What’s next, neutral directors?

May 23, 2013 in Uncategorized

If there’s one job that I don’t want to do, it’s being the director of a live sports event. Looking at all those monitors choosing the correct angle that must be broadcast to a world wide audience. And being the director at a rugby match is even worse because you have the TMO decisions that you must cope with.

That’s what makes the TMO call at the Rebels Stormers game so much more interesting. According to Sareferees.co.za, the call for the forward pass fell outside the TMO’s jurisdiction because he wasn’t asked about it, but Lindon Bray disagrees with this. He said the TMO could have made a call on the forward pass, but the camera angles that was shown was either zoomed too far out or only shows the back of the players, so he couldn’t make a ruling on this issue.

Strange then, that soon after the penalty try was awarded, a replay was played at an angle that clearly shows the knock on. Why wasn’t this angle used during the TMO decision? To his credit, Bray didn’t accuse anyone of foul play, but just stated that it is unfortunate that this angle wasn’t used during the TMO decision.

So far, all the macth officials present are being held accountable for their calls. That’s why they are there, but, as far as I know, the director cant be held accountable if he doesn’t provide the TMO with the one little piece of footage that might have costed the home side seven points.

Just saying…



16 responses to What’s next, neutral directors?

  1. Its nothing new. The Ausies are past masters at this. I remember 10-12 years ago when I made a comment to one of my friends, saying that the Ausies always gives a different angle as soon as a penalty or something similar was awarded to them.
    I bet you that angle would have been the first one if the penalty try was in question for the Stormers.

    • Peter de Villiers once made comment about the home town director not giving the TMO the best available shots. It was just added to the growing list of De Villiersisms at the time, but now it seems he had a point.

    • Huge difference in what you are saying and what the point of the blog is, the director has a choice of what gets broadcast yes and they do give funny options sometimes, but the director has no rights when it comes to a TMO decision, the TMO asks for what he wants and that is is far as it goes.

  2. Bloues, since your a Bulls fan and I gather your a ref… Tell me, why wasnt Louis Fouche’s deliberate knockdown into touch at 58:15 in the Bulls v Highlanders game not even a penalty?

    If both officials could clearly see that Fouche played it last, how could they miss the cynical play?

    Regarding the TMO:

    He’s got a screen smaller than my laptop, and from what I’ve seen its not even an HD panel. Why can’t they give him a 6 or a 9 screen bank that he can look at that shows all the feeds simultaneously?

    Better yet, why isn’t he IN the production Truck with the director so that he can see ALL the camera’s? It is an old trick whereby the home directors always show 20 clips of the away team had some foul play, but 1 max of the home team.

    • I remember something like that, but I cant remember the incident or who was involved, but I do recall that I was surprised with a knockdown that wasn’t penalized.

      Will try to have a look again.

      Regarding the TMO’s monitor, yes,that’s really shocking. Sanzar will really have to make sure that he has access to the best quality footage available.

      • My wife called yellow card from the kitchen out of the corner of her eye. I agreed with her. Although we both originally thought it had been JJ Engelbrecht.

        • Now that’s not fair. I’m sure your wife hate the Bulls, so any offence should be a yellow card.


          • It was double cynical. Knockdown and deliberately into touch.

            But give me your honest assessment.

          • To be honest, I can’t recall the exact incident,but if it was the one that I think it was, I can remember myself thinking at the time that it should have been penalized.

            Honestly, if it was me and it was during a match like Saturday’s that seemed to have progressed without any real needle, then only a penalty would have been necessary.

  3. Jip nothing new as Aus has been doing this in Cricket also for a while now.
    I can understand if a ref makes a mistake as he has only a few seconds to decide but this season the TMO’s have been making shocking call after shocking call. And all the disadvantaged team gets is a sorry. For me that is not good enough.
    Linden should train his refs before the season not during.

  4. Why not take the directors completely out of the equation and put up stationary wide angle cameras (like Pana-eye was in Cricket for no-balls). All of these can be completely standardized with regards to height and so on. They could be situated on the stadium roof, looking down or on the side of the field in protective boxes. Take human factors like bias completely out of it!

  5. As far as I understand there is a process before a match between the TMO and the director:
    – They meet and the director shows the TMO where the permanent cameras will be and the mobile ones next to the field.
    – Each camera man has a number i.e. on field 1
    – When asked to make a choice, the TMO tells the director which camera man’s feed he wants to see as he can clearly see which camera man is where on the field and has possible angles
    – Thus, the angles used are not up to the director but are up to the TMO to prevent the “home” director to favorite his team.

    Hope this helps and makes sense.

Add Comment Register

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Switch to our mobile site