There has been a huge outcry over the involvement of the TMO’s usage. I disagree. In fact, I have no problem with the TMO intervening if they have seen any dirty foul play.
For pieces of foul play like biting, eye gouging, a punch or kick in the ruck, stomping and testicle grabs. They are incredibly difficult for the referee and two touch judges to spot. Only the TMO would find them clear and obvious. Then that player would rightly be rubbed out of the game with a red card.
Or, take for example Johnny Fa’auli’s shoulder charge to Wes Goosen’s head. He was correctly red carded.
The ref and touch judges were not entirely sure what happened, but the TMO correctly advised on the shoulder charge to the head with no mitigating circumstances.
With concussions a big issue, there is a need to make the game safer. So, to all the people complaining “the game’s gone soft”, be thankful that there is a move to reduce concussions.
The TMO powers have played a role I believe in stamping out foul play, reduce ‘thugby’ and help see more enterprising rugby.
Who knows, if the TMO wasn’t allowed to rule on foul play, players like Beauden Barrett could be targeted more?
So in saying that, I am pleased that the TMO is allowed to rule on foul play. Players need to learn to adapt and play more within the spirit of the game.
Riaan Hendricks
Roar Rookie
I don't mind the TMO, Rugby is a very dangerous sport and players may get seriously hurt when the opposition know there's no extra pair of eyes monitoring them. We already see this at schoolboy and lower club levels where there's no camera coverage. You get sucked in a maul, only to emerge with a blue eye and a set teeth knocked out, whilst having no clue who did you the pleasure.
Die hard
Roar Rookie
I don't mind referrals for biting, eye gouging, a punch or kick in the ruck, stomping and testicle grabs. But we just don't see this in test matches so much. I cringe at marginal moments becoming crucial to the game or lengthy delays for minor events I cry when as against France the ref said he saw a clear grounding only to be overturned. More power to the man in the middle. Let the tmo advise foul play and camera angles on request
Stu B.
Guest
As long as the TMO doesn't intervene against us it's OK I suppose.
Vman
Guest
On another topic, I would also like to see teams marched 10 meters for throwing away the ball after the whistle to slow down play. Like they do in 7s.
Vman
Guest
I agree. If it is dirty play (eye gouging etc) then stamp it out and punish harshly. The TMO is often best placed to see it. Although the problem comes when this principle punishes people who had no intention of harm - such as the problems in sending off players in the France v New Zealand tests recently. I.E. unintentional collision while contesting for the high ball. It ruined those tests, which meant France had no chance and also that the All Blacks were not battle hardened going into their first Rugby Champ match. Perhaps we need 2 levels of severity. Intentional foul play - immediate harsh punishment. Unintentional foul play while, contesting for the ball - put on report for an after match scrutiny.
Old Bugger
Guest
Firstly, foul play is a given - no arguments on that....... My second issue is, the TMO should remain as the "extra pair of eyes" only and not, an adjudicator. The position of adjudicating remains with the referee so once the referee reviews all available video shots then whatever decision is required, should be made between the referee and his ARs, excluding the TMO.