw it after the fact it shows influence.
They need a separate feed and no commentary somehow.
It wasn’t bad, and it wasn’t influencing etc
@@whenisasnakeatail4933 it’s been 10 days since Earl cost England the game against France so time to leave it. Oh and Argentina hammered England in Mexico in the soccer World Cup 🤣🤣
France always cut clips that go against them... and shows any clips that help them.
Yeah, of course... Go check the Irish please...
I suspect the BBC will highlight and foul play against England only.
not how it works in internationals
Exept when it matters the most ( quarter against the Boks )
The world cup in france felt like average coverage, everything I'd normally get a replay on in NZ they would cut to staring at the coaches or other irrelevant things.
Slow motion and panning cameras are also terrible. When Dupont broke his cheek he slammed himself into a pretty much stationary opposition and they played a sideways panning slow motion view over and over on repeat.
Surely it doesn't matter what the TV crew says. It's the TMO's job to do his job. If there is foul play, he has to investigate and confirm it, either way.
True. But if the TV crew get to decide what footage the TMO can see there is a clear case for interference by outside parties.
Yeah, exactly. The officiating team shouldn't be influenced by what pundits say, which is why they didn't look at it. Doesn't seem like an ego thing at all to me, it seems like the officiating team wanted to reamin objective and not allow random broadcasters to influence how they do their job. You say that if there's foul play it should be looked at, but the TMO doesn't know if there's any foul play unless he sees it or another official let's him know about it, which they didn't. A pundit saying something shouldn't influence what the officials do, so they probably did the right thing. If it were foul play, he'll still get sanctioned.
You'd think so, hey?
I agree however if the TV director is not supplying the TMO with all the important angles and images it can unfairly have influence on the game.
@@thecuttingsark5094 Oh wow, I always thought the TMO had access to the raw feeds from all cameras, I didn't realise that they were only able to see the broadcast footage! That definitely feels like it would be easy for broadcasters to manipulate situations 😦
Would be sad if a good system, that makes better decisions with more information, is scrapped because that information is being gated by partisan actors.
It seems to be the obvious solution would be that the TMO is not able to listen to any commentary/broadcasters (I can’t think of any reason why they would need to in the first place) which would remove any risk of them being influenced (or indeed remove any accusations of being influenced).
Also I don’t know if this would be feasible for smaller club games, but for internationals/European games I would also look into whether the TMO can have more control over replays and not be so dependent on the national TV directors and the replays they may or may nor decide to show.
I know right? I had no idea the TMOs were listening to the commentary, wtf?
So people who raised questions about the impartial nature of the TMO and bunker have just been proved right.
Directors have been refusing to show replays off a whole lot of New Zealand forwrad passes for years now😂 This is nothing new
oh yes.
I thought those had just been codified into the rules 😮
Yeah, ABs crap at rugby. They only win because of colluding TV coverage and blind refs. Unless it is a WC quarter final when that director and ref did not get the memo. Haha, you knob.
Not even Zealand
@@Moseley1873 Give world rugby time and the will
Imagine the TMO saying 'Austin's made us look a right pair of pricks there, best not review it...'. Mass firings and changes in regulations needed. Crazy he could listen to the commentary. He is supposed to be a referee. Next, they'll be piping colour commentary into the on-field referee's ear-piece.
I suppose it raises a question on who is actually officiating and without external influence. Officials becoming the story again, never a great look.
For a long time I thought I was the only one who noticed how biased the French are when it comes to replays. They've been doing to for a while now
The whole QF French sense of injustice was caused by outrageous directorial bias. Penaud would have been red-carded if the same superslowmo multi-angle replays were applied to his headshot on PSdT as for Etzebeth’s yellow.
France should never complain about a QF after 2007. And then world rugby decide to get the all blacks hitman Wayne " Black Death" Barnes to make sure the all blacks have to play 16 on 15 in most big games@@jacqloock
As with the water boys, showing of replays needs to be independent of any of the teams, I reckon.
I think the first step would be to show no replays in the stadium at all. If we want the on field referee to continue to be involved in slow-mo decisions it shouldn't be hard for broadcast teams to get a sideline box and at least that way they can stand in front of a 4K monitor at a reasonable distance rather than trying to watch from 50m away on a giant pixelated big screen. In fact in NZ NPC I think they've already done a low-budget version of that for refs.
@@JimmyKip I think in the NFL they have something like that. Suppose they need to balance it with being a spectator sport, and being out of touch in the stands sucks - ref link is brilliant for that, as well as seeing replays.
Fair shout though.
As a Quins fan, we could have done with Austin saying: "the pitch is unplayable, I recommend a re-arranged fixture"😢
Agree with everything you said. Healey is an excellent analyst, French coverage is frequently questionable, we weren’t meant to hear the TMO’s words and so on. It’s also not acceptable, is it really beyond them to separate the TMO from the commentary? I get it’s difficult as the TMO relies and has to communicate with the broadcaster for replays and angles, but if they then ignore something, not even discuss it because the commentary team spotted it, then surely they are just as compromised, if not more so, than by refusing to review. On a side note, what a fantastic performance by Saracens, Farrell and Daley in particular. Worth some words in a video perhaps?
You'd think it would be fairly straightforward - via noise-cancelling headphones, etc.
I've been following your channel since the world cup and your objective rugby reporting has impressed me immensely. From a Bok supporter in Namibia
Just a comment about the lack of a slow motion replay at the end of the recent France vs England game - the Ben Earl tackle. French TV were obviously loathe to show that. Did it exonerate Earl? I don't know. At the time I thought that the lack of a replay was just to cynically boost numbers watching the post game show on French TV. But perhaps there were other factors at work.
The director was really shitty for the entire game, not the usual one too so that might explain a lot. We basically had no replays of all the potential foul plays, whichever team committed the potential offense.
YES thank god someone else noticed. There was no replay. Plus commentator said 'no arms tackle from number 7', but No. 7 wasn't even on the pitch Underhill had gone off 25 minutes ago which he must have known. France got 2 wins gifted to them this year against England & Scotland. Both wins awarded under the TMO, TV + REF, smoke and mirrors trick.
It has been this way in cricket for some time. The Ashes series before the Sandpaper Gate series against South Africa, there was an agreement between ABC and the Australian cricket team not to broadcast them polishing the ball.
Just putting this particular on-field incident to one side, the actual comments made by the TMO in the immediate aftermath of the incident should be grounds for that official to be removed from all officiating. World Rugby has been basically doing a 'kick the can down the street' with the entire field of Match Officiating for decades. Referees continue to interpret rules/laws differently in every country & hemisphere. Corrections & Adjustments seem only to happen when external pressure becomes overwhelming - case in point the ramifications of repeated concussions as first shown in the NFL. Finally World Rugby realizes that the 'just ignore it' strategy wont work any more so we get a plethora of guidelines & instructions for officials and players about Player Safety & Proper Tackling. Yellow Cards & Red Cards & Bunker Reviews & Suspensions are tools to be used to enforce these necessary changes - TV Broadcasters are (SUPPOSEDLY) under the control of the Rugby authorities in terms of video footage used to determine incidents of foul play. On Saturday in the Leinster v Zebre match we have another example of this crazy inconsistency in the Rules/Laws of the game. The Leinster #13 gets a Yellow card for a bad tackle, mitigated by the Zebre player abruptly changing direction - BUT there's no Bunker Review at this level of the professional game!!! We are apparently now on the cusp of diluting the impact of Foul Play (a straight Red Card offense) by allowing the offending team to replace the ejected player after 20 minutes!! This is World Rugby bowing the knee to TV MONEY at the expense of Player Safety. It's nigh near impossible to expect substantial change to the uniformity of officiating when the governing bodies refuse to recognize the need.
There are only really a couple of possibilities here.
1. The TMO regulations say that they can only take instruction from themselves and the ref. In which case, the TMO has done things by the book. If he feels that he had not seen, and was not going to review that footage anyway, integrity is maintained. (to a degree). It's also REALLY simply to block out sound from elsewhere. eSports teams have been blocking using ear defenders and white noise for a long time.
2. There is no such restriction, or there is a specific reference to the TMO being allowed to review based on comments overheard from commentry team.
3. I guess option 3 is that Austin really did "lean over to chat" somewhat with the TMO, which would probably not be ideal.
I can totally understand the TMOs viewpoint, and, in some ways, while it shines a light on a problem, the problem would be much worse if people thought that anyone could yell at the TMO can instigate a review (imagine a Welsh water boy gaining access to the TMO).
Ultimately it will still not look good for refereeing if a broadcaster points out a glaringly obvious foul (it was a pretty shocking off the ball hit), replays it several times on broadcast and stadium screens, yet the ref and TMO do nothing about it, even without the overheard conversation.
And finally - it really needs to become a truth that the TMO has control of reviewing replay angles fully independent of the broadcaster. Not hard in a modern world of digital streamed content I'm sure.
Tim, you need to do a follow up video following RFU statement.
I'm afraid it's typical RFU head in sand/ don't rock the boat approach 😒
Rassie spoke about this in the world cup, lol right before the France game.
It is quite common when a player has dived over the line to score for the defending tackler to go in with the knees with not a chance of preventing a score. I think referees should pay more attention to this.
Chris
The TV directors will need to be TMO'd next 😂
All bread and circus. 😵💫
Well balanced introduction to this issue/problem
The worst part of the story in my opinion is that Austin bloody Healey spotted something that the officials didn't...
And the officials got upset they never spotted it!
Like the Scotland try against France.?
There was no French director there as the game was in Murryfield. But the Referee had said on field decision no try, so the TMO needed conclusive evidence to overrule and he didn't have the balls to do that.
@@omarelgammal8394 "There's the ball on the ground".
I have a suspicion that it was more than just not having the balls.
You are opening up more than a can of worms here, you've kicked the hornets nest. And yes, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark”
I have oft thought that TV whether it be local TV or TNT etc have influence over the TMO and this unfortunately proves it. We have seen before the local TV Channel showing an incident and the Ref having seen it stopping the game (French TV do this all the time). The TMO and Ref should not be influenced by anything other than what they see NOT what they are told by outside influence.
I've thought this in the past. There appears to be no issues then the commentary mentions something and then it gets reviewed. (not exactly the commentators curse), but TMOs shouldn't have the commentary. They should be watching themselves without TV commentatry. If a TV commentator is biased, then it could influence a TMO.
Disagree entirely soley on the point of foul play it’s very easy for the TMO to have a brief look see if further actions are warranted or something of nothing, foul play is supposed to be protocol driven in which case as long as they are consistently followed there shouldn’t be room for bias. I know this doesn’t always work in practice but I don’t think as the person responsible for reviewing these it should become invalidated because you didn’t do your job well initially.
Please provide everyone with an update once the RFU has concluded their investigation. Is there really fairness and integrity even at the highest levels. The latest rule changes may also be because of biasness. Its inevitable. Having said this, a great game of rugby will always remain a great game of rugby even if there is drama and controversy. Keep up the good work!!!
i agree french broadcaster has eyepads at time
It is great you have highlighted the TMO to commentary team interaction.
It often "appears" as if the TMO reacts to what he hears more than what he sees.
With 30 players interacting it is impossible to see everthing,
That is why the game should be run by the referee.
If The TMO is used by the commentary team or by repeated slow motion shots from the director then the referee is out of control of the decision path.
I agree the TMO should be isolated from commentry but also a broadcaster should not be allowed to show a slow motion shot more than once during live play unless at the bidding of the referee.
I also think some of the "Rugby clever" players are using repeat slow motion to turn fine --line decisions into penalties. They know repeated slow motion shots distort the intent and consequence of play at speed and are playing to marginalise the referee by getting a play referred to TMO.
This includes for example accidental knock on becoming a yellow card when an attacking player sees an outstretch palm of a defender and plays the ball into it, to force a the decision into an interception penalty.
Great video and always great to get your insight, i believe the question should be, do the World rugby or any governing body allow TV broadcasters dictate what they act on, if the TMO did not see what Austin Healy commented on should the TMO go back and review? if the answer is yes then you open the door to all TV broadcasters painting the picture to get the ref to act, as in the Wasps example. In my opinion if the ref, 2 lines person and the TMO miss something then we move on, there will always be human error.
Kind of talking about two very different topics Healy mentioning something warrants a closer look is quite different to Broadcasters almost manufacturing footage to make it look as bad as possible by only presenting select worst case angles and slow mo, if we had of heard something along the lines of what’s Healy seen yes it warrants another look would anyone really have an issue, they will still be following the same foul play protocols if one of them spot or wave on if after a quick review not wanting to look further.
The biggest issue with the bunker system right now is the application of the high tackle law. What we are seeing currently is the attacking player dropping low into a commited defender drawing a shoulder to head contact. But it is the attacker making the dangerous play not the defender, yet we are always seeing the defender getting penalised, when it is crystal clear the attacker is at fault.
TMO process has been working really well in Super Rugby over the last 6 weeks. Similar to last year where it worked really well down under & then somehow once World Rugby got their fingers on it it became way more contentious.
I think TMOs generally do a very good job and often have useful rapport with the on field officials. My problem here is that Stuart Terheege, the TMO, didn't want to do the right thing because Austin Healey spotted the issue first and he didn't want it to look like he was being influenced by the TNT Sport coverage. It should be irrelevant that Healey saw it and talked about it on commentary because the most important thing is that the right decision is made. In this case, Lewies should have been given a second yellow card and sent off; Christophe Ridley should have told Terheege that he didn't care who spotted the foul play, just that he wanted to investigate it further.
Methinks you may be onto something vis-a-vis the TV clip controllers zooming in or ignoring replays that help the home [TV] side
Two things clear from this:
(1) the TMO should have control of images and not be dependent on a local director;
(2) the standard of refereeing on and off the pitch is sub standard and the rugby authorities need to sort it out in a public and in a transparent way
Give the referees on the field the technology. No TMO,no bunker and lots of accountabilty an openness about decisions. If home director wont show footage asked it should be a fine, and broadcaster should be blacklisted by IRC.
I would rather an incorrect decision was made than the host broadcaster have any influence on which decisions are looked at. The TMO is correct to not review the decision if he only thought to do so following commentary from Austin. An honest official makes mistakes for both sides a host broadcaster shows only incidents that advantage the home side......
I love your commentary Tim!
The thing is, it's not the job of the commentator to tell the ref (or the TMO) what happened. Water carriers coming on shut up, players that are not the captains shut up, even the captains are often dismissed by the central ref. The question is, do you let commentators do what tens of other non-ref participants to the game can't, which is speak into the ref's ear ? I think you shouldn't.
Then, there's the question of directors trying to nudge the ref into a decision, and same thing they shouldn't have the rights to do so, but it's more difficult to enforce
For years - YEARS - we, the fans, have been lied to. This isn’t a misunderstanding. It’s lies. How can we believe anything rugby says it’s doing, ever again?
They shouldn’t have interaction with the referee he should stop play tell the ref what has happened take the play back tell the referee to issue a card if needed. After all he or she is a high standard referee ?
No mother’s meeting where they think it’s a court case!!!
Honestly it’s not just the French TV direction, it’s the entire French officiating standards
It's ironic that many people are calling vehemently for the match officials to respond to a commentator's demand to review an incident, while also complaining vehemently about French TV trying to influence the officiating!
Everything must be transparent especially in the game people love
Problem with TMO and The Bunker is two fold.
1. You could go through every ruck, maul, line-out or scrum and find an issue.
2. In any area of life, as soon as you give a person a job, they feel obliged to do something to justify there existence. Hence, the TMO and The Bunker are always looking for anything, because they feel pressure to justify their existence. It is human nature.
It's very simple The TMO should be in a separate truck with splits of ALL feeds deemed necessary to do the job (i would exclude commentary as this can introduce bias) and a full team of technicians. Further it should be part of the broadcast contract that when an incident is under review the director plays clips deemed relevant by the TMO. Whilst this does incur expense (duplication of equipment personnel etc) for the integrity of the game I feel it is worth while, after al,l is this not why referees are appointed to be impartial.
That brings up another interesting point in the Aaeon Smith try in the RWC final and their own rules to not rule on plays 3 or more fazes behind the play in progress. I agree Ardie Savea did knock the ball on but they went back 7 plus fazes, after a try was scored. Which wasn't in their own rulebook at the time. How many decisions was at the disgretion of the TMO outside of his jurisdiction during the RWC??? Just using the Aaron Smith disllowed try only as an example. They (TMO) maybe weren't following their own rules.
That game and the officiating over the last few years have ruined rugby for many. Not bother watching anymore.
I once again remind you of the Nov-22 Paris game Boks vs France... last try by France was a double movement, ref sends for review, TV replay screen suspiciously goes off... which has NEVER before happened. TMO also couldnt get the correct footage either. French broadcaster clearly intervened. Which makes it even more funny that they lost in quarters.
I am a life long player coach and spectator. I am sickened by the officialdom of the last couple of years. In my view there is a greater and higher agenda and the whole thing is corrupt. Clearer pictures are withheld. In the Scotland/France game match although desperate not to give Scotland a try at the last moment the TMO started to say it was a try when he suddenly changed his mind. My view was he had been told he could not allow France to loose. The same with the goal kick by Italy at the end of their game against France. Obvious foul play is played down and minimal played up. Touch Judges see nothing. The whole thing stinks and in my view it’s down to money
French tv directors do it .. also Toulouse vs Sharks. There were numerous replays again from the TV director, the ReF gave in.
Good that you talk about it.
Rugby is so much more then just a game.
TMO caught with their pants down, it appears! The main and obvious thing is to isolate the TMO from the commentators- even if its a bit of a cost issue, it should be done and really wouldn't be that difficult if they made it a rule.
Noise cancelling headphones that only broadcast the ref-link, and the TV Director when requested.
Excactly turn the sound off every TV is capable of.
Very clear dissection of the important facts of the incident, as it relates to the process, Tim. (I'm glad you didn't focus on the potential foul play itself). I'm also glad you didn't bring up the accusation that it was the TMO's "ego" that was behind it all (an accusation that I believe Healy himself has levelled at the TMO - not helpful).
I agree with your assessment, that the more likely explanation is that the TMO was concerned about the optics and didn't want it to look like he was influenced (whether fairly or unfairly) by the commentary.
Personally, I think the TMO should avoid, whenever possible, being able to hear the commentary. There are a number of one-eyed commentators who would introduce bias into the process, if the TMO could hear them. Let the TMO go by what he/she sees, and what he/she sees only. We already have four official match officials, we don't need to be adding three unofficial officials (commentators) to the process. Chaos would ensue, and people would be even more upset at the possibility of bias.
It's unfortunate for the TMO that he had a live mic, but it's fortunate in the sense that it has opened up a discussion about the process.
This may explain why England have got a ton of red cards ovate last year while other sides doing seemingly worse things haven't received them.
Another great video Tim. Just wondering if you'll be uploading any videos about the women's 6N? Would be a good chance to put them in the spotlight just over a year out from the World Cup on your doorstep!
France…..🤐
The issues between ref and TMO are happening. Look at Scotland v France in the six nations this year. Scotland scored in the last minute, the ref could have (old school) peeled bodies away to see if the ball was over the line. Then asked his TMO for a grounding he didn't see. Which was visible on the footage. BUT because the ref says a certain phrase and the interaction is not right, Scotland's try is not awarded. There is room for manipulation of the rules between TMO, TV footage and the Referee.
I lost all faith in the TMO after that.
He clearly said "There's the ball on the ground" but then didn't award the try.
Ireland had already beaten France.
It would be beneficial to Ireland for France to beat Scotland.
TMO was Irish.
It's at least the appearance of a conflict of interest.
I know it's easy to say now but I've thought for a long time that TMOs tune in to commentators. Commentators often spot something easily missed that the ref hasn't picked up and the TMO chimes in almost immediately to draw the ref's attention to it. Of course, they could have spotted it independently but there are occasions when the 'coincidence' feels a bit too much!
French TV producers are the worst at this. Been doing it for years. Irish producers are starting to pick it up too as we saw from James Lowe's foot in touch try from the six nations a couple years ago.
It was last year against France.
English producers are also starting to pick it up too unfortunately after eng winger stood on the sideline in the lead up to eng try this year against ireland
@@101MIGHTYJOE Except that incident was broadcast by the English producers... hence us all knowing about it. So it only really goes against the point you're trying to make.
I thought the issue with that play was that a certain number of phases had passed for it to be called back.
Tmos should only have live feed with no commentary. The only times they should be able to see a replay is if they have asked for it.
They are obviously going after SA with this
Spot on. I've got no issue with the TMO listening to the commentary, if it triggers investigation into some foul play the TMO can then decide whether it's foul play. My problem in this case is chosing not to investigate! Let's not worry about fair play or player safety, so long as it doesn't look like we're biased and listening to the commentators? Madness.
Always had a hunch that the TV directors were potentially biasing things with what they showed replays of. Anecdotally I can remember a few instances in recent years where there's conveniently been no replays of a forward pass or grounding during a match, that then become available post game.
I remember quite perfectly a recent game between Ireland and France in Dublin, in which the irish scored a try and when the ref asked for the video review on a suspicion that the irish try scorer might have had his foot in touch, on the big screen there were just two camera angles shown that didn't help the refs make their minds and so they stuck with their on-field decision : try. It's only after the try was awarded and the conversion attempt kicked that the TV director immediately showed a third camera angle that proved without a shadow of a doubt that the foot was indeed in touch and it should've been no try. That was as good as saying "yes, we're cheaters, deal with it s***ers". And no, if or when the officials saw this they didn't change their decision which they could have. Also the director at Twickenham absolutely loves putting potential foul play on the big screen and the crowd loves to overreact and try and milk a card. Basically every country in the rugby world does exactly the same but you seem to discover today what many have known for ages. Maybe if you brits could take an honest look at yourselves sometimes instead of just pinning everything you hate on the french and act like they had a monopoly on it, this game would be in a better place.
In the URC over the weekend, Sharks game, clear hand in the ruck by an Ulster player leading to a try which should have been dissallowed. Try given, how the 3rd TV ref missed it is beyond me. Clear mistakes even with all the technology.
When TV producers fail to show replays of obviously controversial refereeing decisions, or lack of them, I’ve always just put it down to incompetence, or lack of knowledge of the laws of the game. After all, remember Hanlon’s Razor.
The thing with the TMO is a different matter altogether. TMOs have not been covering themselves with glory over the past few years: missing obvious things and picking up others that are very questionable. Again, I’ve always assumed it was down to incompetence, but maybe it is deliberate after all.
Wait a minute, so TV/Sport Channel commentators have direct comms with the Ref or TMO? What buggery is this?
This is a serious issue in my opinion. It goes much deeper. Broadcasters definitely have an impact on the game and now we know the TMO picks their incidents. If there was foul play then it must be dealt with. Shouldn't matter if someone else has seen it first.
I think the ref and tmo are instructed to keep the game flowing as much as possible, and therefore ignore incidents that happen off he ball in order to do so.
Our greatest concern is always the safety of the players...
(unless the commentators spot the foul play, in which case it's vitally important to ignore it)
Sounds like most governments!!! 🙄🙄
Isn't what is happening here, the *opposite* of what Tim is concerned about - in that the TMO is refusing to let himself be swayed by the commentary team?
Of course the TMO should be completely independent of the commentary team (I agree they should not be able to hear the commentary), and should ideally have control or visibility of all the angles and replays.
Exactly. The problem has arisen because the TMO was able to hear the commentary and (if the implications of the RFU investigation are to be believed), the TMO had some sort of interaction with Healey at the time. Post hoc, the TMO has realised he shouldn't be talking with Healey, but by then the can of worms has been opened and the social media pile-on is in full swing.
The TMO is absolutely correct to avoid the commentators. That is a no brainer...He should not even be able to hear them because imagine how commentators could influence the game???? So your playing in France and the powers that be in French broadcasting decide he can only get a French feed. This relates to the same issue with the broadcasters highlighting opposition fouls...
So the TMO doesn't have his own replay facilities, they have to ask the TV team for replays. And they see whatever the TV teams replay. I assumed they had live feed of all cameras and their own independent ability to rewind and replay them. If that isn't the case, they yeah, TV has way too much influence to bias the TMO. Why is the TMO even hearing commentary?
There was a match in the six nations where the TMO actually says to the ref something along the lines if :sorry I can't get the director to show the shot i need to make a decision. Interestingly enough that was in France as well.
Wasn't that France v Ireland?
Yep your on it. Decision Controversy at SA v France, England v France, Scotland v France. Who is present in all 3 games and who won all 3 games.
SA France game - ref Barnes even said don't do that again to me
When Healey is commentating, you wouldn’t know he’s ex Leicester and a Leicester supporter….. fair and straight down the line
Good to see the sport keeping its amateur tradition alive.
(On a more serious note: it's an inditement of the sport's administration and one which fundamentally undermines its integrity.)
I was at that test match in Marseille where Barnes couldn’t hear the TMO for some reason and there were no replays of the double movement but when I saw it from the stands, I thought it was. But, hey, JUSTICE WAS SERVED BECAUSE THE BOKS BEAT FRANCE AND WON THE RWC!!
As is usually the case with Rugby this is all about nothing.
Honestly, it never occurred to me the useless TMOs would be watching with the commentary turned on, and now am convinced of it. As for tv director influence, the French have been really suspect in recent years, though am sure others are at it. Both situations are disgraceful.
It has happened before in the southern hemisphere. Bakkies Botha head-butted Justin Marshal on the ground. The ref missed it but after the NZ director insistently played it again and again on the big screen the ref stopped play to sort the issue. Bakkies was disciplined correctly but it was only because of a non officials meddling.
TMO’s, in all sports, are under the microscope and it’s taken some time for rugby fans, not to necessarily trust the TMO’s but to at least have faith that their mistakes are honest.
The VAR system is a shambles and there is little to no faith in it. We don’t want or need rugby to go down the same path. This needs an immediate response from World Rugby.
I can’t understand why the TMO isn’t in their own room. They shouldn’t be watching the TV edit (where the director chooses which camera is live), they should see all cameras and should be able to choose which they want to see replays of.
I know this is possible, because I worked on a production system that could do this 20 years ago.
I remember many years ago a certain commentator who thought that he was judge and jury of any incidents that didn't include Bath players. His influence certainly caused several players to be suspended. Austin was one of them.
The Ref should just Ref
The TMO should only react when he/she wants to
Commentators should just commentate, they shouldn't have any bearing on any part of the game whatsoever
Thats whet the rules say and that is what the tmo did not do in the rwc final.
The take home for me is both partialism from broadcasters but also the TMOs everywhere are really not good enough. Lots of examples in the RWC and the 6Ns. Scotland's try v France; Tom Curry's red card. Not good enough.
As a French politician once said: "Always prefer the hypothesis of stupidity to that of conspiracy. Stupidity is commonplace. Conspiracy requires a rare intellect. " ... And when it comes to French TV, incompetence rather than conspiracy...
Shouldn't the TMO have independent access to any footage/angles? I mean, if broadcasters can manipulate what the officials see then it's rife for corruption.
As for the TMO being worried about optics; I believe that most people know that referees can't see everything, most people who watch rugby also know that commentators often spot things in the game or in replays/slowmo that the referee has missed and would have no problem having the TMO's attention drawn to it in that way.
A fowl is a fowl. How it's brought to the official's attention is irrelevant.
The right outcome is all that matters to me.... or maybe I'm a bit mad 😂
Why should it matter where the tip-off comes from? We often hear the ref ask the TMO if anything happened after there's been a crown reaction to an incident, I don't see it as being any different if the TMO hears something from a pundit.
Yeah, like you said, the broadcast can pull and shoot whatever they call and want to see. The TMO shouldn’t be influenced by the broadcast, they should get just the angles from the live cameras and then able to pull angles as they want. Get them nice noise canceling headphones so they don’t hear the broadcast if they are in the same area,
Huge issue. Could happen in every game. Absolutely shocking.
Great point on TV directors influencing games. On another point. Over the weekend Andrew Brace did not ref consistently both sides that were playing Ospreys vs Lions in the URC). Ball held up when the Lions crossed the line? Even the commentators were surprised. Later in the game, ater a final warning to Ospreys, they transgressed with a high tackle, and then an offside. Lions finally scored, but no consequences to Ospreys. The Lions lost a man earlier, and so should Ospreys have done. Lions left it late and could ha e made a game of it. The refereeing was not up to standard. I do not mind when the other team is playing the better rugby and win, but when the ref (and his assistants, including TMO) is not making it a fair contest, it annoys me.
You have answered your own question. The TMO should be entirely unbiased and only asked to review footage at referees request. He cannot be influenced by a broadcaster who is part of the production team. The catch 22, as you mention, is the fact that the home side broadcaster in tests and international club fixtures is run by the match director who decides which replays to show when not asked by the TMO which can sadly be bias.
Unfortunately, here’s the killer, the TMO is normally the least experienced ref of the 4 officiating the match and is often a ref who has been downgraded to a TMO.
These are the facts sadly. I don’t have the solution. 🤷🏼♂️
I think you are asking the wrong question. Are the decisions being made punishing the player or the fans? I'd argue some of these technical red cards are punishing the fans. If they were all given yellow cards and the the judiciary left to punish the player... but that would mean having a "credible judiciary system" which is almost an oxymoron. Would also take the decision making/pressure off the refs.
I don't understand how or why the TMO is listening to Healey. Are they in the same place, sitting next to each other?
Had he followed Healey's suggestion, he'd have been pilloried too. The only answer is to ensure TMOs can't hear commentary.
To add to my last message. The TMO has gone way beyond its remit. It’s only function should be try or no try without any indication from the referee as to what he thinks. If he has t seen it then he should not opine. The game should not go back to see if there were previous knocks ins or forward passes. That is for the ref and touch judges who do t ever seen forward passes anyway.
There was another incident this past weekend with the TMO in the Connaught v Lions match where the TMO missed what was clearly punch of the ball by Connaught in the ruck which led to a try. The Viaplay commentators saw it on the replay & called it out but the TMO didn’t.