Fund the TMOs properly to end the guessing game

THE TMO system is being pilloried, and justifiably, after a series of decisions over the summer internationals which have highlighted its inadequacies.

However, rather than raking over the coals of inconsistency and injustice in the incidents involving France wing Remy Grosso, as well as France fullback Benjamin Fall and New Zealand fly-half Beauden Barrett, and finally Australia full-back Israel Folau and Ireland flanker Peter O’Mahony, let’s find the real culprit.

It is called penny-pinching, and those who stand accused of it are the national Unions, and their over-arching governing body, World Rugby.

For a sport that purports to be professional, Rugby Union’s refusal to invest properly in the technology which would resolve most of the problems with the TMO is not only amateur, it is also a dereliction of duty.

A significant number of the controversial issues surrounding the TMO system stems from a lack of cameras. This means that the television feed to the match official charged with being able to analyse incidents that the referee has not been able to do so in real time is often inadequate.

Put simply, a shortage of camera angles means that the TMO is frequently being asked to make forensic decisions without the benefit of forensic analysis – which puts him in the same position as the referee on the pitch.

It is why the TMO process is being ridiculed by Rugby Union fans who are frustrated by its failure to measure up to the technological advances made in other sports, with American Football and cricket light years ahead in investment in match official referral systems, and the quality of them.

Both sports have invested substantially in camera and infra-red technology. For instance, at this year’s Super Bowl there were 106 cameras covering the action, meaning that almost every movement on every inch of the playing surface was recorded.

The equivalent number of cameras at a big Rugby Union international is about 20. At the moment this is often insufficient to provide the angles required for TMOs to make definitive calls on the grounding of the ball in-goal, or whether a player has crossed the touchline – let alone whether a player has inadvertently been nudged into the path of an airborne player going for a high catch.

At the moment broadcasters include that number of cameras when they negotiate rights contracts with national Unions to cover our sport. However, broadcast cameras do not come cheap, and to double the number to 40 would cost at least a further £100,000 a game.

At the moment there is no initiative on the part of national Unions, or World Rugby, to increase the camera coverage at internationals because of the increased cost involved.

It is time that there was a recognition on the part of this sport’s leading administrators that if we are to utilise television technology for the benefit of the sport – and in particular in refereeing – it requires significant investment.

It is not realistic to expect broadcasters to fund the technology and camera investment required to improve the TMO function. World Rugby should take the initiative and set up a scheme to underwrite the additional investment, while also stipulating the number of cameras that should be mandatory at international level.

That way when the TMO is asked to deliver forensic analysis for the referee to make a ruling it can be done with the confidence of having the best available information, rather than it being a guessing game.