Referee problems - New Review system

The following from News 24:-

Cape Town - SANZAR is reportedly planning to introduce a cricket-style decision review system from 2016 following a number of poor refereeing decisions.

According to The Australian, SANZAR is locked into the refereeing protocols that will carry through to next year’s Rugby World Cup in England, but after that the review system is likely to be trialled by the southern hemisphere's governing body.

Each team will be allowed as much as three referrals but will not use up one of their appeals if their challenge is successful.

However, there is still uncertainty regarding who would use the appeal - it may the captain or the coach.

This comes after the past weekend's Rugby Championship action was blighted by controversial refereeing decisions.

Australia beat South Africa 24-23 in Perth and New Zealand overcame Argentina 28-9 in Napier, but Ireland's George Clancy and Frenchman Pascal Gauzere were heavily criticised for making some blatant errors which proved costly for the losing teams."

Comments:

I thought this is where it  would end up - the wrong decisions are just getting too many and influence the outcome of matches.   However, why this should be delayed until after the WC is another question.

What upset me last week was the fact that much was said about the complicated rules that makes life difficult for the referees - but three of the most blatant refereeeing dcisions - where they went wrong was not rule issues  - it was plain and easy cases where the referees concerned buggered up.   

  

 I think S Hansens take on the rule book is spot on.The rules are to complicated for simple matters.I do not know if this will help the cause.What frustrates me the most is that these refs have zero accountability.Bad calls will continue to take Pla e but surely like any job there has to be accountability.

It will require some change of mindset. Who will decide if the ref's decision stands? If it is the TMO, then the ref is no longer the one who has the final say and accountability. Who checks the TMO balls ups?

I feel somewhat vindicated, because this was my exact suggestion in the thread I started earlier in the week. 
I am very glad that this is being considered! 
Cera, 3rd umpire will have the overriding say. Just like in cricket, therefore he'll take responsibility. Look Cera, I know there will still be some doubt with touch and go calls, ball groundings under a heap of players etc, but a charge down being judged a knock on and a high tackle that is not high will be easy to rule against. Its not perfect, but it will take us one step closer to getting the right result.  

That is why I said it would require a mindset change. The ref will now be able to wash his hands, so to speak. At the current state of affairs he is the one who takes the flack. He will no longer need to be that alert because someone else would carry the can. Someone who hasn't been that close to the action in ages, so to speak. My concern with handing the last say to the TMO is that, IMO, TMOs make relatively more mistakes than refs.
Think about the number of calls that goes to the TMO and the number of times they end up making dodgy calls. 

 Ceradyne
Nor so easy - the ref remains responsible.  This is going to work out with refs like Joubert and when a replay is done - he looks at it as well and often enough tells the monitor what he thinks - and there is rarely if ever a disagreement.   
The disagreements I have seen was when the refs asked for the wrong clip, when they asked the wrong qustion  or when he refused to listen what he is told - like happened on Saturday in the Habana case.
Personally I think that the refs will welcome the chage as well - it minimizes them being blamed for their own mistakes and having to pay penalties afterwards.   Mistakes taint their good names and their own pocket afterwards - so they will be quite happy wtih the revised system  - I am sure.   .    

 As I understood there will be nothing about changing the authority that now the principal ref has, nothing about "3rd umpire will have the overriding say".

The principal ref will remain the last decider but the teams have the option to ask for a review by the TMO and the ref (Joubert is not the only one who "often enough tells the monitor what he thinks", mike, many of them do it).
This would change the holding of Savea going to the try line and Senatore's knock on (which wasn't) going also to the try line. These 2 actions weren't revised and with this law's change could be revised if the team (the captain or the coach) asked for it.
But wouldn¡t change Habana's yellow because that was revised. What happened was that the ref stick with his mistake once he reviewed the play

Both the Habana and the Duane Vermeulen issues are the reasons why I have some doubts about it. If you want the ref to shoulder the responsibility, you have to give him the final say as well. In both cases he has decided, beforehand, what he wanted to do and nothing was going to take his mind off his initial decision. The Habana one was, in effect, reviewed and still the wrong decision was taken. If you want to have the TMO decide on the correct decision, he has to become the one with the final say. If the TMO had the final say in these two cases then he should have had the responsibility as well. In Clancy's head, at the time, he made the correct decisions and he was prepared to take the responsibility. If he is sanctioned afterwards, he then has to accept it.

If you were a ref and you did not have the final say, how willing would you be to  carry the can in the case of a balls-up.

I will give you  a practical example of something that happened in a 6N test. Kaplan was the ref. I am not 100% sure of the teams involved. I think it was Wales and Ireland. Let's call them team A and B for the sake of this argument. Team A kicked the ball down field. Team B takes a quick throw in but uses a different ball, right before the eyes of the AR. Team B goes on to score a try after that throw in. Kaplan ask the AR three times, IIRC,  whether they used the same ball at the quick throw in. The AR confirms it and Kaplan awards the try. Team B wins the test.

Kaplan picked up a lot of flack and a severe rap on the knuckles, with the particular AR, because he was the ref and had the final say. He was innocent but accepted it because he had the responsibility. That was wrong and he should not have been grinded.

If they introduce a referral system where the TMO can overrule the ref, but he(the ref) is still the responsible person, then we will have the same wrong scenario as above.

In essence, what I am saying is that the person who makes the final decision is also the one who will have to face the punches if and when the sh!t hits the fan.

Whilst TMO needs to be utilisted better, the standard of principal refereeing has really taken a dive. 

 I think that the authority of the principal ref, and therefore the responsability, is something "sacred" in team sports, rugby, soccer, NFL,....
The TMO, assistant ref, etc. are just "advisors" to the principal ref and this is hardly going to change. Is one of the main basis of the refereeeing and it would be very risky to change it