Two types of referrals are listed in Section 2 of the TMO Protocols:

Formal referral for an infringement in the immediate two phases of play leading to a try being scored

Live referral where any member of the TO4 is able to make an accurate call without having to formally refer

In section 3 of the TMO Protocols certain laws are underlined for instances where a live referral may be conducted.

All Clear and Obvious knock-ons are underlined.

Not so dodgy after all.

Dodgy TMO? Not so dodgy at all if one correctly applies the “live” referrals section in the TMO Protocols.

The boks fans on here are now going to go off on a tangent about how all that does not matter and they are the best and everyone else is crap.

I think those boks fans will be delusional. Two missed kicks and an unlucky bounce of the ball for Ardie, only a few metres away from the goal line, could easily have changed the outcome of a very, very close game.

Which mitigations would you remove from the HCP?

Any other amendments you would like to see?

At first glance it does indeed appear as if HCP did not have the desired behavioural impact for Sam Cane. I noticed he collected cards in most years he’s been playing for the Chiefs and NZ, 11 yellow and 1 red in total.

In 2023 alone he collected three yellow cards when playing for the Chiefs, another yellow against the Springboks at Twickenham, and the red in the WC final.

Always dangerous to assume, but looking at these statistics, I assume he has always been playing close to the edge of the law (as most flankers would do).

If HCP doesn’t have the desired effect on repeat offenders, do you think an integrated approach by World Rugby will?

Hi Bliksem, I think both of you missed the point of my original post, apologies for not being clear enough. The carrot and stick method is a well known approach to change behaviour, and it is clear to me that the Springboks took the HCP (stick) serious enough to train tackling methods over and over into muscle memory. So HCP does actually change behaviour and (indirectly) makes the game safer.

In the article Geoff also asks: where is the conclusive evidence that a process which involves sending some players off for what is sometimes incidental or accidental contact, and others not, makes the game safer?

Well, given the HCP in its current form was introduced in March 2023, I think it will be a little while before one has enough data to have conclusive evidence.

However, in the meantime, if being sent off results in your team losing the game, surely this must change your behaviour and the team’s training methods?

Sorry Geoff for not being clear enough in my post. I didn’t question the red or yellow, but just illustrated that it is very unlikely World Rugby is torturing themselves at the margins trying to decipher the fine differences between Sam Cane’s and Siya Kolisi’s actions as, in my mind, the HCP is already very clear about these fine differences.

And I’ve copied Kolisi’s words, dated 5 months after the introduction of the HCP, to show that the HCP is indeed changing behaviour. In Kolisi’s words again, it takes a lot of hard work, training it over and over into the muscle memory (what is a safe way to coach and play rugby)

BTW, I was surprised to see you omitted any reference to the HCP in an article about concussion, surely you must have some views on how the HCP can be improved to assist further with making rugby safer?

It remains to be seen whether World Rugby will realise the futility of torturing themselves at the margins trying to decipher the fine differences between Sam Cane’s and Siya Kolisi’s actions, heavily influencing the outcome of a World Cup final in the process, and think instead in terms of what made those instances broadly similar.

Hi Geoff, in my mind the Head Contact Process (HCP) published in March 2023 is very clear in the fine differences between the two tackles, any suggestions how it can be further improved?

Once that mind shift is made, rugby will be able to reserve the heaviest sanctions for true cases of deliberate or extremely reckless foul play, and focus resources and energy into changing behaviour at all levels of the game through a cohesive strategy that leans more heavily into education and coaching.

I note the HCP already refers to cases of deliberate or extremely reckless foul play, stating:

Mitigation will not apply for intentional or always-illegal acts of foul play.

Also interesting to note how the Springboks approached this issue, in the words of Kolisi (before the Springboks met the All Blacks at Twickenham in August 2023):

We train on that every single time … we work as hard as we can. That’s why when we go out there on the field, we can be as physical as we can, because we’ve trained it over and over into the muscle memory. It’s uncomfortable down there. It’s not nice, when somebody so big is running at you and you have to get down low. That’s why you have to learn how to meet him, how to work on the foot movement, and [potential] late level changes. Sometimes you get caught out [by committing an illegal tackle], but it’s not a habit … it does take a lot of hard work.

Recently Kolisi, when asked if he was concerned that he would also be red carded for his tackle in the WC final, said:

I wasn’t, I will tell you honestly, I hit him on the chest, it was the follow through (that connected with his head). It wasn’t direct, I know my rules.

Fair enough, there are many poor losers from all countries!
Equally, there are many poor winners too!
I think most South Africans will admit that there were some luck involved in the three WC play-offs – I recall two incidents in the final where one kick (Jordie) or bounce of the ball (Ardie) could easily have changed the result.
But SOME NZ supporters on these pages are indeed very vocal re their dislike for all things referee / TMO / laws / even World Rugby, and I think that will only change with a new coach and ethos. One can only hope …

carnivean, I think there is an underlying issue with some NZ supporters that has influenced their ability to accept strict applications of Rugby’s laws, and it all harks back to the successful period under McCaw’s leadership and Hansen’s coaching philosophy.

In addition to being a very talented team, the AB’s under Richie’s leadership unfortunately found some of their competitive edge in testing the referee’s interpretation of certain laws, especially those laws where a penalty can go either way.

Richie himself was often penalised early in a game for these type of offences, but the AB’s then quickly adapted to the referee and seldom got pinged again in the same game for the same offence.

In addition to the 50/50 calls, for many years now the AB sides have been prepared to defend close to their goal line at any cost, even a yellow card, as long as the other team doesn’t score a try.

With the additional scrutiny of the TMO in recent years, many of these deliberate offences have now been exposed, hence the outcry re referees, TMO’s and even World Rugby!

Fingers crossed Razor will install some discipline re tackling methods and develop game strategies that will focus on the skills and flair of some very talented players, that will produce a sustained period of quality wins, which will hopefully take care of these old farts who just keep on complaining about the laws and the match officials.

The World Cup Final was blighted by the TMO playing outside the Laws and agreements.

He stuffed it.

In front of the entire planet, he undercut the showpiece.

A great shame really that these strong views are backed up by such a lame argument, based on a personal interpretation of the TMO Protocols.

I think such strong views deserve a quote straight from the TMO Protocols, supported by a strong argument, otherwise it is a blight on the poster! 😂

Those TMO flashlights have some strong batteries indeed! But unfortunately for some disgruntled fans who would like to believe otherwise, they are legal.

ATW, by saying the “The World Cup Final was blighted by the TMO playing outside the Laws and agreements” I assume you refer to the knock-on at the lineout that resulted in the disallowed try?

I suggest you review the TMO Protocols, specifically the difference between “formal” and “live” referrals. You will notice the formal referrals apply to the two phases before a try is scored, but the live referrals can be called by any member of the TO4, and without the two phases restriction, for ease of reference:

a live referral

“is intended to only be used where an incident occurs, in line with the provisions contained in Section 3: Protocol Detail relating to live referrals, where it is clear that the on-field team have missed a clear and obvious incident/decision that does not need formal referral”

And general play knock-ons are specifically listed as a live referral.

In my view therefore the TMO acted 100% within the laws and protocols.

Please elaborate on the No, the suspense is killing me 😂

Piru, I’m not sure how explaining the TMO Protocols is strawmanning, given all our posts in this thread relates to the TMO Protocols.

Nevertheless, having read the TMO Protocols now a number of times, and despite some parts of the TMO Protocols perhaps a bit clumsily written, I don’t see the TMO Protocols as vague and contradictory. In fact, to me it is very clear the TO4 acted within the parameters of the TMO Protocols, as explained above.

To avoid any doubt, I see it as a:

CLEAR and OBVIOUS knock-on, reviewed by the TO4, in line with the “live referrals” in the TMO Protocols, which resulted in a better and more accurate decision made, therefore maintaining the integrity of the game, which is exactly why the TMO Protocols are in place.

Please don’t hesitate to add more comments re your interpretation of each relevant section of the TMO Protocols, or ask more questions re the relevant sections of the TMO Protocols, and I will try to clarify any vague and/or contradictory interpretations.

Stop digging Piru 😂

CLEAR and OBVIOUS knock-on, reviewed by the TO4, in line with the “live referrals” in the TMO Protocols, resulted in a better and more accurate decision made, therefore maintaining the integrity of the game, which is exactly why the TMO Protocols are in place.

So let’s have a closer look at the COMPLETE second guiding principle then:

The protocol aims to deal in the space commonly defined as CLEAR & OBVIOUS

For clarity purposes, this is defined as an incident that is unlikely to be refereed in any other way.

It refers to an incident during the game that is easily identifiable in terms of the Laws of the Game.

Interpretations can vary, so let’s try to clarify these guidelines by means of a few questions:

Was the knock-on CLEAR AND OBVIOUS?

Yes, especially with the benefit of a TMO replay, very clear and obvious.

Can a CLEAR AND OBVIOUS knock-on be refereed in any other way?

Unlikely. Well, perhaps in a scenario where foul play resulted in the knock-on.

O wait, this was actually one of those few unlikely occasions!

Was the CLEAR AND OBVIOUS knock-on easily identifiable in terms of the Laws of the Game?

Yes – Law 11 Knock-on and then also Law 9 Foul play

I suggest you read Sections 2 and 3 again, specifically focussing on the difference between formal referrals and live referrals.

In my view this part of the TMO Protocol has been badly written, and it takes a while to have a good understanding of the differences between the two.

Importantly, a live referral

“is intended to only be used where an incident occurs, in line with the provisions contained in Section 3: Protocol Detail relating to live referrals, where it is clear that the on-field team have missed a clear and obvious incident/decision that does not need formal referral”

Now let’s look at the other section you copied. This section refers to Law 9: Foul Play, which indeed doesn’t list knock-ons.

It’s because knock-ons are already listed in the live referrals section as it is underlined.

Yes, I think you’ve missed Section 1 of the TMO Protocols, which provides the Guiding Principles of the TMO’s support for the referee. If we apply these guiding principles to the disallowed All Black try in the WC final:

The TMO called back play to the lineout where a “clear and obvious” (second guiding principle in Section 1 of the TMO Protocols) knock-on took place before the try (an obvious “big moment” as per the third guiding principle in Section 2 of the TMO Protocols) to ensure a “better and more accurate” decision was made (first principle in Section 1 of the TMO Protocols).

I think you also missed the “live referrals” by “any member” of the TO4 in Section 2 of the TMO Protocols. A live referral is “intended to only be used where an incident occurs, in line with the provisions contained in Section 3: Protocol Detail relating to live referrals, where it is clear that the on-field team have missed a clear and obvious incident/decision that does not need formal referral.

Given these TMO Protocols noted above, in my opinion both the assistant referee on lineout duty (the knock-on happened right in front of him) and the TMO would have acted within their rights to refer the “clear and obvious” knock-on as a “live referral” (which is a different to the General Play protocol applying to the now famous two phases)

Have you read the TMO protocols Piru? Cause if you did, you may want to revisit the “right call was a try” statement …

Piru 5/12/2023:
“The right call was a try”
Also Piru a few weeks ago:
“I don’t want the try to stand”

By that logic, Ardie’s knock-on at the lineout should have been a scrum to the Boks, unless foul play resulted in the knock-on, in which case it would have to be a penalty to the All Blacks. Wait a minute, that actually happened! That means everything else is irrelevant.

Thanks Colin for your patience in answering a similar question. I was, and still am, struggling to understand the variety of issues NZ fans still have now, several weeks after the final. Many have graciously accepted the tight loss, some others on this site and in some NZ media cannot let go, and keep on venting their anger re the perceived wrongs.

I believe most of these perceived wrongs have now been clarified, but the one that are still dragging on re the TMO seems to me be the most challenging for some fans, and I was trying to put it into the perspective of an unjust outcome in 2007, and a just outcome in 2023.

I am now of opinion the only outcome that some of these still disgruntled NZ fans would have accepted, is a win. The just outcome after a technically flawed TMO intervention is therefore irrelevant to them. And that is ok with me, as everyone gets to the acceptance stage at their own speed.

And in defence of Piru, who may not have picked up on the subtle differences in each follow-up question due to a possible blind spot for TMO interventions, the personal question could have been a real concern for my health. I’m ok with that.

I’m sorry praetorian if something I’ve written strikes you as personal abuse and insult, I always try to answer personal questions in a clear and polite manner and stick to the topic as much as possible. I would appreciate if you could specifically call out the words I used that you thought was personal abuse and insult, as this will enable me to avoid making the same mistake in future.

Same follow-up question to you then Colin:

Given that it was a fast and enjoyable spectacle back in 2007, were you ok with THAT forward pass?