Transparency and fair play

The weekend had its fair share of entertainment. The big matches were completed with the Battle of the Blues to be worked off this weekend. The super rugby provided a fair share of excitement both in terms of the quality of the rugby and the reliance on the TMO for decisions.

In the past, in rugby, the TMO would generally be asked one of two questions: ‘Try or no try’; or ‘is there any reason why I cannot award this try?’ Thus the TMO was obliged and mandated to see the actual grounding of the ball and nothing more.

The scope of the TMO has been enhanced as part of the IRB’s overall strategy of getting the right decisions. Thus in similar situations the TMO will check two phase of play prior to the scoring of the try to ensure that the play was fair.

As you are aware, tackling of a player when he is in the air attempting to catch the ball is not permitted. Thus players have been penalised based on what the referee has seen or based on the citing by the assistant referee.

In the match over the weekend there was an incident whereby the player in the air was tackled. In normal circumstances it would have been a 10 minute cooling off in the sin bin. In this instance, the referee sought the views of the TMO and it was plain to see that there was no malice in the incident and that the player was about to tackle with both arms outstretched, when the opposing player jumps up in the air. The use of technology was great and the corrector decision was made. Both teams accepted this judgement in good spirit and the game resumed.

Whilst watching intriguing test match between Australia and India, the TMO was in the spotlight again. There was an appeal was for a catch it was the umpire’s duty to check whether the catch was taken cleanly. Thus at the time the referral was made to the TMO it was the opinion of the umpire that the batsman was out, had the catch been taken cleanly. The TMO in this instance goes through the entire process as if it was a DRS review. First the check is made if the delivery is legitimate, if there is contact between bat and ball and then if the catch is taken cleanly.

In this instance it was observed that that there had been no contact between the bat and ball and the correct decision of not out was given. The fielding side, not realising the steps involved in the review process was livid as they sure that the catch was taken cleanly. It must be kept in mind that India has been a long critic if the DRS system, and hence have viewed this with a jaundiced eye. As far as I was concerned the correct decision was made quite transparently.  The batsman in question did not last very long thereafter, which was coincidental.

Another talking point was the signing of the central contracts by the cricketers contracted to SLC. A number of people that I spoke to were of the view that there had to be some form of transparency and fair-play in the dealings of the players with SLC, given the vast sums of cash involved. The move by SLC to ensure that negotiations with the players are not done through agents is laudable. It has been pointed out that a single agent controlled five key players in the national side. The agent should be free to negotiate commercial contracts with third parties on behalf of the players, but negotiations with the SLC who is the primary employer must be undertaken by the players themselves. After all these players have been nurtured and brought into the limelight by SLC and thus the players owe it to SLC to deal with their primary employer directly.

(The writer can be reached via [email protected].)