TMO rights could expand

32 Comments

1. Boertjie says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 12:31 am

   Haaaa!
   Regulars will recall how often I have pleaded
   for more rights and inputs for the TMO –
   because in some cases he has a better vantage
   point than the on-field refs and assrefs -
   WITHOUT even reverting to TV replays and just
   because he hass a chessboard view of the game
   that the others don’t have.

   He should be allowed at least the same amount
   of input granted to the other thee refs.
   

2. bryce_in_oz says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 2:18 am

   Coulda, woulda, shoulda… just damn well sort the mess out sharpish!

3. Jacques(Bunny) says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 7:44 am

   Now we moving in the forward derection

4. DavidS says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 8:06 am

   Typical…

   Last year Watson said the try that NZ scored against SA that the TMO elicited additional questions from the ref and ended up with NZ not getting a try resulted in Paddy NoBRain hytsreically spewing vitriol all over the news media because NZ lost.

   Now he has implemented a strict protocol to make sure that NZ never get affected by fair calls from the TMO ever again.

   Only this time the Cheetahs got screwed.

   The quicker the new IRB executive get rid of that bald pated clown and get in a practically minded person like Andre Watson the better…

5. CooleyHigh says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 8:35 am

   this is nothing new, watson is only echoeing what paddy o’brien said in november last year already.

   IRB boss: Bigger role for
   TMO
   PUBLISHED: TUESDAY, 1.
   NOVEMBER, 2011

   International Rugby Board
   referees boss Paddy O’Brien
   says the authority of
   television match officials is
   likely to be extended on a
   trial basis next year and
   could be permanently
   increased.

   O’Brien said protocols were
   currently being drafted which
   would “extend the use” of TMOs in trial matches in both the
   Northern and Southern
   Hemispheres in 2012.
   Television match officials
   currently can only rule on
   incidents in the in-goal area.
   The new protocols would likely
   extend their authority to the field
   of play, allowing them to advise
   the referee of foul play or forward
   passes in the lead-up to a try.

6. Kevin_rack says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 9:42 am

   Craig Joubert missed something. Now that does not surprise me after his RWC debacle. He missed the whole game.

   How dumb is rugby when the tv official cannot say no try. Really too much politics and lawyers.

   I recall a forward pass been ruled on not to award a try. It was the right decision but did not stop the kiwis crying. Oh cos it went against them.

   I wonder if we are going to see a massive increase in Kiwis getting carded this year, especially the first half of the tournament???

7. CooleyHigh says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 10:11 am

   Reply to Kevin_rack @ 9:42 am: kevin, graham henry in the post match interview came out and said he doesn’t mind as long as the right call was made, rugby is the winner, so don’t blanket all kiwis.

   meuwesen was wrong (in as far as his mandate as a tmo is concerned) to tell clancy that there was a forward pass. regardless of what an ignoramus like DavidS tells you, the protocols were in place BEFORE the All Blacks vs Boks test in PE and they say:

   The International Rugby Board has a protocol for how the TMO may or may not be used. The protocol states:

   The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

   Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
   Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

   This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

   The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
   Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
   Touch down by a defender
   In touch – line-out
   Touch-in-goal Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
   Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
   All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

   The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball).

   The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

   so you see? Meuwesen clearly doesn’t want to follow IRB laws, he wants to call it as he sees it.

8. The Year of the Cheetah says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 10:37 am

   Fok

   I was seriously pissed off at that fuck up. Minutes later Basson would blatantly play the ball on the ground which lead to the 2nd try.

   In the first 20 minutes the Bulls are given 12 points on a platter (morne made it 14) and very few teams at any level can fight back from this in super rugby.

   I dont think the cheetahs was in the right frame of mind to win this at all but I wonder what would have transpired had they not been given these points.

9. DavidS says:
   March 6th, 2012 at 11:22 am

   Cooley before you comment please go and read the interviews and media statements afterwards.

   Watson said that the protocols were guidelines to help make the right decision and not to be strictly applied to prevent the correct decision from being made.

   It was ‘O Brien who then stated the diametric opposite stating that the protocols should be adhered to as rules to be applied at all times even it lead to unjust decisions.

   Clearly the fool was trying to ensure New Zealand was advantaged because of his protocols and fairness and correct decision making be damned.

   ‘O Brian has often attacked referees who made decisions about New Zealand he did not like.

   In 2009 he shot off a broadside at Stuart Dickenson’s handling of a Test match between New Zealand and South Africa and luckily then ARU had the guts to get into his face and he had to formally apologize.

   Unfortunately SARU did not do the same for Johan Meeuwissen last year and that is a blot of shame on their names. The off the record excuse they gave to me was that they did not want to upset the head of referees who is a New Zealander just before the World Cup.

   So yes… thanks for playing as usual…

   Don’t you get tired of these incessant intellectual beatings?

10. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 11:22 am: FYI paddy o’brien apologised to the ARU for publicly admonishing dickenson for his handling of the scrum in a matc between ITALY & the All Blacks at San Siro in 2009 and NOT the Springboks!!!, where Castro Giovanni was alleged by the All Blacks staff to have been BORING IN!

    after reviewing the tapes he went to the All Blacks hotel and apologised to Graham Henry.

    now on the issue of TMO protocols, Meuwesen was wrong for telling Clancy that there was a forward pass as the LAWS state that:

    The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
    Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
    Touch down by a defender
    In touch – line-out
    Touch-in-goal Ball dead on or over the dead ball line
    Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal
    All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

    The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball). The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed.

    now for Andre Watson to come and say the laws are only a guideline and are not to be adhered to strictly is just daft! and equally so for you to believe him.

    but i’m not surprised

11. Pokkel says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    The assistant referees should also pull their fingers from their asses and start contributing to the game a bit more. Their names changed for a reason.

12. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:30 pm

    Uhm I could of course e-mail you the mail he sent to me where he said the protocols are there as a guideline to ensure the correct decision is reached and not to be strictly adhered to.

    But he said it in other media too.

    Nothing you have said has in any way suggested that the protocols are there as anything more than a guideline for TMO’s.

    As sual thanks for trying at least.

13. Boertjie says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:48 pm

    Maak nie saak wat hulle met die reëls
    maak nie, ook nie hoeveel skeidsregers
    hulle inspan nie.

    “Ons is in vir vervelige patroonrugby, want dit is wat die spel geword het.”
    So het Alan Zondagh (hy het ‘n rugby-akademie in die Wes-Kaap) het ‘n paar dae gelede geskryf.

    ‘n Oudkollega van my skryf vandag in ‘n
    brief te ondersteuning:

    “Daar word van die een hopie na die ander getjommel.

    “Daarna one step, two step die skrumskakel om die bal by die losskakel te kry, wat hopeloos te vlak staan.
    Aftrap, swenk en skêr is nie meer deel van agterspelers se aanvalstaktiek nie.

    “Die binnespelers hardloop stadig en skuins, die vleuels word teen die kantlyne vasgedruk.

    “Geen onderskeid meer tussen voor- en agterspelers nie, behalwe by vaste skrums. ‘n Slot op losskakel en ‘n stut op senter is algemeen.

    “Verdediging is nie meer ‘n onderafdeling nie, maar ‘n aanvalswapen.”

14. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 12:53 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 12:30 pm: don’t email it to me post it here on the site for everyone to see. the fact that he claimed the “protocols are only a guideline” and the IRB boss said that is not so should tell you watson was on a hiding to nothing. can you please quote somewhere on the IRB’s website where it says: THESE PROTOCOLS ARE ONLY TO ACT AS A GUIDELINE TO ASSIST REFEREES IN REACHING THE RIGHT DECISIONS AND NOT TO BE ADHERED TO STRCTLY”

    all you have is your supposed email & quotes from andre watson and you reckon you’re handing out lessons hahahaha

15. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 1:59 pm

    http://www.ruggaworld.com/2011/08/22/another-shocker-from-paddy-obrien/

    We published it.

    The precise quote is

    What we want is the right decision. It was clear that the pass was forward and if the try had been allowed we would have looked a bunch of fools. Protocols are important and we should try to stick to them but they are essentially guidelines and I’d rather apologise for what happened than get the wrong answer.

16. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 1:59 pm:your problem David is that you have this misguided notion that you are an intellectual when clearly you are far from it. this fallacy prevents you from an form of objectivity as it blinds you from entering any discussion with any sense of impartiality

    this article from the South African Referees website!

    O’Brien sticks by the protocol
    Tue, 23 Aug 2011 18:04

    Paddy O’Brien, the IRB’s refereeing boss, has let referees know that they are to abide by protocols, including the protocol outlining the TMO’s area of jurisdiction.

    This follows the incident in the Tri-Nations Test in Port Elizabeth on Saturday when a try was disallowed on the advice of the television match official because of a forward pass just before the goal-line.

    The referee was George Clancy of Ireland, the TMO Johann Meuwesen of South Africa.

    O’Brien said: “The referee and the television match official were operating outside our agreed protocol. That will be addressed with George [Clancy] in our review of the game. It was disappointing and will form part of our discussions when we next meet.”

    O’Brien also sent a memo to all the World Cup referees, of whom Clancy is one, telling them that they were to adhere to the protocol, telling them “there should not be any breach of protocol as there was on this occasion”.

    O’Brien said: “They [Clancy and Meuwesen] made a call they were not entitled to make. If that means referees miss a knock-on or something else in the lead-up to a try, then that’s the way it is. This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision.”

    The relevant part of the protocol states: “The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball). The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed.”

    The pass from Israel Dagg to Jimmy Cowan happened prior to the ball going into in-goal.

    Both Clancy and Meuwesen were IRB appointments, made several months ago. Contrary to some suggestions, Meuwesen was an original appointment, not a replacement. He is on the IRB’s 12-man panel of TMOs and was doing his 15th Test match in Port Elizabeth. He and Shaun Veldsman are specialised TMOs, the most experienced at their job in South Africa.

    Graham Henry comes out of all this with high praise for his gracious acceptance of the decision, and O’Brien, too, was gracious when he said that Clancy and Meuwesen had acted in good faith.

    did you read that DavidS? “This has all been talked about at the IRB level and that was the decision.”

    now where does Andre Watson come off saying the protocols are not to be adhered to strictly?

    daft!

17. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 1:59 pm:

    http://www.sareferees.co.za/news/ref_news/2776204.htm

18. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 2:25 pm

    Did you read what Watson said on 22 August the day before?

    What is clear is that Paddy ‘O Brien was annoyed because his country’s team being affected by a fair and correct call. At least Graham Henry had the grace to be embarrassed by that bald pated fool… and the diplomacy to say the decision made was correct.

    What is further clear is that the new suggested protocol is that ‘O Brien’s views have been rejected by the remainder of the IRB and he is being forced to reverse his ridiculous position that permits TMO’s to let incorrect calls go by without interference, when the actual reason for these TMO’s invention was precisely to avoid referees errors.

    Note that the only time O’ Brien has ever criticized his own referees publicly has been when their decisions have affected New Zealand.

19. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 2:25 pm: nothing is “clear”! you’re assuming the reason why o’brien sent a memo to the referees is because this happened to the All Blacks, fair enough he is a New Zealander BUT it not factual! why do you present you assumptions as if they’re facts?

    after the RWC quarter-final where SA lost to Aus, Andre Watson was quoted saying “i do no believe we will see him in a World Cup ever again, it is done and dusted now, but we will take action we want to make sure it doesn’t happen again”

    would you DavidS say it is “CLEAR” that Andre Watson also only comments on issues that affect South Africa?

    it is funny though that the same Paddy o’Brien came to the defence of Alain Rolland when the referee rightly gave a red card to Sam Warburton 13 min into the semi against France, no new zealanders in sight and there was paddy again MAINTAINING that the IRB rules are clear on what punishment the infringement carries.

    but hey keep lying to yourself and those who take your word as gospel

    PS where was the game in 2009 that Paddy was forced to apologise to the ARU for admonishing Dickenson, was it Tri-Nations?

20. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 3:11 pm

    Reply to CooleyHigh @ 3:09 pm: andre watson was referring to Bryce Lawrence.

21. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Reply to CooleyHigh @ 3:09 pm:

    You make the mistake of not paying attention.
    On each occasion we have quoted Watson it was because he was asked for a quote.

    In the case of O’ Brien he was not asked for quotes re New Zealand matches but nevertheless decided to publicly and hysterically admonish referees that had affected New Zealand’s outcomes using IRB channels to the media.

    Watson asked for a quote

    ‘O Brien spewed it without needing to be asked.

    I saw the e-mail O’ BRien sent to southern hemisphere refs after they started the crouch… touchpause…. engage system… filled with capitalizations and lots of exclamation marks.

    THIS IS STARTING TO PISS ME OFF!!!!!! WHO SAID YOU COULD CHANGE RULES TO SUIT YOURSELVES!!!!!

    I cannot publish that because of a promise I made at the time to the person who gave it to me.

    He’s a hysterical girl when things affect New Zealand.

    And you are right

    The 2009 game was All Blacks against Italy.

    Stuart Dickinson and Paddy O’Brien

    On November 14, Stuart Dickinson refereed the Italy Verse New Zealand match at the San Siro Stadium. The game had continuous scrum resets which ended in Dickinson yellow carding the All Blacks Neemia Tialata. The Italian management were saying what a poor job he did not giving the Italian team a penalty try. While the All Blacks coaching staff despite the win, heavily criticized saying that Italy were the fault and were using illegal tactics. Paddy O’Brien the IRB referees manager set the precedent and flew to New Zealand team hotel which had never been done before and apologised to NZ management saying Dickinson got it completely wrong.[5]

    This led to outrage by the Australian Rugby Union, who issued a formal complaint to the IRB against Paddy O’Brien.[6] O’Brien ended up apologising to Stuart Dickinson and the Australian Rugby Union.[7]

    “I have unreservedly apologised to Stuart Dickinson for the action of publicly discussing elements of his performance review and would like to extend that apology to the Australian Rugby Union,” said O’Brien.

    “A clear and confidential best practice protocol exists for match official appraisal and feedback involving all stakeholders and I regret breaching this protocol. “The IRB has in place a dedicated High Performance structure for the development of international referees and works hard with its Member Unions to identify up and coming talent and promote consistency at all levels of the Game. “Team management are also offered the opportunity to meet with the referee prior to a match or arrange a meeting with a performance reviewer or myself – this is normal practice. “Again I would like to apologise to Stuart and the ARU for the public nature of the comments that I made.”

    Dickinson in the 2010 6 Nations tournament has not received an appointment for the first time since 2000. The ARU have sought a meeting with Paddy O’Brien to discuss these latest turn of events after O’Brien chose not to publicly appraise referees after they have a bad game. It is understood the meeting has been kept under closed doors.

    The integration of more stringent game management procedures and referee coaching practices are now considered of greater importance within international rugby union.

    SANZAR referees under Lyndon Bray at the time, as well as ARU had a ful go at him and he was forced to make a public apology.

    Just shows what a tool he is.

    _____________________________________________________________

    Warburton issue was a comment after he was asked not an unsolicited hysterical outburst via IRB channels

22. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 3:32 pm: no, david, YOU do not pay attention. on the SA Referees website they say: “Graham Henry comes out of all this with high praise for his gracious acceptance of the decision, and O’Brien, too, was gracious when he said that Clancy and Meuwesen had acted in good faith.”

    now if the REFEREES think Paddy was gracious in how he handled the matter, why would we believe YOU when you say he just mouthed off

23. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 4:34 pm

    Because on previous occasions when poor refereeing decisions affected teams other than the All Blacks he has never said a word.

    Example in 2010 when Oregan Hoskins mentioned how poorly Nigel Ownes had refereed a match involving the Boks, Paddy ‘O Brien was quick to threaten Hoskins with disciplinary action.

    That is one example.

    However look at what ‘O Brien initially said in our article.

    “They were wrong,” O’Brien said of his match officials.

    As for why Meuswesen had gone outside of his jurisdiction, to inform Clancy that Dagg’s final pass to Cowan was forward, O’Brien didn’t know. Or why a referee as experienced as Clancy was swayed by advice that wasn’t Meuswesen’s to give.

    I’ve asked for a reply from both of them and I haven’t received one, as yet. They are expected to stick to our protocols and the message will be loud and clear come the World Cup, or come this week’s test matches, that there will be consequences for officials that go outside the protocols. That’s why they’re in place. He’s [Meeuwissen]a very competent TMO, just like George is a very good referee. But they got it wrong and they will be told that they got it wrong.

    Doesn’t sound all that gracious to me.

    Sounds like a bad loser.

24. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Maybe the same reason SARU refused to comment.

    Because, as Peter Bills, Spiros Zavos, rugbyrefs.com’s commentators and Dan Retief have pointed out, he is emotional, prone to hysterics and dictatorial.

    SARU told me they refused to comment because they did not want to afect the Boks’ chances at the RWC in 2011… now why would they feel the Boks would be affected if they commented on Paddy O’ Brien’s media releases?

    Because he’s a hysterical pro All Blacks baby dictator that is why.

25. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    http://www.rugbyrefs.com/archive/index.php/t-9750.html?s=e3f42051715c8d0b216b011b5fcde212

    This is the rugby referees forum…

    Have a read what they say of their boss…

26. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 4:50 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 4:34 pm: anyway this is boring…who was paddy telling that the refs were wrong, a journalist that asked him a question?

    he says they’re both competent but they got this wrong.

    where is acrimonious part in what you have quoted?

    like i said, refrain from projecting the machinations of your feeble mind as facts.

    you have no facts on this issue, just assumptions, do you agree?

27. Boertjie says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 5:50 pm

    Reply to DavidS @ 4:43 pm:

    Dis jou saak.
    Jy kan of jou tyd mors
    of die man ignoreer.
    Ek het my keuse gemaak.

28. CooleyHigh says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    Reply to Boertjie @ 5:50 pm: hahahaha he can’t ignore me because the “intellectual” in him craves to ALWAYS be right

29. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 8:44 pm

    Reply to Boertjie @ 5:50 pm:

    Dis ‘n game vir my…

    Die naweek het ‘n ou se laaitie my kinders skrik gemaak in die mall toe kon ek dit los of hom konfronteer…

    Ek het hom konfronteer…

    Was nogals funny want eers was hy baie windgat en grootbek, maar op ‘n stadium toe lees hy seker wat staan op my teeshirt (Israeli Krav Maga – Live on your terms) toe besef hy dat hy nou groot kak het, maar hy het toe baie verder en verder van my af gestaan en my ‘n “white k@vver” genoem… ek het hom toe maar white trash genoem en aanhou nooi om nader te kom… ek het maar fighting stance gevat, maar toe was die windgat uit hom uit en hy het weggeloop….

    Selfde geld hier…

    Dis nie net intellektueel nie… dis fun om op ‘n publieke forum moere soos hy se gat aanhoudend te skop…

    As jy dink dit doen afbreek aan die site sal ek hom maar net straight ban dan kry ons dit klaar. mail my maar as jy wil voorstel maak.

30. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 8:46 pm

    Reply to CooleyHigh @ 4:50 pm:

    He did an unsolicited media release.

    Read our article.

31. DavidS says:
    March 6th, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Oh and my intellectual is not so much inside as also outside…

32. Kevin_rack says:
    March 7th, 2012 at 10:00 am

    Reply to CooleyHigh @ 8:35 am: is that really you oom tranise?