TMOs only work with the right equipment

WHAT the furore surrounding the disallowed Gareth Anscombe touchdown in last weekend’s England-Wales clash proved is that the TMO system has not so much got teething problems as raging toothache. The raw nerve being drilled is that rather than enhancing the referee’s status it is doing the opposite.

Too often the referee is being left as a bystander who passes the key decision to the official looking at the video footage, who might as well be sitting on a throne with the inscription ‘Lord of all he surveys’.

That was certainly the message that French referee Jerome Garces conveyed when he handed over the Anscombe decision to TMO Glenn Newman. His approach was in sharp contrast to Nigel Owens, who is one of the few referees who takes control of the process, rather than let it control him.

Owens usually tells the TMO what his instinct is given what he has seen in real time. Then he asks for the footage, asks what decision the TMO has arrived at, and if there is a disagreement, takes an executive decision.

However, the majority of referees are beginning to behave as if they are in thrall to the bloke with the all-seeing camera angles, deferring to him in the way Garces did.

The Frenchman is an experienced referee, and a good one, but unlike on the Lions tour when he made his own call about whether Ken Owens was offside, or accidentally so, in the last act of the final Test, this time he seemed reluctant to take the initiative.

He did not question Newman’s ruling on the grounding by Anscombe and England’s Anthony Watson after the ball rebounded of Welsh winger Steff Evans’ knee, when the Kiwi TMO told him: “The ball has come off the knee of the Welsh player but has not been clearly grounded – the first grounding is by England...”

Meanwhile, the flaws in the current TMO system not being fit for purpose in a pro sport were littered all over Twickenham.

The speed with which Newman ruled out any knock-on by Evans, despite freeze-frame suggesting later that the ball could have clipped the little finger on his left hand before bouncing off his knee, highlighted the lack of precision camera angles.

It was also extraordinary that Garces appeared to have no access to visual replays of the incident. He had only a cursory glance at the big screen at Twickenham, and did not request that the incident be replayed on it. Nor did he have access to a tablet, or iPad, which could have been brought onto the pitch and given him the same footage available to Newman.

Even the exchange between the two officials over the ruling highlighted how amateurish the TMO process is. After Newman gave his verdict Garces, with his fingers stuck in one ear to cut out the crowd noise, said: “I cannot hear you Glenn – so, no try. I come back to the penalty.”

If the two officials involved in arriving at such an important decision in an international showpiece sporting event have difficulty hearing each other the only conclusion is that the communication system is not good enough.

Other sports with big noisy arenas do not have these problems. In NFL the decision-making and communications between match officials – and with the fans – is ultra efficient and slick.

Sports like American Football and cricket have invested much more in making sure their TV officiating is as flawless as possible. In cricket it is reflected in Hawkeye (infra-red), ball tracking, and sound technology, while in American Football it is there in banks of TV cameras providing every conceivable angle instantly, and armies of analysts and technicians who know their jobs inside-out.

In Rugby Union it is a cut-price botch, with not enough investment in cameras, analysts, or specialist technology. For instance, is it too much to ask, given the advances in chip technology, that ball manufacturers should be encouraged to come up with a sensor that can determine aspects like downward pressure, or whether the ball has crossed the tryline? Protocols between Rugby Union match officials are also hopelessly elastic. It is essential for the role of the referee that his decision remains final in this sport, right or wrong. The TMO role should be advisory – based on the best technology money can buy – but it should not supplant the authority of the referee.

Error followed supposed error when, two days after the match, World Rugby opted to cut Newman off at the knees by declaring his decision was wrong. Instead of Alain Rolland, World Rugby's head of referees, playing politics and kow-towing to Warren Gatland – and giving the Wales coach a misplaced sense of grievance – he should have taken a more objective view.

England coach Eddie Jones was right to remind Rolland that the game does not need retrospective refereeing decisions – especially when there are so many grey areas in the rulebook. The law in question, 21.1b, stipulates that grounding of the ball is “pressing down on it with a hand or hands, arm or arms, or the front of a player’s body from waist and neck”.

It looked on replays as if Anscombe might have got some element of downward pressure despite his hand making glancing contact with the side of the ball – but it was a debatable call whichever way it went. The only way the majority of grey areas will be clearer is through technological advance and far more professional protocols between referees and TMOs.

In the meantime Rolland should concentrate on turning a TMO system that is in danger of becoming a laughing stock into something that benefits referees and enhances their standing, rather than compromises it.

“The TMO system is a botch, with not enough investment in cameras, analysts, or technology”