Comments on: Aviva Premiership Final: 5 things we learned

By: Blub

Blub — Wed, 04 Jun 2014 10:12:30 +0000

Don’t you think that – however it is reached – the officiating team between them should do their level best to ensure that the right decisions are made?

I am neutral as to the result of this match but I am quite sure that I would be more irritated by a try being allowed despite an obvious midfield obstruction, that concerns over which official is saying what to whom.

By: Dazza

Dazza — Tue, 03 Jun 2014 11:08:17 +0000

The point in the game I mentioned above was when Sarries were close to scoring through a Jackson Wray effort. The ball was still in play, but when Wray got close to the line, the TMO starting telling Doyle to check for obstruction! Play did carry on for a few more seconds. But again it could’ve carried on for a couple more phases, and maybe resulted in a try, or a turnover, we’ll never know.
The difference in the two incidents was firstly that Saints were claiming a try, Sarries weren’t, and in the Sarries incident the TMO was clearly instructing Doyle to check obstruction before anyone had even claimed to score.
The point is it should be up to the ref to control that on the pitch. He has a whistle for a reason. He knows when to use it, and shouldn’t be told when to use it by the TMO!

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 19:53:25 +0000

I appreciate your point, but in this case I think we have to give the referee credit because Northampton clearly stopped playing after they had scored their try so the ref was right to stop the play. That is, if I remember the events correctly.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:31:55 +0000

A few too many doubts in the rules I think. That one certainly doesn’t feel clear cut enough.

By: Blub

Blub — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 16:30:03 +0000

Chris, that is a very good point. I saw a game very recently where this actually happened (though I don’t recall which game it was), and a try was scored after the ref had blown his whistle to check on the grounding of a try.

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 15:01:37 +0000

Even stranger I found the TMO and referee intervention at the end could have resulted in Northampton losing. The ball falling short would have resulted in a scrum, and an end to the game despite the ball still being in play. Does this mean the referee can stop the game if he sees any reasonable doubt that the ball has made contact with the line?

Should play continue and then be reviewed after? It seems strange to me than the game has to be stopped, Northampton could well have played a few more phases and got a clearly visible try.

By: Dazza

Dazza — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:52:01 +0000

I think the TMO should only be referred to if the ref deems it necessary. There was a point in the game when the TMO could be heard shouting “check, check, check for obstruction” in the ref’s ear whilst the ball was still in play.
If the TMO’s get more involved they will have to start checking every pass and tackle leading up to a try!!
I think the TMO is a benefit, but I think there needs to be clear guidelines of when they are used. In my view they should only be brought in to look at something at the referees request. The referee has to take some responsibility and make on the spot decisions. He did that, but then the TMO showed him something he had not asked to view. I didn’t even know he could do that, and I don’t think many people did.

By: Andy

Andy — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:16:01 +0000

I actually think the TMO stepping in for decisions is the way it should be.

He should have done it earlier though.

There needs to be a full and proper review of the correct use of TMO. Procedures in place for restarting play if a TMO is called for and nothing is found.

Take Bath v Saints. Right on the end, flag comes out, Bath miss the DG, TMO reviews and there is no foul play. Play should then restart, giving Bath the chance to continue.

By: Jacob

Jacob — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 14:00:39 +0000

The TMO situation is starting to get on my nerves. In the Euro play-off, over two legs, Wasps were disallowed 4 tries which were marginal and the incidents often happened long before the actual try was scored.

Whilst many would argue that it is getting the correct decision that matters (and when this was introduced at the beginning of the season I agreed); I believe the TMO is becoming far too involved now, and it showed again on Saturday.

The last stoppage in play can sometimes mean several minutes of rugby gets played, only to all be chalked off. Doesn’t work for me.

Whilst it needs to be in place, I think it needs to be reviewed. Potentially having a limit on the number of phases? So you can only review three phases in build up to the try or something along those lines?

By: Benjit

Benjit — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:56:38 +0000

Re point 4 Mallinder confirmed right after the match that only the key decision makers were told that they only needed a draw. That would have been Myler wood and Hartley probably. Gutsy decision. But maybe they wanted to win the final out right and not win on points difference. Either that or Myler is cr@p a drop goals and was hoping for an easy penalty in front of the sticks.

By: Blub

Blub — Mon, 02 Jun 2014 13:56:02 +0000

In terms of creating doubts in the ref’s confidence, surely one voice in your ear is better than hundreds of voices telling you the same thing after the game?