Non-commital: Greg Peters
Related links
Teams
Also see
Sanzar CEO Greg Peters has hinted that it's unlikely that television match officials will have their jurisdiction extended during the 2013 Super Rugby season.
Peters remained non-commital when asked about the TMO being allowed to review possible infringements during try-scoring movements and incidents of foul-play, citing reservations about how it will delay matches and frustrate supporters.
He is also concerned that if Sanzar agrees to implement the TMO changes it will create a messy situation where Super Rugby is played under different guidelines to tournaments in the northern hemisphere.
The IRB's rugby committee will review the TMO changes, that have been trialled in the Currie Cup and Aviva Premiership, on December 21.
Super Rugby will start on February 15 - well before the IRB council has time to assess and recommend any findings. The council is set to meet again next May.
"I think the jury is still out on this," Peters told Fairfax Media.
"It will be a big ask (to change the rules around the TMO), given the IRB hasn't met to discuss them by the time our competition has started."
While Sanzar will adopt the abbreviated scrum engagement sequence and rule demanding players use the ball within five seconds from rucks and mauls Peters was concerned that the TMO's interference would annoy fans.
"There is also a lot of subjectivity around it - things like who initiates the review, the referee or the TMO? How far do you go back in the movement? Was there foul play downfield, was there a forward pass back on the 22m and if it was a line-ball you have to take the camera angle into account too," he added.
A concern raised by New Zealand's franchises during a meeting with the New Zealand Rugby Union's high performance referee manager is that assistant referees would opt-out of making quick decisions.
During the Currie Cup and Premiership matches some assistant referees immediately referred decisions to the TMO instead of having the courage to make the call themselves.
"Sanzar will want to be very, very clear on the extent of the protocols if anything is to be changed at all," Peters added.
"We don't want fans to get confused. It can seem simple but it's not. There is so much subjectivity."
Although Peters said Sanzar hadn't completely dismissed the concept of the TMO being given more powers, he remained cautious.
"This is something I would prefer to see introduced across the whole game, not just in selected competitions... if the recommendations are very clear in stating how they should be used it is possible we will implement them."
Comments
jamesliveinhope says...
@propmelsey agreed but I suspect that the ref in the Webb Ellis match did not have to suffer the ire of several million worldwide spectators, press and an 80,000 crowd.
I also suspect that the opposition to Rugby School on that day, did not have to worry about the millions in lost sponsors revenue or the financial consequence of relegation following a bad refereeing call.
@jontheref - I agree that the laws should catch up but sensibly, I've heard lots of complaints that laws were broken when the TMO was involved outside of his mandate but not many suggestions that the outcome was in some way wrong. I wonder how Joubert felt in the Wales v New Zealand match as he watched the continuous replays of Hore's right arm smashing into Davies' right ear as he waited for the medics to finish, knowing that he had absolutely no power to deal with it.
As I said earlier, I like the greater TMO involvement as a concept but the stuff being trialled in the Premiership at the moment is a few steps too far.
Posted 14:14 19th December 2012
jontheref says...
side stepper, good memory!
Seems Refs have been using the TMO outside of jurisdiction, for what looks like nearly 10 years.
Time for the laws to catch up with what is actually happening!
This happens with the playing laws, and they call them "interpretations"!
Some good points about slowing it down, and I agree cannot introduce it during a season, for obvious reasons!
Posted 11:11 19th December 2012
jamesliveinhope says...
Was a fan of this until I saw the dog's breakfast Tim Wigglesworth made of the Leicester Bath match recently with two possibly three completely unnecessary cards (or at least unnecessary coloured cards).
The TMO should only be allowed to comment on fact and not offer opinion as to sanction. Only the referee can judge the mood of the game and manage the discipline accordingly.
On the matter of how far back you go when seeking infringement leading up to a try, there has been the odd comment about a certain forward pass in a France V New Zealand RWC quarter final.
The pass itself happened inside the French half and was followed by a lengthy break by Michalak who released Jauzion for the try- if the option had been available, would the TMO really have been asked to comment on a pass that far back in the move?
Personally I think that the system as used is too deeply flawed to take forward because it will just become a cop-out system for weaker referees.
Posted 08:51 19th December 2012
Propmelsey says...
Rugby, as with Cricket would be much better off without the use of camera technology. It does nothing for the game. Leave the decisions to the referee's and umpires sez I ...... Sport is not an exact science and should be left that way. Afterall .... rugby was invented by a cheat!!! x
Posted 08:38 19th December 2012
side_stepper says...
Well that's how they do it in Rugby League..they check out every movement that leads to tries, including forward passes, foul play and obstruction, which may have occured inside their own half.
Also I remember in 2003 between the Blues vs Brumbies, where Andre Watson 'went upstairs' for suspected foul play..which ultimately led to Scott Fava's sin-binning. Dunno if Mr Watson had the authority to do so..
Posted 07:08 16th December 2012
BokAvenger says...
Of course they're cautious. The Sheepboy-controlled saNZAR wouldn't wan the TMO to overrule the biased refereeing decisions against SA. Not on international television
Posted 20:41 15th December 2012
Ramage says...
Melkdave please read the article before going off half cooked again. It was trialled in South Africa which in my understanding of geograohy is in the SH. There are some very good points raised in Peters comments and one will have to see what the IRB decides. Anyway it cant be introduced halfway through a competiion so it will have to wait until the 2014n Super competition shouid it be recommended. Surely Melkdave you must remember that it has already been used in a test match even if illegitimately by the two buffoons. Muewesson home town TMO from South Africa who told Clancy of an infringement outside his jurisdiction and Clancy who was too thick to realise it was also out of their jurisdiction.
Posted 17:22 15th December 2012
melkdave says...
Really i would think having the TMO able to comment on any foul play he sees .or look at/ check anything dogey the refeeree isnt sure of ,would be a good thing.Bit stuned SANZAR doesnt at least want to trial it as we have in the NH.
Posted 14:48 15th December 2012