2023-10-21 14:14:33
The device was at the heart of the controversy, after the cruel defeat of the Blues against South Africa (28-29), Sunday in the quarter-finals of the World Cup in Saint-Denis. Video assistance to refereeing (also called “TMO” for Television Match Official) was not requested by central referee Ben O’Keeffe in two contentious situations: after a missed interception attempt by the second row Eben Etzebeth, for a potential voluntary forward annihilating a testing opportunity (6th), then after a transformation by Thomas Ramos blocked by Cheslin Kolbe (23rd), to check if the winger had left before the scorer started his race.
“The TMO and the surrounding referees have the time to review the images like us and have the right to take part in the arbitration,” reacted coach Fabien Galthié after the match. Brandon Pickerill, the video referee of the match, was called upon only once in the match, to judge a head clash between Uini Atonio and Eben Etzebeth – sanctioned with a yellow card for the Springbok by the “bunker”, additional device proposing to re-judge a yellow card as a red card.
“The referee remains the main decision-maker”
During a match equipped with the TMO device (international matches, Champions Cup, Top 14, Pro D2, etc.), a video referee is in constant communication with the field referee and the two linesmen, via an earpiece. The latter is in a room with several different camera angles simultaneously (and slightly delayed to review contentious situations), and can decide to warn the central referee, for example if a situation of “unfair play” occurs to him. escaped.
This was the case during Etzebeth’s missed interception attempt against France, but M.O’Keeffe, very well placed in the action, stuck to his “field decision”. And he had every right to do so: in its protocol which entered into force in July 2022World Rugby reminds that “the referee remains the main decision-maker”.
Conversely, the TMO did not flinch at a head-to-head clearance by Pieter-Steph Du Toit on Jonathan Danty in the first period which could have earned the South African third row a yellow card accompanied by the “bunker”, not more than on a potentially dangerous tackle by Damian Penaud on Etzebeth.
The central referee can, however, enter the video assistance by miming a square with his hands. He will then be in direct communication (fully audible on television via the microphones of the refereeing body) with his assessor. Around fifteen cases are listed by World Rugby, these mainly concern situations of “unfair play” (anti-play or dangerous play) or potential try. The protocol is guided by the leitmotif “clear and obvious”, which means that in case of doubt, the man in black sticks to his “field decision”, i.e. the first decision indicated live.
On the importance of the “field decision”
In a trial situation, this translates concretely into two situations: if the on-field decision is “try”, the field referee asks his video assistance for “a reason not to grant the try”. If no camera angle makes it possible to distinguish an infraction, the test is validated. On the other hand, if he does not see the flattened try with his own eyes, the referee asks the simple question: “try or not try?” “. In this case, on the contrary, a “clear and obvious” image showing the flattened test without infringement is required to validate it.
Finally, there are less formal cases concerning simpler and “clear and obvious situations which do not need an official call”, such as the awarding of a throw-in, a scrum or a simple penalty for a team. In this case, the video referee verbally warns the field referee, who applies – or not – the recommendation. Note that this can also be based on the stadium’s giant screens on which, unlike football, replays of contentious situations are broadcast.
#Rugby #World #Cup #video #refereeing #work