TMO-ing around

Exact conversation

We discuss some incidents involving the television match official from the match between Ireland and Wales in Dublin in last weekend's Six Nations matches.

The conversation between the referee and the TMO in each of the several cases is exemplary – thoughtful, succinct, measured and in exact terms of the protocol.

We also have a good question from a reader. We have made a short comment. Others may wish to comment more fully.

We have already discussed the stoppage for the injury to Mike Blair and the yellow card for Denis Leamy. To read it, click here.

1. Any reason why not

In the match between Ireland and Wales, the referee and the television match official interact several times, mercifully briefly each time. On one occasion, with Wales leading 5-3, the Irish drive at the line. David Wallace is carrying the ball. A heap of Irish and Welsh players collapses over the line.

The referee has a good view of what happened.

He then asks the TMO: "See if there is any reason why I cannot give a try?"

The TMO gave his advice: "There is no reason why you cannot award the try."

The referee awards the try.

OK?

Yes.

A referee is allowed to make reasonable assumptions. In fact, in the case of a penalty try, the law requires him to make a reasonable assumption regarding probability.

If the referee sees a player in possession of the ball drive over the line and then sees the player still in possession of the ball lying on the ball in contact with the ground. It is reasonable to assume that a try has, at least probably, been scored. It is not always possible for the referee to see the exact nanosecond of grounding. This can happen even when there is not a heap of players temporarily obscuring his view. It can happen when the ball-carrier is the only person in view but with his back turned and so on.

Asking the TMO if there is any reason not to award a try is contained in the IRB's protocol governing the communication between referee and TMO.

That protocol gives the following examples of questions which could be asked:

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”

What the referee did was well within the IRB's protocol and the bounds of commonsense.

2. Dead ball?

Lee Byrne of Wales kicks the ball downfield. Shane Horgan of Ireland gathers the ball and just ion his side of his 10-metre line he hoofs the ball back down towards the Welsh line. The ball rolls and on and on, over the Welsh goal-line and on towards the dead-ball line where Byrne watches over it, no doubt hoping that the ball would reach the dead-ball line. It stops rolling and Byrne picks it up and appears top dot it down immediately. He throws it up for the drop-out. The referee orders the drop-out but the touch judge suggests that the ball went dead by touching the dead-ball line. The referee was nearer than the touch judge but the touch judge was adamant that the ball had rolled dead, and so the referee offered Wales the option of a drop-out or a scrum where Horgan kicked the ball. They chose the scrum.

Does the IRB protocol on the TMO allow the consultation with the TMO in such a case?

The protocol says:

c) The official [TMO] may be consulted if the referee is unsure when making a decision in in-goal with regard to the scoring of a try or a touch down when foul play in in-goal may have been involved.

d) The official [TMO] may be consulted if the referee or touch judge is unsure if a player was or was not in touch when attempting to ground the ball to score a try.

e) The official [TMO] may be consulted if the referee or touch judges are unsure when making decision relating to touch-in-goal and the ball being made dead if a score may have occurred.

2 AREAS OF ADJUDICATION

2.1  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
• Dropped goal.

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 including acts of foul play in the act of grounding the ball or otherwise.

The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication.  If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (3).

That says that it is only in scoring that the TMO may be consulted – the try or the drop-goal, neither of which applies here.

3. Whose scrum?

Denis Leamy has the ball as a mass of Irish attackers pounds at a mass of Welsh defenders. Wallace goes over the line. Again the referee got into a good position but this time he could not see the ball on the ground with Leamy in possession. In fact the ball is flicked back by a Welsh hand further into his in-goal. Still it was possible that he had got the ball down and then been lifted up, and so he refers the matter to the TMO.

His question this time is different. He asks if the TMO had seen the grounding of the ball for a try.

The TMO's advice: "The ball was not grounded and an attacking scrum."

"Attacking scrum" means a scrum to Ireland, for they are the attacking team.

The referee accepts this and affirms that Leamy had not lost the ball forward.

Commentator: "Interesting that the ball has gone to Ireland."

"The ball was lost on the way down, in which case it should be a Wales scrum."

There was no reason to give the scrum to Wales as Leamy had not lost it forward. If it is held up in in-goal the scrum goes to the attacking team, in this case Ireland.

Law 22.10 BALL HELD UP IN IN-GOAL

When a player carrying the ball is held up in the in-goal so that the player cannot ground the ball, the ball is dead. A 5-metre scrum is formed. This would apply if play similar to a maul takes place in in-goal. The attacking team throws in the ball.

Penalty against the Welshman for being on the ground and using his hand to flick the ball back?

No, no.

There is no tackle and no ruck in the in-goal. Using his hands was thus acceptable.

4. Advantage for nothing?

Reader: A quick question that raised a lot of discussion among some referees at a recent meeting.  If an attacking player knocks the ball on five metres from the goal line (But the ball does not go into in goal) and in his frustration kicks the ball dead.  Can the referee award the 22 as if he was playing advantage or does he have to go for the scrum (i.e. does law 22.7 b take effect even though the knock on didn't bring the ball into in goal).

Ross

Comment: Surely it must be a scrum for the knock-on. The defending team did absolutely nothing to gain an advantage.