Incessant TMO calls become so annoying
With the first Test over, I can’t help thinking that the only way this series will be completed is if the result is different next week.
Unlike a usual tour, where the series is guaranteed by the number of travelling fans spending money with full stadiums in different venues across the host nation, this tour is now solely based in Cape Town with the teams locked in a bubble for the next two weeks.
If the result is the same next week, there is no reason to play the last game in a series that would have been decided and a third Test which would have no real meaning other than the hope of a clean sweep, just the same as it was in 1997.
With the Lions having won the first two Tests in ‘97 (16-25 and 15-18) and therefore the series, the team for the third game had some player changes but were unable to complete a Boks whitewash going down 35-16 in the final Test.
Now South Africa is in the throws of a third covid wave with over two million infections (plus riots on the streets) so the need to play the third Test of a decided series seems to me an unnecessary risk for all involved.
Given the threat to the families and partners I assume the Lions party will have to be locked in isolation for a week in a hotel near to the airport when they return, ending what will have been the strangest tour undertaken by any Lions squad.
No one should underestimate the efforts by all those involved; especially Lions chairman Jason Leonard, in making this tour happen against all the odds and what it will mean for the Home Unions even with a reduced financial Lions windfall.
Most importantly it has revealed that despite the blinkered ‘follow the money approach’ that haunts the professional game, the Lions are still a team that has a relevance and a future in our game.
I was interested to read Nigel Owens’ view that the TMO is ruining rugby and how it has impacted on the game as a whole.
For a referee of his stature to testify as to the negative effect of an element of the game that is now seen as an essential part of how the game is played and officiated, is really quite impressive and dare I say something I agree with.
In the vast majority of games played there is no TMO and all players rely on the man in the middle to make the game a fair competition.
If they make a mistake it is part of the game and as long as they show no bias, neither team can complain
“I was interested to read Nigel Owens’ view that the TMO is ruining rugby”
and just get on with it and enjoy the game without being stopped every five minutes.
This is how the elite top end of the game was also played with the referee being the sole arbiter of all aspects of a match until television took a greater interest in the game.
The original BBC Rugby Special never had any analysis of the games shown or ‘experts’ casting their opinions on a slowed down frameby-frame review of some high speed act within the game to highlight when a referee got it wrong.
As this slowly became the norm for all sports, the authority of a referee to make those decisions alone was brought into question and the TMO was born.
At first only the referee could call for a TMO review and only for a limited number of things, but slowly that has changed to where now the captain can ask the referee to refer to it for almost anything, even if only a suspicion of wrong-doing.
Games are now stopped to look at almost all aspects of play with yellow cards being awarded against players who have made split second reactions with no time for adjustment and are then examined on slo-mo by the TMO before condemning them to ten minutes in the stands.
Even blatant acts are needlessly referred to the TMO. It’s almost as if the referee needs the security of the backing of the voice on high, rather than face potential criticism during the TV review.
Although I agree with the use of a TMO for decisions around tries, I question their use for other aspects of the game, like a tackle which usually consists of various last second reactions by both the tackler and the tackled and is easily understood.
I appreciate the overreaction of the game’s administrators after reading the latest reports by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sports Committee, as it seems only a matter of time until either a legal case is brought or financial compensation due to an injury will be sought.
What I find perplexing is they have restricted the injury research to between the ages of 30 and 55, despite an earlier call for all past players to take part in this important research.
Having taken part in that earlier research and not being informed of its outcome, I can only assume the tests didn’t give the results they were seeking, or did they fail to draw any conclusions from those
results? Having read the results of the new research which divided the game between the professionals and amateurs, I am slightly confused.
With only 44 elite players and a ‘controlled sample’ tested a damning report states that 23 per cent of elite players had changes in their brain structure while 50 per cent had a reduction in brain volume.
My concern is it sends out a mixed message especially to parents wondering if rugby is a game for their children
The assertion that the game has changed since the dawn of professionalism is a matter of opinion, but I believe it was the import of the Rugby League rush defence which has a lot to do with the problem. A ban on this could be the common sense answer to the concussion issue.