TMO calls in the spotlight....again.

The giants are rumbling and the teams that have enjoyed life at or near the top of the table over the past couple of months have been forewarned.

The Chiefs may be the top of the log in Super Rugby, but to me it’s the Crusaders and Bulls who emerge from the weekend as the teams to fear most….hands up who would fancy playing either of those two on their home turf.

With Kieran Read back, and Daniel Carter back in control, the Crusaders could afford to bench Israel Dagg and still come away from their clash with the Blues with an emphatic 20-point victory…..this against a side with an excellent defensive record this season, and a potent attack.

It was not a night for expansive rugby, it was never going to be pretty with persistent drizzle throughout, but the Crusaders made the percentage plays, kept the Blues pinned deep and strangled them with their defence…a combination of speed off the line and accuracy in contact. They did not miss a single tackle in the second half.

They have two games left against the Chiefs, home games against the Hurricanes and Waratahs, and an away game against the Highlanders. They will make the top six, it’s just a matter of how high up.

A measure of the Crusaders' defence is that the Blues were held to single figures for the first time in 98 games, spanning seven years.

Who knows if the game would have changed had TMO Keith Brown seen fit to award a try when Frank Halai went over midway through the second half, but he decided there was insufficient proof of the ball being grounded and that was that. Somehow, I don’t think it would have made a difference if the try had been awarded.

Brown was erring very much on the side of caution with that call, but he was bang on with his decision to bin Culum Retallick, but not award a penalty try late in the first half for a deliberate knock as the Crusaders threatened to score.

There was sufficient doubt over whether a try “probably would have been scored” as the law stipulates, and he was adhering to the requirement laid out at the start of the competition that such decisions be based on the clear and obvious.

It was a far cry from the manner in which Matt Goddard just about fell over himself in his haste to award the Rebels a penalty try that swung their match over the Stormers.

Even had Nick Phipps not had his progress slowed by a jersey tug, would he “probably” have beaten Bryan Habana to the ball in the in goal? And did Scott Higginbotham not knock the ball on beforehand anyway?

The thing with the call in Melbourne is that it changed a game, and therefore becomes the subject of a furore.

Because the game at Loftus was a blowout there has been barely a mention of the decision to allow Akona Ndungane's try for the Bulls against the Highlanders after a clearly forward pass. It may not have changed the result, but it still wasn’t right.

It would be good not to have to talk about it this issue so often, but clearly there is something wrong with what is happening and Sanzar needs to do something about it.

Firstly they need to make sure these guys are watching the pictures on good sized, high definition monitors. Secondly they need to make a few calls on who they appoint to these roles. Why should someone who couldn’t cut it as a top level ref be entrusted with a role that is now almost as important?

But back to Loftus, and the Bulls were on the rampage to give Pierre Spies a fitting present for his century of matches.

Spies has his critics, but to me he’s the barometer of how the Bulls are travelling. If he’s getting ball in hand and running hard, then you know the Bulls are on a roll, and you’ve got problems.

Moving into second is a big step, because they have a game in hand over the Brumbies and are closing in on the Chiefs who are staggering towards the break because of all their injuries. Top two in this competition is huge.

Much will depend on two home and away “derby” series still to be played. The Crusaders and Chiefs meet this Friday and again in early July, and even if the Sharks are on life support I can’t imagine they’ll be offering any free passes to the Bulls in the two matches they have against each other.

The Stormers might well be out of contention now…it’s not impossible to win all of their remaining games, but that’s what they have to do, and they have to score a lot of tries….put it this way, everyone in New Zealand has written the Hurricanes off and they’re four points and two places further up the table than the Stormers. Maybe the Sharks still have faint hopes, but they might have to beat the Bulls twice.

I’ve still got my money on the Cheetahs as the best chance of a second South African presence in the playoffs and they didn’t let me down with their effort against the Reds. The Reds made a lot of the play but you gotta love the way the Cheetahs pounced for their points, especially those two great efforts by Piet van Zyl. How many good halfbacks are there in this competition?

In Australia the Reds and Brumbies have been very good most of the season but have between them won just three games in the last five weeks. They’re still occupying high spots on the table and one of them will have a place at the top table come playoff time, but one could miss out altogether as the Waratahs have a good run going and are threatening to come through the pack. Israel Folau looks phenomenal.

All through the first three months of this competition I’ve had the feeling that vying for places in the Wallaby team to play the The British and Irish Lions has brought the best out of the Aussie players, but now the Super Rugby coaches might have to be on guard over the next two weeks to make sure it doesn’t turn from being an incentive to a distraction.

For some, the competition is almost over. For others it’s just starting.

with all the garbage that beeno1 aka storminged subjects us to from those coke heads in keo, i feel a need to start cleaning some of their kak of this forum with some good honest unbiased comments from the one and only tj.

always enjoy tonys comments, dont agree with everything, but his arguments are always very well thought out.

i particularly like his commenst about the rebels penalty try. IMO phibbs would definately have gottne to that ball first, despite being held back for 4 5 strides, habana still only just got there ahead of him, had phibbs not been held back from the get go, it was a try for all money IMO.
it was quite clear that the stormers hooker thought phibbs was going to score a try, hence him holding on for as long as he did.
higginbothams possible knock on was a 50/50 call, but theres no camera angle ive seen where it clearly shows a knock on.

It is clear that some of the TMO officials are not qualified to do their jobs. Some dont even appear to know the rules of rugby - take Jan Serfontein's non try, that was a try for instance.

@ Saff. I agree that the Serfontein try was legal, but the problem was that Peyper did not pay close attention to what the TMO said and when he made the msitake the TMO did nothing to correct him. The TMO said: "the try was short, but the second movement was fine", meaning that when he dotted it down the second time, it was fine. Peyper then said: "so there was a double movement" and then immediatley blew the whistle. The TMO did not stop him.

@Sasuke. I agree that Tony's articles are always balanced and also that he does not always have everything 100% correct. The one that he does not have correct is Ndungane's try. That was also a legitimate try.

I know that this is quite lenghty, but well worth reading in total. (http://www.sareferees.com/News/law-discussion-forward-knockon-or-neither/2829908/)

The referee penalised Lionel Mapoe for being offside, ahead of the kicker. Aaron Smith of the Highlanders takes a tap kick inside his own half and the Highlanders go through 12 advancing phases. They batter at the Bulls' line but the Bulls hold them out. The phases have taken the Highlanders to their right and they then come back left.

Aaron Smith passes to big Brad Thorn. It's a poor pass, dipping as it gets nearer Thorn. The big man goes to ground to catch the ball which he then pops to Shaun Treeby of the Highlanders as Chiliboy Ralepelle of the Bulls rushes forward to tackle Treeby. The ball pops backwards out of Treeby's hands and is immediately caught by Dewald Potgieter of the Bulls.

Potgieter makes some ground and gives to JJ Engelbrecht of the Bulls who has Akona Ndungane of the Bulls outside of him. John Hardie of the Highlanders dashes in to tackle Engelbrecht as Engelbrecht is trying to pass to Ndungane. Hardie's right arm aims to rap around Engelbrecht at about chest height.

Engelbrecht passes the ball which bounces on the ground towards Ndungane. Ndungane snatches up the ball and races some 80 metres to ground the ball in the Highlanders' in-goal.

The referee consults his assistant and then refers the matter to the TMO , asking him to look at the passage of play before Ndungane go to the Highlanders' in-goal, looking especially for the possibility of a knock-on or a forward pass. Because Ndungane had grounded the ball in the Highlanders' in-goal, the referee was allowed by the IRB's TMO protocol to question possible infringements on the way there - unlike what happened in the Stormers-Rebels match when the attacking team did not ground the ball for a try.

The TMO examines the action several times. He then reports to the referee: "There was no clear forward pass and no clear knock-on either." The referee then awards the try.

Engelbrecht certainly tries to pass the ball. His main hand in passing to his right is his left hand. That certainly goes backwards. The ball seems to be touched by Hardie's right hand, not that that is relevant to the forward pass but may have affected the path of the ball.

The protocol tells the referee and the TMO what the TMO may do. The referee and the TMO are allowed to act only within protocol when the TMO is asked his advice. The first point is the right to refer such a matter to the TMO.

The protocol says: The Global TMO Trial extends the jurisdiction of the TMO in two ways;

• The adjudication of decisions when the team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement in the field of play with limitations.
• The review of potential acts of foul play or to assist in the determination of sanctions for foul play.

The foul play issue is not relevant in this case. What is relevant is that the referee is allowed to consult the TMO about a [potential infringement but only when the team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal, in other words when the attacking side has scored a try.

The protocol elaborates on the process.

2. Potential infringement by the team touching the ball down in opposition in-goal

2.1. If after a team in possession of the ball has touched the ball down in their opponents' in-goal area and any of the match officials have a view that there was a potential infringement, of any nature, before the ball was carried into in-goal by the team that touched the ball down, they may suggest that the referee refers the matter to the TMO for review.

2.2 The potential infringement must have occurred between the last restart of play (set piece, penalty/free-kick, kick-off or restart) and the touch down but not further back in play than two previous rucks and/or mauls

2.3 If the referee agrees to refer the matter to the TMO he will indicate what the potential offence was and where it took place. Potential infringements which must be CLEAR and OBVIOUS are as follows:

• Knock-on
• Forward pass
• Player in touch
• Off-side
• Obstruction
• Tackling a player without the ball
• Foul play
• Double movement in act of scoring

The forward pass and the knock-on included in the possible infringements. The protocol's instruction states that the knock-on or forward pass must be clear and obvious.

2.5 In reviewing the potential offence the TMO must use the criterion, on each occasion, that the infringement must be clear and obvious if he is to advise the referee not to award a try. If there is any doubt as to whether an offence has occurred or not the TMO must advise that an offence has not occurred.

The protocol elaborates on the forward-pass decision..

2.6 For forward passes the TMO must not adjudicate on the flight of the ball but on the action of the player who passed the ball, i.e. were the player's hands passing the ball back to that player’s own goal line.

Engelbrecht's passing hand, far from moving in a forward direction, moves in a backward motion and not in a forward motion. The TMO's conclusion is understandable and within the instructions of the IRB.

If you live in New Zealand you are more likely to be angry with the match officials, just as if you live in South Africa you are more likely to be angry with the match officials in the Stormers-Rebels match. Supporters of a team are not known for impartiality.

That part in bold was the way I saw it right at the first replay during the game. My first impression was that they were goingt to comeback for a forward pass and told my wife so. The moment that they showed the replay though, I said to her I think that it was going to be fine because he passed the ball with his left hand, which was going backwards. I only found this article last night.

 There should be one TMO in a TV network studio somewhere that officiates all the matches. With todays technology thats an easy thing to do. At least then you would have consistency of judgment every time. No need to have six or seven different TMO's.

I would like to volunteer for that job - as I am sure everyone on this board would !

How fun would that be - you get to watch all the games each weekend on multiple screens and you get every couch potato's dream of making calls as a ref. Now thats the way to watch rugby !