Why rugby values, not the big TMO debate, are more important to Hong Kong referees
Two rounds into the Rugby World Cup and no prizes for guessing who is dominating discussions – Japan, Wales and match officials.
Two rounds into the Rugby World Cup and no prizes for guessing who is dominating discussions – Japan, Wales and match officials.
Referees and those involved with training, coaching and selection of match officials are usually reluctant to publicly criticise other officials and I am not going to break ranks.
Suffice to say, I am sure there will be some interesting reviews of decisions made by referees and their performance. One interesting point is the use of the TMO, which has led to much debate as the length of some games has increased significantly as either the referee referred a matter to the TMO or the TMO intervened.
The TMO can only be used for: grounding of the ball in-goal and whether anyone was in touch before the grounding; a successful kick at goal; any infringement two phases prior to scoring a try; and, lastly, foul play.
This brings into question the whole use of the TMO – World Rugby now has the available technology, including the Hawkeye camera, to ensure the correct decision is reached but at what cost to the game? Even team coaches are concerned about player welfare, with muscles cooling down while a decision is reached. There have been calls to limit their use in the same way that tennis players can question only a certain number of calls.
But imagine the following: New Zealand are leading Ireland 22-18 in the final with one minute to the final whistle. The Irish score in the corner and after the kick, time is up – the Irish have not only beaten the All Blacks for the first time but they have also won the World Cup. Ireland explode in euphoric celebration but hold on a minute, replays show a forward pass missed by referee Wayne Barnes. The TMO was not called on because captain Richie McCaw had used up his quota of TMO reviews. If you were a New Zealander, would you be able to accept this decision? More importantly, if you were Irish, would you accept it?
Once the conversion has been taken then the decision stands. This may explain Scotland’s haste to take a conversion after scoring incredibly close to the dead-ball line against Japan.
The Hong Kong Premiership season starts this weekend and while we do not yet have the TMO system in place we do have a proficient team of more than 80 active match officials.
At our annual conference a month ago we discussed the main areas of focus: foul play, scrum, tackle/ruck, line-out, maul, and rugby values.
While the first five are fairly obvious, the last one involves a desire to see less so-called “football antics” with players appealing for decisions to the referee, and displaying unsportsmanlike behaviour.
Be warned – asking for a yellow card or shouting abuse at your opposite number may see the penalty being reversed.
With regards to foul play, World Rugby has recently reiterated that contact with the neck, especially those neck tackles/rolls seen at ruck and maul time during a “clear out” must be penalised.
We will similarly take a strong stand against such dangerous play – with the size of some of the players there is plenty of body to bind on to without grabbing the neck.
Another area we will be paying attention to is that of collisions in the air. The player must be in a position to realistically challenge for the ball, otherwise you are running the risk of a yellow or red card.
As our season is about to start here in Hong Kong, some fear it is about to close on England’s RWC hopes. I hope our season, like the England-Australia game this weekend, is decided by the players and not the referee. Here’s to a cracking game!
