| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. [http://s8.zetaboards.com/ratetheref/register//]Join our community![/url] If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| TMO; What's the point? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Saturday, 17. March 2007, 22:26 (506 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Saturday, 17. March 2007, 22:26 Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
Controversial late tries in Rome and Paris today. In my opinion, in neither instance was the TMO actually of any great use. Certainly in the case of the try in Paris, the ball couldn't even be seen by the camera, meaning there was no way the TMO could be sure the try had/hadn't been scored, yet he had to award it because the referee asked if there was any reason why he shouldn't. So, why bother? Or, if it should remain, how would you improve it? I'd be interested to hear. |
|
|
| flipmode | Saturday, 17. March 2007, 23:12 Post #2 |
![]()
|
I agree P-A. In neither instance could a try be given as the Video evidence was inconclusive. Whenever Video Evidence is mentioned for implementation in Football, Rugby is always used as the best example. Not today however, the Paree one was a complete shocker. And the reason the referee gave it, for me, was a complete cop out. He would have come out with more credibility had he not gave it, than giving what could not be given as a try. |
| Sydney. Where the sun shines constantly, and the trees burn in summer. | |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 18. March 2007, 20:50 Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
I didn't see either but going by what you're saying about the one in Paris, it sounds like a case of "I can't even see the ball from the pictures I'm looking at, never mind where it is. Therefore no try". You're basically giving a match-changing decision even though you didn't see it happen. |
|
|
| flipmode | Sunday, 18. March 2007, 20:53 Post #4 |
![]()
|
Aye, which is what I said. |
| Sydney. Where the sun shines constantly, and the trees burn in summer. | |
![]() |
|
| babyref | Sunday, 18. March 2007, 20:54 Post #5 |
Member
|
flipmode, the referee gave it because he saw the ball being grounded. He was only about a yard away! He just wanted to double check if there were any infringements (eg knock ons) in the build up, which there weren't. Good refereeing from Mr Joubert. I think the TMO system isn't perfect, but it's far better than any alternatives. The pace with which play happens in the in-goal area means it's the only way to do it. I remember some of the disastrous calls there used to be before the system was introduced. Sometimes the evidence is inconclusive but it can be very valuable, especially in touch in-goal incidents. Keep it as it is I say. |
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | Sunday, 18. March 2007, 21:12 Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
Well I'm, erm, being more specific... :oops: |
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Rugby · Next Topic » |





1:13 AM Jul 11