On the TMO

opinion Some years ago in a rivalry match involving my club, I became touch judge on the spot.

“Our” penalty attempt flew high and almost directly over one of those stubby tournament goalposts, and the ref looked to me. The kick was wide, I signaled to local groans.

Several years later I recognized the agony of American referee Dave Head, officiating a San Francisco international between the Eagles and Hong Kong, and facing a similar decision. Rule it good and you’re a homer; rule it wide and you’re trying too hard to be fair.

This weekend’s Six Nations controversy over a Jon Wilkinson try which should have been disallowed brought these memories to life. Due not to a question of neutrality, but because a television match official (TMO) botched the call despite the advantages of time and technology.

I’ve never liked replay in rugby, football, or now even tennis. The Telegraph’s Mick Cleary puts the case eloquently:

Sport is about getting on with things, about taking the rough with the smooth and adapting to circumstances. Things aren't necessarily fair. Were we any the worse for it? I'm not sure we were.

Yet put these views aside. The tragedy of “progress,” I think, lies in the changed perception of what qualifies as a ref’s level-best effort. Since there now is “no reason” to get calls wrong, a bad decision must indicate stupidity or something darker.

I’ve always thought Dave Head’s decision to award three points was right, and wrote as much at the time. I hope mine was.

Comments

[Ed Todd]

As Dave Head's TJ that day, I can tell you it was straight over the top of the post, angling from inside to out. Good call ref.

[AF de Villiers]

Ed - bend over and use your good eye next time.