Rugby Union is without question at the forefront of the use of technology in sport, and a number of incidents in this weekend’s round of Currie Cup fixtures really bought this home.

In the first of Saturday’s games, Griquas v The Sharks in Kimberley, Pro Logoete was the man in the middle, and those of you who know me will also know that I have been more than a little critical of Pro in the past, and also that he (Pro) has made more than one error whilst acting as an Assistant Referee in regards to whether a kicker was inside his 22m area or not when kicking for touch.

Hence I was somewhat vocal when a Griquas player punted magnificently for touch, putting the ball out on The Sharks 22m line, and Mr Logoete was clearly heard over the air saying that the Griquas’ player was outside his 22.

The referee however seemed to have a flash of inspiration, stopped the clock and asked the TMO to just check before making his final decision.

The kicker was clearly on the 22m line, which “belongs” to him, when making contact with the ball, hence the TMO deemed the kick to be “inside” the 22m area, and justice prevailed.

WELL DONE MR LOGOETE.

Now, those of you who read my comments regularly will also know that there are two areas of the game that I have pet hates about, and feel are not policed adequately by match officials.

The first of these is the Forward Pass.

The sport of Rugby Union is based on the fact that a ball should not be passed or thrown forward, with “forward” being defined as “towards the opposing team’s dead ball line” by the IRB.

All seems simple enough to me, but of late there have been various arguments about forward momentum, the direction of the passing players’ hands, etc etc. But in principal the theory remains the same, a pass must go sidewards or backwards.

My second pet hate is when a player is in front of any other player (from the same side) who kicks the ball. This is offside.

The IRB defines “Offside and Onside” thus

 “At the start of a game all players are onside. As the match progresses players may find themselves in an offside position. Such players are then liable to be penalised until they become onside again.

 In general play a player is offside if the player is in front of a team-mate who is carrying the ball, or in front of a team-mate who last played the ball.

 Offside means that a player is temporarily out of the game. Such players are liable to be penalised if they take part in the game.

 In general play, a player can be put onside either by an action of a team-mate or by an action of an opponent. However, the offside player cannot be put onside if the offside player interferes with play; or moves forward, towards the ball, or fails to move 10 metres away from the place where the ball lands.”

Both of these two types of infringements were the subject of the intelligent use of technology in the second and third games of the day.

In the “Trans Jukskei” derby at Loftus Versveld between the Blue Bulls and the Golden Lions, the visitors were pushing for a bonus point try with some 6 minutes on the clock, when a sweeping move down the left flank resulted in Warren Whitely “scoring” in the corner.

As a Lions supporter I was obviously ecstatic when referee Jason Jafta initially “awarded” the try despite my having a more than little suspicion that the final pass was “forward”.

Hell, even I tried to convince myself that the ball only went “forward” due to the momentum of the ball, the player, the rotation of the earth etc.

But, the moment that young Mr Jafta referred the incident to the TMO, I was certain that the try would be disallowed, and indeed it was.

Once again, justice prevailed.

The third incident I would like to refer to was in the final game of the day, between Free Sate and Western Province.

The Western Province flyhalf, Demetri Catrakilis stabbed through a kick which Marcel Brache on the wing gathered easily and trotted through for a try.

The initial thought (at least from me) was that Brache was “a mile offside”, but the experienced referee that he is, Jonathon Kaplan referred it to the TMO, where several replays clearly showed that Brache was indeed “onside” when the kick was made, and hence the try was awarded and justice prevailed.

All three incidents highlight the value of using technology to determine the fair outcome of an incident that could have a significant bearing on the outcome of a particular game.

Hence, I now need to highlight an incident where one of the 3 referees from Saturday failed to make use of the opportunity to use technology and therefore missed something that “could have” had a massive bearing on the outcome of the game.

In the Blue Bulls – Lions game, the Bulls were pushing to get back into the game, when a ball squirted out of the side of a Lions ruck, the Bulls’ Francois Venter pounced on the loose ball and sprinted through to score a try.

My immediate reaction was that he (Venter) was never behind the last feet at the ruck, and hence in an “offside” position when he moved forward to pick up the ball and score.

I tried to look at the incident from the replays on the “live” feed both in “real” time and slow motion, and again from the highlights of the game, and while I remain somewhat convinced that the player was never “onside”, on the evidence available to me I could not be absolutely certain.

The incident I’ve just highlighted could well have had a significant influence on the outcome of the game, and yet the official decided that it wasn’t worthy of referring to the TMO.

The only thought I had at the time was that possibly the referee considered the incident to have happened in “open play” and that therefore the “offside” line was not applicable.

With the already ongoing use of technology in Rugby, the time space between games is already coming under increasing pressure for advertising revenues, post match interviews, and the inevitable “expert” dissection of games, and so to use the TMO even more well may be to the detriment of the broadcaster, despite it being for the good of the (fairness of) the game.

My question is therefore “when should we use the TMO technology available, and when not?”.

What are YOUR thought on both the incident(s) I’ve highlighted, as well as the extended use of technology in Rugby?