Gopperth Ban Poses TMO Questions
One of the main talking points from last weekend’s Aviva Premiership action was the sin binning and subsequent citing and banning of Wasps fly half Jimmy Gopperth in his side’s defeat at the home of Leicester, their new neighbours, for striking Matthew Tait in an aerial challenge. Footage courtesy of BT Sports.
In the second half of the game, Gopperth chased his own up and under, which drifted into touch and into the arms of Leicester full back and captain Tait. Gopperth continued his chase and clattered into Tait, off his feet and late. In itself, this incident in real time looked rather clumsy. Clumsy enough, certainly, for referee Tim Wigglesworth to refer the incident to the Television Match Official. And here’s where the incident started to make many scratch their heads.
The replay was shown on the Welford Road big screens as Wigglesworth and his TMO carefully studied the incident. Despite protestations to the contrary, Gopperth’s eyes were seen to shift their attention from the ball to the Tait, confirming the thoughts of the crowd that this warranted a yellow card. But when the camera angle showed not only the shift in Gopperth’s focus, but a swing of his arm to strike Tait, the crowd was up in arms sensing a certain red card. The exaggerated cupping of his arms to suggest he may have been making a catch after the impact was seen straight through as a diversionary tactic and certainly did not endear him further to the crowd.
Around 20,000 supporters in the stadium saw the television replay, along with an afternoon television audience watching BT Sports and crucially, the match officials. It came as something of a surprise therefore that referee Wigglesworth brandished only a yellow card for the incident.
The independent citing officer clearly agreed with the consensus shared by seemingly everyone bar Wigglesworth, is Gopperth was promptly cited and handed a five match ban, reduced to three matches thanks to his previous good record and a hastily tweeted apology to Tait. The written report on the hearing suggested Gopperth was not afforded a longer discount since the panel was unimpressed at his explanation that he was trying to hook the ball back into play and he will now miss his side’s fixtures against Gloucester, Toulon and Leinster.
The incident poses a few questions. Referees have a difficult job that few envy and even fewer appreciate and so it is somewhat unbecoming to unduly criticise their job. But this said, it is puzzling to imagine quite what Wigglesworth would have deemed worthy of a red card. Supporters of the sport want to see the game untarnished by foul play and for the laws of the game to tackle this fairly and consistently. Incidents like this not tackled on the pitch are disheartening.
A further issue is the use of the TMO. Correctly, Wigglesworth referred the incident to his video official having decided there may have been something more sinister to the challenge than seen in real time. As is now customary, the referee watched the incident along with his TMO and a furious crowd on the stadium screen. Quite how productive this practice becomes is open to debate as it allows the crowd the opportunity to influence the decision with their outrage and turns the TMO into little more than an over-qualified video editor. There is a real case for suggesting that TMO reviews and contentious replays would not be shown on the big screen to ensure an impartial decision. On this occasion, the crowd did not influence the referee’s decision but the incident became the major talking point in the closing stages of the match.
Additionally, an issue exists with the citing process. Once upon a time, the procedure was that if a decision was made on the pitch having been seen by the match officials then the case was closed, and could not be referred. Citings were brought forward by opposition clubs, which was always a wholly unsatisfactory way of ensuring foul play was punished. Things have changed, and it is now not at all uncommon to see yellow cards retrospectively upgraded and bans imposed. In essence, what citing commissioners are doing in these situations is publicly announcing that a referee’s decision was wrong and that they imposed the wrong sanction on the pitch. And yet whilst this is the case, one has to wonder what level of censure is received by the referee for making a wrong decision. It might be suggested that if a referee is unsure on a decision, an easy solution is to err on the side of caution and let the citing commissioner pick up the pieces, particularly if the referee faces no comeback for his actions.
Fundamentally of course, the Gopperth incident served to underline that the TMO system does not answer all issues of foul play. The video replays available provide numerous high quality angles and the technology exists to see these at a moment’s notice, manipulate them, and for an official to communicate a decision to the referee on the field. These aspects are excellent and a great tool for officials to make decisions with. But that is all they are: a tool. They still require a human decision at the end of it all to deliver the correct sanction, made by officials who perhaps require greater clarity on how decisions should be made for foul play incidents.
Wasps opted to appeal the length of Gopperth’s ban, which was subsequently dismissed and the suspension upheld. Presumably they believed the offence to have been a low-range one rather than the mid-range offence that the panel deemed it to be. Debatable, but with a lack of clarity on how this is to be decided you could understand their plea.
Gopperth has not committed an act of foul play that is any worse than many others seen in recent times in the game. It probably ought to have been a red card, but it wasn’t an especially remarkable act beyond a few raised eyebrows and finger pointing at the time. It does though serve to highlight a few issues in a system that tackles foul play that can still be required as developing. Further development is quite probably required.
“Main Photo:”
