Why we should abolish the TMO
No more rugby liberalism!
Today’s World Cup final was really frustrating.
Obviously it is very disappointing that the All Blacks lost. That’s not the problem, though. It’s never a given that the All Blacks will win the tournament (obviously) or that we can be counted on beat South Africa on any given day. There is no shame in an All Blacks team losing a big game to the Springboks and, indeed, it wouldn’t be a storied rivalry if it wasn’t always on the cards.
But the All Blacks did not deserve to lose like this. And South Africans, though no doubt over the moon to have won their fourth tournament, should also feel at least somewhat cheated by the result. It was a terrible mess of a game blighted by the biggest curse rugby has: subjective and inconsistent referring that puts the match officials and not the players at the heart of the game.
English referee Wayne Barnes did not have a great outing. Fairly or not, he has cemented forever his reputation in the rogues gallery of New Zealand rugby villains. But the performance of the on field referee is inconsequential compared to the curse that is the television match official, or TMO.
The role was first trialed in the late 1990s and was sold to us as a means of augmenting the limited perspective of the referee in certain circumstances, which were supposed to be quite limited. Since then, the system has been integrated into professional matches worldwide, its scope expanding from determining the validity of tries to overseeing a range of game-altering decisions. Over the years, intervention has has evolved from a rarely-invoked tool to an almost ubiquitous presence, reaching its peak in whatever the Hell it was we all watched this morning.
What should have been a nail biting apotheosis for the game of rugby union was instead reduced to a sterile, frustrating event in which the drama and excitement was all too often stopped in its tracks by TMO interventions that were about as exciting as interlocutory proceedings over the admissibility of emails in a court case over the proper interpretation of an arbitration clause.
The pervasive nature of the interventions today ruined the game. Critical plays, like Aaron’s Smith’s disallowed try, were scrutinised for infractions far removed from the immediate action. However well intended, it overshadowed the match, muddying the spectacle of a game already prone to complexity.
We would have been better off without it. Perhaps New Zealand would have won. But there would be no guarantee of it. The only thing that would have been guaranteed was a more compelling event.
A good game of rugby is a theatre of human struggle and will. The referee plays his part in this drama, making split-second decisions amidst the chaos. Imperfections will result, but that’s the price of a fluid and exciting game.
That’s life. When the referee makes an on-the-spot decision, right or wrong, it is a reflection of human judgment under pressure. The players must adapt, creating a narrative of resilience or loss that resonates with the spectators.
The TMO, in striving for objectivity, depletes the emotional stakes, sucks the emotional resonance out of the game.
There might be more to consider if the TMO provided some kind of panacea for human error. As we saw today, however, this is not the case. Far from eliminating controversy, the TMO simply adds to it by adding another layer of subjective interpretation and judgment calls on top of those made by the referee.
In practice, all that has been achieved is that the controversy has been shifted from the paddock to the replay booth.
At the heart of all this, lies a philosophical debate over the pursuit for objective perfection at the cost of human intuition and the acceptance of fallibility. This desire for flawless adjudication risks erasing the unpredictable, yet deeply human, elements that contribute to the game's inherent drama. At stake is not just the pace of play, but the soul of the sport itself.
Look, had the TMO been absent, there'd be grumbles about Wayne Barnes. Discontent with referee calls is as old as the game itself. That’s part of sports.
But we can accept that. With time, we can chalk it up to the capricious nature of any contest. We move on. Eventually.
What's harder to move on from is the current shift of rugby from skill, strategy and grit to a bureaucratic exercise dominated by video replays and agonising pauses for interminable reviews. We have created an anemic game at the top level. And it’s a damned shame.
While what you say is plausible the game brought out something more about rugby. Penalties are worth too much and conversions ditto. If a penalty was worth less - say 2 points instead of three - and a conversion 1, team would work harder at scoring tries. In this match - five penalties, one try. Not good really. Some teams work to get into penalty range as a winning strategy, not naming any names Engliand, and it's really a blight on the sport. Players and fans deserve better. Today's TMO interference was outrageous.