• Please bear with us. We have moved to a new provider, and some images and icons are not working correctly. We are working hard to fix this

TMO (non)involvement on Sam Underhill's YC for head contact

didds

didds

Resident Club Coach
For context

https://twitter.com/x/status/1926004589607739696



Holly Davison (HD) the ref makes the call that the Lyon player stepped back inside and that was mitigation for Underhill.

Im a little out of the loop here with TMO p[rotocols etc but as HD had called for the video/replay etc

* can the TMO advise/question still ?eg "You might want to look at that again" being code for "I disagree but wont actually say that directly so everyone can hear me"
* if so can we take it that the TMO also believed the Lyon player provided mitigation?
* OR can we take it that if the opening statement is true HD has said before the match "its purely my call on replays and I don't want any other advice" - as the ARs and the TMO were all silent on any opinions.

FTR I've yet to talk to a Bath fan that didn't think it was a red card.
 
Last edited:
In terms of ARs I would say the referee says what they have "seen" and are thinking they then ASK the ARs for any input which might change tht conclusion. I would think it is the same for the TMO.The referee is the referee and the others assist the referee. they do not lead.

Obvious variation from this is where the AR sees something and holds a flag out, where the referee may not have seen anything. I would have thought the same applies to the TMO. Had this been "missed" the TMO , at the appropriate "downtime" would step it with a comment like "I have something for you"

Looking at this incident specifically. I am surprised the referee did not seek confirmation. Yes there was a change of direction but did that prevent the player changing their challenge? Can you make that call at real time from the referee's angle?

A logcal approach would have been to say: " I have probable head contact. Can you / we check did any change of direction / height y red affect white's options / timing.

That was a big call to make without, at least, watching the video yourself to double check .
 
The video I linked to was edited - in real time HD did go to the TMO and the replay was shown on the big screen. But none iof the other three of To4 discussed anything - but thanbks foir the nuances you explained above. I guess then that they only speak when asked to answer.

Tx Marc.
 
I don't think that the change of direction was sudden enough to mitigate down. But it's a judgement call - HD didn't miss anything, so it would have been at the very least awkward for one of the other To4 to pull her up on a *judgement* call
 
There seems to be a desire from the elite refs to look really hard for mitigation in instances like this.

Change of direction by the ball carrier is to be expected on a rugby pitch.

There was a wrap, when there clearly isn't (not in this case) and its simply the arm moving forward after the collision when it wasn't tucked but down by their side.

Low degree of danger, I hate this one with a passion, just because they didn't get their face smashed in this time doesn't mean its not a dangerous tackle. Also we see this expression used when the tackled player is forced to leave the pitch with a brain injury.

In this instance, he's always high, he comes from a distance and makes clear head on head contact in a dangerous manner. Its exactly the type of tackle WR are supposed to be trying to take out of the game. But there seems to be a definite row back from their opening position a couple of seasons back with mitigation being applied where it really shouldn't.

They either want players to be safe or they don't, if they continue to allow tackles like this to continue without RCs being issued they they a slipping back to where we were a few seasons back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top