The UAFC

Quite frankly, I have lost track of what law variations are on trial and which have been accepted; which are global and which are local...
But as it's 1 Jan, which is usually the SH implementation date, I was thinking about TMOs.

Is anyone aware of any changes this year to the protocols? Specifically, I was wondering if this year's new, anti-Italian ruck law had meant that the number of phases 'rewindable' by a TMO needed to be increased to compensate?

Any refs out there at a high enough level to be interested in TMO protocols?

The TMO should have a long range MRi scanner. It would save a few hospital appointments.

I can't stand the tmos.
The intrepidiation and time taken following every try as officials painstakingly search to find reasons to disallow them is ruining the sport.
The only matter they should look at is grounding.
Foul play left to citing and if they miss the rest, they miss it.
Total bug near of mine I must say

Nice tmo demo in the Ulster game disallowing Cooney score. perfectly illustrating my point

Also the Arnold hit should have been a job for the citing officer.League refs put hits like that on report to prevent contradiction if they aren't entirely sure.If he thinks it's red fair enough but should be allowed to ref it as much as possible as he sees it, in the interest of keeping the game flowing.

Liz Fraser wrote:Also the Arnold hit should have been a job for the citing officer.League refs put hits like that on report to prevent contradiction if they aren't entirely sure.If he thinks it's red fair enough but should be allowed to ref it as much as possible as he sees it, in the interest of keeping the game flowing.

Clear cut red card
Same as the Ryan one was

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Good hit in my book but that's neither here nor there in this context.
if he thinks it's clear cut as you say just stop fannying about and give the card!

Liz Fraser wrote:Good hit in my book but that's neither here nor there in this context.
if he thinks it's clear cut as you say just stop fannying about and give the card!

And I suppose the tip tackle in the first half was just a misunderstanding on their no. 3’s part?
SA had been niggleing at CL throughout the game, the lad saw his opportunity for a cheap shot and he took it, after all, the ref hadn’t touched Munster to that point and he expected to get away with it.
What surprised me was how long it took the referee to see just how bad it was.
Ulster were poor, but Munster were helped by some seriously inept refereeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Still not the point why can't the table be put on report if the ref isn't sure or if he is just make a decision?
Great hit from Arnold should be allowed but isn't.
No place for tip tackles so should be yellow and wasn't.

Samstew wrote:

Liz Fraser wrote:Good hit in my book but that's neither here nor there in this context.
if he thinks it's clear cut as you say just stop fannying about and give the card!

And I suppose the tip tackle in the first half was just a misunderstanding on their no. 3’s part?
SA had been niggleing at CL throughout the game, the lad saw his opportunity for a cheap shot and he took it, after all, the ref hadn’t touched Munster to that point and he expected to get away with it.
What surprised me was how long it took the referee to see just how bad it was.
Ulster were poor, but Munster were helped by some seriously inept refereeing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was a dirty cheap shot by Arnold. McCloskey had a go at him after the try and Arnold was squaring up to him. He didn't show much remorse shaking his head when he departed. Although thanks for the BP win, Sam.

Liz Fraser wrote:Still not the point why can't the table be put on report if the ref isn't sure or if he is just make a decision?
Great hit from Arnold should be allowed but isn't.
No place for tip tackles so should be yellow and wasn't.

say what liz?
Arnold hit Christian with a straight arm to the neck. That is incredibly dangerous.

I agreed with IH in commentary that the initial hit was to the chest browner and there was a wrap attempt.
Borderline but fair.
As with Payne v Goode the fact Christian stayed down influenced the decision.
But I'm a bit old school.
If someone stayed down it was due to a great hit now it's because there must be foul play.

Liz Fraser wrote:I agreed with IH in commentary that the initial hit was to the chest browner and there was a wrap attempt.
Borderline but fair.
As with Payne v Goode the fact Christian stayed down influenced the decision.
But I'm a bit old school.
If someone stayed down it was due to a great hit now it's because there must be foul play.

Christian wasn't play acting. Many a one hit like like would still be sparked out on the pitch. If u want to see play acting I refer u to Charlie a bit later, who looked like he was snipered after a quick tap.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

The only debate was the colour of the card and ref got it spot on

Liz Fraser wrote:I agreed with IH in commentary that the initial hit was to the chest browner and there was a wrap attempt.
Borderline but fair.
As with Payne v Goode the fact Christian stayed down influenced the decision.
But I'm a bit old school.
If someone stayed down it was due to a great hit now it's because there must be foul play.

Initial hit to the chest? WTF? How slow was the slow-mo? I had the perfect view from the stand and the TV does not do the ferocity of the impact any justice. The "wrap attempt" is irrelevant because the red card was given for a high tackle with force. Any tackles around the head, neck or face must be punished as the long term consequences of concussion injuries are not good.