If Waikato were up to standard, the final result could have been a whole lot different.
Two possible Canterbury tries were ruled out in the first half, both which without a TMO would have most probably have been awarded. Sure there are merits to having the TMO, but when blatant calls go begging, is it benefiting of our game? Here are three compelling cases.
FOR THE TELEVISION MATCH OFFICIAL
The Air New Zealand Cup of 2009 will be remembered for a couple of things, one Canterbury were winners, and two, the call in the Hawkes Bay vs Canterbury game which denied Faka'anaua Taumalolo a try in extra time.
If the try above had been allowed, Hawkes Bay would have avoided a rematch with Canterbury in the semi-finals a week later, and would have finished top qualifiers, maybe resulting in an historic home final.
There was much criticism of the New Zealand Rugby Union for not using the technology available to them because of cost factors. It was said that in the ‘supposed’ greatest provincial rugby competition in the world, that not to use the best possible equipment was farcical.
For mine, Hawkes Bay would have won that semi against Southland, and would then have hosted Canterbury in the final. That final would have resulted in a capacity crowd of 22,000, a tale for the locals for many generations to come, and the all round strengthening of support in the ITM Cup for this year.
Instead, it was the predictable Canterbury vs Wellington Final, with the predictable average crowd, and the predictable result.
So there is certainly a case for the TMO.
AGAINST THE TELEVISION MATCH OFFICIAL
The calls in this year’s ITM Cup Final were howlers. Isaac Ross’s disallowed try was obvious when combining two camera angles, the first clearly showing the ball on the ground, and the other aerial shot showing the ball over the line.
Ryan Crotty’s try was also disallowed under dubious circumstances. Tu Umaga Marshall was ruled to have taken out Henry Speight without the ball, as he was in the process of cleaning up a botched penalty kick. Speight was unable to do that, and Crotty dived through on the ball for the try.
In any rugby game, anywhere, that would’ve been a try. When a player has fumbled the ball backwards, and seeming as though they have gone to pick it up, a players first instinct is to tackle them.
For mine Canterbury were robbed of two tries, which would have been given in a game without TMO's, and which also could have been definitive were Waikato up to the plate.
TWO OFFICIALS, OR TOO MANY OFFICIALS?
This brings about the question. Does there need to be Television Match Officials? Or are there Too Many Officials?
Two officials would surely bring about greater accuracy, though that would support the NZRU’s theory that TMO’s would then cost too much. Which would be worse, putting a little bit more of a dent in the NZRU war chest, or alienating fans with shocking decisions?
Another case can be made that there are Too Many Officials, with people pointing to soccer as an example. Soccer is simple, it is ‘kick ball into net.’ It is not technical, and is a very simple game to ref and follow. Rugby on the other hand is complex, although what did the ref’s do before TMO’s? They went with their gut feeling.
Maybe that’s the way to do it now.
In my opinion though, two TMO’s could be an idea, or even allowing the TMO to listen to the commentary team to get another insight – this aspect just for provincial games, where there is no bias.
