TMO can't see it
What happens when the television match official cannot see the grounding of the ball? It happened more than once in the last weekend of November.
Romania suffered most, but so did Scotland.
Romania played Ireland in Dublin and did not look like winning the match, but they were earnest and with the score 31-12 against them they attacked.
It started when their teenage fullback Catalin Fercu kicked high, chased, caught and darted for the corner where David Humphreys just managed to get hold of the back of his jersey and drag him down. The young fullback released the ball but was adjudged out before he did so – a really hard decision for the touch judge.
Ireland cleared but were penalised at the line-out. Romania made it into a five-metre line-out and battered at the line of the resolute Irish. The referee awarded a five-metre scrum to Romania.
Romania battered at the line and Alexandru Manta was over, but the referee needed to consult the TMO whose advice was: "We don't see any grounding of the ball. Scrum five, attacking ball."
Then big Petrisor Toderasc drove at the line and grounded the ball. He may have got to the line. He may have been short. The referee referred the matter to the TMO. The result was a scrum five metres from the line. This time Romania played to their backs – and Ireland scored.
This process from Fercu's dash to the third five-metre scrum with two consultations with the TMO lasted eight minutes.
After Ireland had scored the Romanians came back. They turned a penalty into a five-metre line-out, made a maul and drove it at speed well over the Irish line with Sorin Socol in possession of the ball. They were well over the line in a really well-constructed drive.
Again the referee referred to the TMO. While the process of looking and replaying was going on, the commentators had their say.
"Unless he can see the grounding, he can't give it."
"Even though your instinct is that it's a try….."
The TMO's advice was: "I can't see the grounding."
It became another five-metre scrum.
Scotland played New Zealand at Murrayfield and were down 5-3. The referee awarded a scrum to Scotland about which Piri Weepu was insistently rude and was penalised for it. The Scots made the penalty into a maul, got together well and drove it the five-metres at speed well into the New Zealand in-goal.
The referee was well positioned, as he pointed out, but could not see the grounding of the ball. So he referred the matter to the TMO.
As in Dublin, the process took a while which the commentators used for discussion.
"It probably is a try but you just have to see it."
"If he can't see the ball, he can't give it, even though it looks to everyone in the stadium that it's a try."
"It should be a try, they should have controlled it, but the trouble is can Monsieur Berdos see it?" (Christophe Berdos was the TMO.)
"I would bet my mortgage on it that it's a try – but can you see it?"
Monsieur Berdos could not see the ball and so the referee ordered a five-metre scrum.
The third Romanian case and the Scottish case looked as if in all probability it was a try. Almost their problem was a too perfect construction of the maul. The Romanians and especially the Scots got the ball and formed the maul tightly around it so that foreign bodies could not get to it. In protecting it so well they prevented the TMO from seeing it.
But should the TMO have all the say?
After all the law of provability applies to the penalty try? If a try would probably – not certainly – have been scored the referee awards a penalty try. But in this case probability is not enough; the TMO must have certainty, or so it seems.
After all circumstantial evidence is admissible in a court of law and can lead to conviction with serious consequences. Circumstantial evidence does not rely on direct evidence from a witness. But facts surrounding the act infer that the act did indeed take place. Circumstantial evidence is usually a theory, supported by a significant quantity of corroborating evidence.
In our cases, the side that got the ball, had the ball, drove over the opponents' line and the ball was grounded. That the witness (TMO) could not see it does not preclude the use of circumstantial evidence. There must surely have been a "significant quantity of corroborating evidence" that a try had been scored.
But there is the argument that once the referee consults the TMO, that's it. The TMO has to see it. He has to become an eye-witness, none of this circumstantial evidence nonsense.
What the TMO tells the referee is advice, only advice. The TMO does not prescribe, though he seems to be doing so in the one Romanian case by ordering a five-metre scrum. The referee is not obliged to take the advice but having asked for it he would be silly not to take it.
But then we come to the manner of the asking.
The IRB's own protocol on the use of the TMO gives examples of the type of question the referee could ask.
Examples:
“The maul went over the goal line. I did not see the ball touch the ground and I did not see which team was in possession could you please advise.”
or
“I am entirely happy with the touch down, please can you check if the players foot was in touch prior to grounding and please advise.”
or
“I believe that a defender touched down and I believe I award a 22. Please advise”
or
“I believe that a try was scored could you please advise”
or
“Give me a reason why I should not award a try”
In these cases we have given, the referee could presumably see matters unfold to ensure that an attacker had grounded the ball and then said to the TMO: "Give me a reason why I should not award a try."
After all probability, which is good enough for a penalty try, and circumstantial evidence, which is good enough for a court of law, all point to the try.
Surely the award of a try should not depend on the serious limitations that fixed cameras have, not unless we are going to have one videoing up from under the ground!
