Watson against TMO overuse

2011-06-09 22:13

Jóhann Thormählen

Bloemfontein - Rugby matches should not be decided from the pavilion or from in front of a computer screen.

That was the word from South African referees boss André Watson after the role of the television match official once again became a talking point after the Super Rugby match between the Cheetahs and Sharks.

While Watson believes the TMO should play a role, he is against using it excessively.

Watson said that an analysis of the abovementioned match had been completed and that communication had taken place with the parties involved.

Cheetahs coach Naka Drotské questioned the judgement of referee Marius Jonker and his assistants, Jonathan Kaplan and Cobus Wessels, after the defeat to the Sharks.

Drotské believes there were five incidents where the Sharks should have been yellow-carded and the breakdowns were also a point of concern. He was also unhappy that off-the-ball incidents in which the Sharks were the perpetrators were not spotted.

Watson admitted this week that some of the decisions in the match were wrong.

SANZAR referees boss Lyndon Bray said on the website that the role of the TMO could be expanded, especially after incorrect calls on foul play were made last week.

However, Bray believes the TMO's role should still be a limited one and Watson agrees.

"It's easy for someone to say: use technology. It's not that simple because the guy in the 'box' may be a specialist TMO - in other words, an expert on the in-goal area - but not necessarily a better referee than the guy on the field.

"Furthermore, the call just shifts from one guy to another. I am completely against the match being officiated from the pavilion or from behind a computer screen," he said.

However, Watson believes replays have a role to play.

"There is a place for certain applications, for example when a referee wants clarity over possible foul play, a pass that led to a try and so forth.

"We have experimented with that in South Africa for two seasons and made a submission to the International Rugby Board (IRB). They have put it on ice until after the 2011 World Cup."

Watson confirmed that an analysis of the Cheetahs game had been completed.

"There has been communication with the Cheetahs coach and the referee."


  • Die Spier - 2011-06-09 22:15

    Watson moet gebliksem raak, dis wat

      daspoort - 2011-06-10 01:38

      Iemand moet jou en jou skoolpelle ook net bliksem

      gnus wakker - 2011-06-10 05:07

      @daspoort Almal wil maar niemand kan nie

      Disa2011 - 2011-06-10 07:36

      @daspoort. Voor jy die woord "bliksem" op 'n stuk papier neergeskryf het, le jy klaar op die grond.

      daspoort - 2011-06-10 07:46

      Disa2011, daar waar jy vandaan kom is dit dalk hoe die seuns 'n fight uitsort, skryf die woord bliksem op 'n papier en die vinnigste ou wen. Vandag se kinders darem....

      WPBEFONK - 2011-06-10 07:51

      Jy moet GEMOER word!!!!!!!!!!!

      Charles - 2011-06-10 09:30

      Kan steeds nie verstaan dat Watson en sy brigade nie wil erken hul useless!

      Disa2011 - 2011-06-10 10:32

      @daspoort - waar val jy nou uit? Wie het nou gepraat van 'n fight uitsort? Help nie ek verduidelik nie, want jy dink mos net so ver soos wat jou neus lank is, tensy jy pinnochio is. "Lieg pinnochio lieg" En net so tussen my en jou - ek bly in die Kaap. So eintlik praat jy van jouself.

  • Nam - 2011-06-09 22:23

    On the condition André, that the referees do their jobs properly.

      jock van wyk - 2011-06-10 00:24

      exactly nam you got it dead right

      GraemeBB - 2011-06-10 11:23

      Nope, sounds like Blatter!! Why cant the tv ref say that the ball was passed forward on the "22", so no try, and so on?? Or, Elstadt just hit Basson on the 22, so no try, but rather a yellow card offense?? If the ref misses these things, let someone help him. The problem is people are scared of change, as the refs may feel threatened. BUT, this is about rugby, not the ref! If they can improve it, they must do it.

  • Stompies - 2011-06-09 22:38

    Bray: "the role of the TMO could be expanded" and next para. "the TMO's role should still be a limited one" Now that says it all!!

  • !!Vrystaat!! - 2011-06-09 22:44

    Watson confirmed that an analysis of the Cheetahs game had been completed. "There has been communication with the Cheetahs coach and the referee." will the public ever get to see this communication ?? We will really love to see what it says !

      Die Spier - 2011-06-09 23:12

      It should nullify the result, the Cheetahs were so robbed it's f@@kin rediculous

      Engineer - 2011-06-10 11:31

      sorry for you that your team sucks

  • Hennie van Staden - 2011-06-09 23:45

    Lets be honest, Watson will not see that his referees are reprimanded. He allways will have a story to hide incompetances of the Refs.

  • slg - 2011-06-10 00:21

    This is why I don't watch rugby anymore.

      Howzitekse - 2011-06-10 03:11

      The teams that suffer most are teams like the Cheetahs and Lions. They always get the wrong end of the reffing errors. It is like there is a silent agreement to protect one or two teams, who then get good results against them. They are also cheated when on tour. Naas Botha says that no ref goes onto the field with the thought of being unfair. I have seen a ref constantly warn one side, and yellow carding the opposing side immediately once they commit the same offence. There should be an independent body that can investigate complaints, and they should have the power to take action.

      slg - 2011-06-10 05:46

      Rugby will never reach it's full potential for as long as officiating is in the hands of one person.

      PDP - 2011-06-10 09:15

      It's called intimidating the ref! A few teams & players are very good at that.

      Zion - 2011-06-10 18:15

      Some years ago it was actually mentioned by a well-known referee boss that the home team should receive some advantage because the spectators expect their team to win and such poppy-cock. Kan jy nou meer?

  • daspoort - 2011-06-10 01:38

    Iemand moet jou en jou skoolpelle ook net bliksem

      daspoort - 2011-06-10 01:39

      Vir "Die Spier"

      Koos - 2011-06-10 05:34

      Daspoort ek kan sien jy is nog een van die regte MANNE! Ek like jou meer as Bar One!!!! Die manne van Daspoort is nie sissies nie, hulle haal mekaar se mangels met blikskere uit en speel albaster daarme. GO DASPOORT!!!

      Zion - 2011-06-10 18:18

      Asseblief manne gaan blixem mekaar op n ander program, toe nou. My Chihuahua lag vir julle.

  • Neyven - 2011-06-10 05:25

    Dit is maar so dat die ref nie alles op die veld kan raaksien nie en dat 'n span voordeel daaruit kan trek. Meeste spanne aanvaar dit so. Ek het egter nie die Cheetahs hoor kla oor die vorentoe aangee wat gelei het tot Johnson se drie teen die Bulle nie. Ook nie oor laasjaar se drie deur Viljoen teen die Sharks toe 'n verdediger teruggehou is nie. Gaan kyk maar weer.

      JJVB - 2011-06-10 07:40

      I agree that refs cannot see everything, or make the right calls, always (apparently a 8 to 10% error margin is OK). However, sit down and watch the video again from a rugby supporter perspective and decide for yourself if that is what you want to support. These errors were blatant and on the border of match fixing (yes, that thing we hate so much about cricket!). They (the refs) acknowledge it afterwards ( read the papers this moring). So ja, gaan kyk maar weer

      Peter Britz - 2011-06-10 07:48

      Scrum penalties and forward passess , have become a lottery. That said, the issues the Cheetahs complained about was the lineout call, the killing of the ball when in the red zone, the cynical slapping down of the ball by Terblanche, and obvious dirty play. Now as a Shrks supporter you might try and ignore these issues, and claim the win as a fair win, but the rugby public knows better. The Cheetahs were robbed clear as daylight. If you try and window dress it, it just shows your moral flexibility.

      radar - 2011-06-10 14:43

      I am a sharks supportter, and agree the chetteahs were robbed blind by poor referring decisions. But with video analysis, or the ability of the cheetahs coach to have two challenges of refe decisons per half, the outcome would probably have been different. Same as the Sharks Super 14 finals loss against the bulls. In closing seconds Bulls played the ball on the ground as depicted by photos in paper after the game, so Bulls should have been penalised and Sharks would be champions. Same at rugby world cup where french were allowed a forward pas to beat all blacks in Paris in 2007. Call it back and the All Blacks would have won and probably gone on to win the trophy. Is this what we wnat as a paying public - an absolute crap shoot for the outcome. No - we want teh most talented team and that with the best game plan and best excution to win. Wake up IRB and Watson - your current system is pathetic and it should not take decades to fix!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Zion - 2011-06-10 18:22

      I think the problem will not go away overnight. If some referees had balls they would be big enough(not the testicle type) to openly admit they made a mistake. I have never heard a referee openly admit to a fault.

      Zion - 2011-06-10 18:24

      Radar, the best comment I have heard for a long time. Ta.

      Hylton - 2011-06-14 06:46

      Peter Britz and Radar are correct. My comment further down refers.

  • gnus wakker - 2011-06-10 05:38

    Mike@CapeT, where are you? Trying to delete your post from May 20th?

  • Lloyd - 2011-06-10 06:27

    ATTENTION: This is the last time I will be commenting using this name. My stalker fits a disturbing profile, similar to that of 'The Night Stalker - Richard Ramirez'. My experience tells me it's time to get out. Regardless of tomorrow's result, I will not be commenting using this name. I will use a different name and goodluck figuring me out. Go Bulls!!! Stormers suck!!!

      Hennie - 2011-06-10 07:28

      Shouldn't be to difficult to do that not many retarts supporting the bulls

      Marx - 2011-06-10 07:34

      Ou Hennie, dan is ñ groot deel van die Kaap ongelukkig "retards" Jy ken seker ñ hele paar "tarts" nê??

      Heiku - 2011-06-10 13:02

      Second time ive seen this post. Nobody cares.

  • Hylton - 2011-06-10 06:51

    The reason that he doesn't want it is because it shows just how many mistakes refs make. I like the Bulls, but who can forget THAT unnoticed forward pass that cost the Sharks their first super 14 title. The whole rugby loving world saw it, but the ref didn't. An immediate TMO review would have given the title to the Sharks. A TMO review of a bad reffing decision in the last world cup would have had France knocked out and New Zealand go through to the semis. The fact that the refs performance review never makes it into the public eye or the fact that team coaches, players and Supersport cannot critisize the ref for poor handlling of games makes me wonder what agendas are at play. You were always a fair ref, André, but I'm sorry. The technology exists, and it is time for you and your outmoded ideas to FIFO!

  • Boels - 2011-06-10 06:56

    People, do we really want to turn this awesome game into a stop-start affair? How many of you have won games due to reffing mistakes in your playing days? Did you then complained that it's not fair? I hate to lose just as much as the next person, but hey it's still just a game.

  • Claude - 2011-06-10 07:05

    The key word here is EXCESSIVE - it depends how you define this in the context of the TMO. I think that the players also need to be poled about how much use should be made of the TMO. An anonymous pole at that. While Referees need to have their say the players are important and believe it or not so are the paying public because if they loose interest because of what they perceive as anything from cheating to bias to ineptitude then the game cannot sustain itself at a professional level. Administration beware the public does not have unlimited patience - some action must be taken.

  • Dolittle - 2011-06-10 07:07

    the refs should be investigated for match fixing, this is the only logical conclusion that one can come to when one team is allowed to play American grid-iron & the other is blown off the field. It is quite elementary Mr Watson!

      Tokkie - 2011-06-10 12:57

      Ek stem saam. Match fixing. Vir my het dit gelyk of die ref die Sharks geteiken het om te verloor. Die Sharks was te goed vir die ref en vir Naka Drotske. H?ulle pluk almal suur druiwe oor die Sahrks toe van binne hulle kwart gebied gehardloop en gaan druk het.

  • Ryan - 2011-06-10 07:45

    The players/supporters just want to see the right calls being made 99% of the time, with or without TMO.

  • Maarten - 2011-06-10 07:53

    See, the problem is that the Referees bad decisions are being showed up more and more. And they do not like it.

  • GHT - 2011-06-10 08:35

    Agrees 100% with you Watson!

  • mysticBoer - 2011-06-10 08:44

    "Watson said that an analysis of the abovementioned match had been completed and that communication had taken place with the parties involved." Ja Mr Watson, maar "looks ats the scoreboards". Maak nie saak hoe julle met die mense gepraat het nie, die geskiedenis boeke gaan sê Sharks Wen, Cheetahs Verloor. Besluite soos hierdie kan ongekende impak hê op wedstryde. Die rooi kaart in die Bulls Waratahs wedstryd dieselfde.... en en en en en ... Die probleem hier is dat die spanne se uitslae, en meer belangrik hul posisie op die "log", kan afhang van sekere besluite. Ek dink die toets wat hul 2 jaar terug in die Varsity Beker gedoen het waar elke span 'n "white card" kon gebruik om 'n beslissing teen te staan en dit dan boontoe te verwys was baie suksesvol en moet meer deeglik geimplementeer word. So kan dit nie aangaan nie..

  • Oukoos - 2011-06-10 09:27

    Feit van die saak: Jonker is 'n swak skeidsregter; nie noodwendig skelm nie, maar swak. DIt is al telkens onomwonde bewys, maar hy word steeds toegelaat om voort te gaan en groot geld te verdien, onbevoeg en al. Willie Roos het destyds die eerbare weg gevolg en bedank omdat hy nie die mas kon opkom nie. Hoekom doen Jonker nie dieselfde nie? Antwoord: Hy wil nie afstand doen van die goeie geld en die gratis buitelandse reise nie. Dit is tyd dat rugbyunies saamstaan en druk uitoefen om onbevoegde skeidsregters uit die stelsel uit te verwyder

  • BTRX - 2011-06-10 10:30

    Ek raak ook kwaad oor beslissings van die skeidsregters, maar as ons eerlik wil wees dit is nie 'n werk wat enige mens sal wil doen nie. Maak nie saak hoe goed 'n skeidsregter is nie, die verloorspan se ondersteuners sal altyd fout soek (die stormers ondersteuners is nogals goed daarmee) Ek dink Watson skerm vir die skeidsregters omdat dit moeilik is om mense in die beroep te werf, juis as gevolg van ons ondersteuners se gekla oor hulle.

      Pop - 2011-06-10 11:33

      Regverdig verloor was nog nooit 'n probleem nie maar blatant verloor.... elke sport het sy beserings dit is hoekom daar 2 assistente en 'n TV ref is. HOE is SA nie al deur 'n ref geboor nie - waar is mnr Watson dan om ons te verdedig????

      Oukoos - 2011-06-10 12:56

      "...........dit is nie 'n werk wat enige mens sal wil doen nie". Twak. Skeidsregters op S15 vlak word uitstekend betaal.

  • Pop - 2011-06-10 11:31

    AG mnr Watson - jy was nie eers 'n goeie, konstante ref nie nou is jy die 'baas' ref!!! Tyd vir jou ook om maar te gaan. Jy het ook maar net geblaas soos die wind waai.

  • Tokkie - 2011-06-10 12:48

    Die Cheetahs was baie meer skuldig aan insidente. Balle word op die grond gespeel. Sharks is ten minste by drie geleenthede opgetel in die tackle. Sharks was ook baie geblaas vir 'foute' wat nie gemaak was nie.

  • radar - 2011-06-10 14:25

    Common it is obviuous that with all the money spent on acquiring players, training techniques, pressure on coaches to win, the ultimate outcome has to be to establish a result which is accurate . If video or replays assit in making correct decsions, then it has to be used. Rugby outcomes have for too long has been dictated by poor refereeing decisons - sometimes it is hard to keep an eye on every aspect of the game and so things are missed ,but on many occassions the ref gets it very wrong. Had he had the opportunity to view it on video, he would no doubt change his mind. So we want a system which works effectively and provides that the best team wins with as few a mistakes as possible from referees. It is high time that the IRB took a leaf out of the NFL (American Football) replay system, whereby each coach has 3 opportunities per half to stop the game and challenge a suspect call by the refrees. It is then reffrred to a TMO and in consultation with the ron field ref, a inal decison is taken , which might I say is often overturned. If the coach is wrong he loses his challenge. The same applies in tennis where a player can challenge a call with the TMO. Cricket has likewise. The result is the correct decision is given and everyone is happy. Rugby is big business and it is high time officials and the IRB got their act together. As a fan I am sick and tired of a referee screwing up important games witha couple of bad decisons. How many games would have different outcomes!!

  • StBad - 2011-06-10 15:47

    Simplify the bloody rules: that'll make bring the error count down

  • Zion - 2011-06-10 18:10

    Watson is more concerned about the reputation of his referees rather than the validity of the game once the final whistle has blown. Should there be any doubt whatsoever then the TMO must be referred to. Watson also implies that his manne outstrip any TMO in referee-ing any game. In fact, the TMO must be used even if there is only a doubt that the on-field referee may have made a mistake. I still have the nagging feeling that the complete TMO issue will be squashed by the referees themselves because they, due to their own incompetence are placed under the looking glass for the world to see.

  • pages:
  • 1