Throughout the entire week, debates and unrest persistently surfaced. When sound and adept critique of an umpire’s actions is put forward, particularly by esteemed ex-elite players or umpires, it is worth lending an ear to. Last week, I had a chance to converse with one such individual.
In the preliminary stages of the Champions Cup final, Joe McCarthy managed to seize a stray ball near the Toulouse goal posts, needing just to ground it. However, Matt Carley swiftly deemed it a knock-on. Through his viewpoint, a moment before, Jason Jenkins seemed to fumble the ball amidst a tackle. From an advantageous starting point, with gameplay heading his direction, the umpire found himself trailing behind the play, making it unlikely for him to have had a clear line of sight.
What I perceived, notably on the instant replay, was Romain Ntamack forcibly yanking the ball from Jenkins’s grasp. Post the rip, the ball seemed to lightly graze Jenkins’s hand whilst falling to the ground, qualifying as a knock-on, albeit it wasn’t conspicuously evident. I then dismissed it.
Nevertheless, I was encouraged to reassess the incident during the week. My initial assessment remains intact, just about. It was a close call and a consensus is unlikely. The fundamental problem, however, was the lack of a comprehensive review that could have informed a complete decision. It’s conceivable that such a review could have led to the umpire dismissing the try for this reason, or perhaps not.
Both McCarthy and Jamison Gibson-Park saw it as a rip and signaled it as such. We’ve seen multiple similar inquiries managed by the referee announcing, “Alright, I’ll check it out.” Yet Carley opted for a different route, asserting that a check had already been completed, a piece of information likely relayed to him by the TMO, Ian Tempest.
If Tempest could dissect accurately what transpired at such a high pace, then he indeed possesses keen vision. His duty should have consisted of notifying the referee that the incident required examination. The whistle remained silent until post McCarthy grounding the ball, meaning a try decision was still on the table.
Additionally, credibility warranted a review. Whichever judgement emerged from it would have reduced the sense of unrest. Toulouse also would have taken issue if the try had been granted without undergoing a review.
In essence, this significant call should not have been solely determined by the Television Match Official (TMO). Supposedly, it was never planned that the TMO would hold a more commanding role than the referee. The fundamental guidelines of World Rugby are unequivocally expressed, stating that “the referee continues to be the primary decision maker”.
On this particular occasion, that didn’t happen, thereby hinting at a system failure due to an extreme dependence on the TMO. We can’t be certain if referee Tempest contemplated a rip, which he ought to have, or if referee Carley even realised his scrum decision might have been errant.
Josh van der Flier’s valid try saw authorities striving to unravel a complex Gordian knot of a situation. An overly long duration was spent on this, as is often the case, and the process needs to hasten. Rather than disallowing a try, why not use a test of likelihood if absolute certainty isn’t reached after a certain timeframe? This approach is akin to penalty tries.
Currently, the referee makes an instant decision on the field – a try or a non-try. In this instance, it was decided as the latter. Clear evidence is necessary to overturn such a call. Alternatively, the referee can admit to being uncertain or not having a clear view, hence no call is made. This is a superior starting point when he is unable to judge if the ball has been grounded over the line.
In this instance of reversing a “no-try” decision, the TMO together with the referee confirmed the grounding of the ball and its passing over the line. However, I’m unsure if we witnessed the simultaneous occurrence of these two events. Probability would have provided a solution here.
In November, World Rugby is set to review recommendations from a specialist group regarding the TMO’s jurisdiction. This requires considerable deliberation. There has been significant stretching of protocol boundaries, with referees seemingly seeking increased reliance on the TMO. Recall New Zealand’s disallowed try in the World Cup finals – a decision which exceeded declared limitations.
While minimizing the jurisdiction could potentially escalate errors, it seems unlikely that coaches will abruptly start to show more tolerance towards refreeing blunders. Officials are experiencing immense pressure from coaches and social media attacks, making it undeniably challenging to enact profound changes.
“It is crucial to make stronger the control processes and rules. Any unauthorised alterations to the protocol should be banned and the recent allowance for the TMO to identify knock-ons or forward passes during live play needs to be overturned. It is the duty of the referee and two assistants present on the field to handle this.
Alarmingly, there are some referees that heavily rely on the TMO as a safety net. If they operate beyond the established protocol, they should face disciplinary measures during selection. Here’s a nudge for them, echoing the guiding principles of World Rugby: “The protocol isn’t meant for the referee to shirk their decision-making responsibilities and pledges.”
World Rugby has bolstered its referee division and expressed its wish to consistently officiate the game across all competitions. This could perhaps be an appropriate point to commence.”