Treading on the TMOs

Silence is not always golden. There is an aura of mistrust around the officiating at the Rugby World Cup which, in some instances, is exacerbated by silence.

Firstly, there is the TV silence. In fact the general quality of the television broadcasts from the World Cup is well below the standard expected by those used to watching Six Nations, and its derivatives, and those who watch SANZAR and its derivatives.

For one thing, in most matches the referee is inaudible and so is the conversation between the referee and his other officials, most importantly the television match official.

If the referee asks the TMO a question, what he says is as important as what the TMO replies to the referee.

If the referee says: “Give me a reason why I cannot award a try,” the TMO looks and says just that – no reason to not to award a try. He does not comment on the try only on reasons not to award it. He is then looking for a knock-on or forward pass, not the grounding of the ball. He advises the referee accordingly. If there was no knock-on, foul play, and so on, he tells the referee that. The decision to award the try is the referee’s. It always is.

If the referee says: “I believe the ball was knocked on in in-goal by Red. Can you see if this was not the case? The TMO does just that – looks to see if there was not a knock-on. He advises the referee accordingly. The decision is the referee’s.

The referee may say, “I am going to award a penalty, but could you just make sure that a try was not scored. before the penalty offence.” The TMO looks and tells the referee that a try was not scored. He does not look at the penalty offence but at what happened before the penalty offence. The advice he gives the referee is about that. He may tell the referee that a try was not scored. The referee then penalises. The penalty decision is the referee’s, not the TMO’s.

There have been queries about tries awarded and the TMO has taken the blame. But neither the referee’s question nor the TMO’s advice was audible. The judgement is rash.

Silence in this respect is not golden especially when the commentators add no explanation either. Indeed we get the commentator’s complaint: “I don’t know how he can award that try. He could not have seen it grounded.”

Clearly he did not know what the referee had asked the TMO either.

We were able to hear Chris White instruct the TMO to find a reason why he should not award a try when Portugal’s prop Rui Cordeiro went over. But we were not able to hear Stuart Dickinson ask the same thing for the try by Louis Stanfill of the USA.

The commentator in the Stanfill case was amazed that a try had been scored though there was no “absolute certainty” – a term he used again in the Samoa-Tonga match – that a try had been scored.

Is absolute certainty necessary? Isn’t the balance of probability enough. If a player carrying the ball plunges to earth holding the ball and you, the referee, see the ball grounded under his chest, would you not award a try on the balance of probability even though you did not see the actual grounding? Is that not the case with a breakaway try and a player goes over in a tackle or dives on a ball with the referee and the touch judges left far behind? After all not every rugby match has a TMO available.

Clearly in the case of “give me a reason why not” the referee is working on a balance of probability.

In the case of Mike Pyke of Canada we do not hear what referee Tony Spreadbury says to TMO Craig Joubert. If we do not hear the question and do not hear the answer, we are making a rash leap of judgement to condemn either. (And there may in fact have been nothing to condemn in any case.)

So the TMOs may be unfairly trodden on and there is not a sound to put their case – not in the television production and not from amongst their own members.

That brings us to the second part of unuseful silence. It seems that there is no word on match officials and their decisions from the match officials themselves or those who represent them. Silence leaves the sore to fester, the aura of mistrust to grow from mist to smog.

Smog is not as transparent as clear air.