Last week we looked at some critical decisions in the first All Blacks vs Australia test match that involved the Television Match Official (TMO).
After the second test, some readers might be thinking that TMO actually stands for "Too Much Officiating!"
All this prompted me to take a closer look at the use of TMOs in rugby and where we may be heading.
It is important to note the use of a TMO is a recent addition to the laws of the game and is designed to make use of modern technology in order to help match officials make more accurate decisions on the field of play.
They are currently part of the Global Trial of various laws and, as such, experimental in nature.
Like many experiments things don't always go according to plan.
The TMO is there "to help and assist referees" but ultimately the final decision still rests with the referee - he is the sole judge of fact during a game.
I say "he" because most TMOs are very experienced former top male referees.
Becoming a TMO requires a period of training before being let loose with the technology, as well as regular performance reviews, just like match referees.
There are limits to when a TMO can be used. He can only be used for decisions in the in-goal and when foul play may have occurred in the playing area.
Under World Rugby guidelines, a TMO can initiate a review of any decision which may have occurred in those situations, but in NZ rugby such as Mitre 10 Cup and Heartland Championship, only the referee and assistant referees can initiate reviews, not the TMO.
In relation to in-goal decisions, a TMO may be used to clarify situations relating to whether the ball has been grounded in the in-goal for a try or a touchdown by the defending team.
If the decision relates to a possible try or no-try decision, the referee may ask one of three questions.
The difference between these three questions can be critical.
The "is it a try - yes or no?" question is asked if the referee is unsure of the grounding and wants conclusive proof one way or the other.
The TMO will look for evidence of a grounding, and if none is found, the decision is usually a 5m scrum to the attackers.
If the referee thinks he has seen a try being scored, but is unsure whether the ball or a player carrying it may have gone into touch before grounding, the question is usually "can you give me a reason why I cannot award a try?"
In this situation, no conclusive evidence of the grounding is needed, as the referee has seen it and just wants to check nothing was amiss to void the try.
This question can also be asked if one or more of the four match officials believe an attacking infringement may have occurred leading to a try being scored or prevented, providing this occurred no more than two phases later.
Such infringements include offside at either ruck or maul, a knock-on or forward pass, player in touch, an illegal quick throw-in at a lineout, or a double movement when tackled short of the line.
In these cases, the review can be initiated after a try has been awarded but before the conversion is taken.
We can all remember more than one occasion this year where Beauden Barrett has been about to take the conversion when a TMO review has been initiated and, as a result, the try ruled out.
However, I found last Saturday's fiasco after Retellick's "try" a little baffling because Nigel Owens awarded the try and then asked "is it a try, yes or no?"
The TMO then had to look for conclusive proof of the grounding, but Owens had already seemingly awarded the try, meaning he was satisfied with the grounding.
It seems as if the match officials got their processes a bit mixed up.
The third question that a referee may ask is "but for foul play - probable try or not?"
In this situation, if a try would probably have been scored there, or in a better position, but for foul play by a defender then the referee is checking to make sure the correct decision - be it a try, penalty try or just a penalty.
The key word here is "probable" rather than "possible", because a penalty try can only be awarded if the referee thinks it was almost certain to have been scored otherwise.
The TMO can also become involved where either he or the other match officials observe foul play, particularly lifting or tipping tackles, dangerous tackles above the shoulder, a dangerous challenge in the air, plus late tackles or charges.
These can all lead to a potential yellow or red cards so the match officials must be sure the illegal act is clear and obvious - so the television replays are also very useful in making the game safer.
Where are we going with this experimental law? I think the use of the TMO is here to stay in rugby, as it is in many sports.
I don't think we will get to the saga that happened in golf recently when a player was penalised as a result of a text message from a viewer.
The use of the TMO when foul play is involved is a positive move and to be applauded, but the situation with in-goal is more problematic.
Perhaps the three different questions a referee can ask about a potential try should be slimmed down to just one - "try or not?"
Once the referee has viewed all the evidence, he should be in the best position to make the right decision, based on what is clear and obvious.
Afterall, he is the sole judge of fact and as long as he sticks with the facts, everyone should be happy. Shouldn't they?