From TMO madness to English ‘pies’ — why did they have to go and make things so complicated?

Somewhere in a time long ago (2002 to be precise), my oldest child drove me slightly crazy by constantly demanding a particular song by Avril Lavigne.

The chorus of that hit came echoing back this weekend as I attempted to indulge in what I thought would be a cornucopia of top-level, global, highly competitive sport – the second Test between the Wallabies and British & Irish Lions, England versus India Test cricket, the climax of the Tour de France and the Belgian Formula One Grand Prix. 

As each of those events progressed (or didn’t) in increasingly bewildering ways, I found myself channelling Lavigne and singing loudly: “Why’d you have to go and make things so complicated?”

At one point I was switching between elite F1 drivers doing the first four laps of the mere 44 they were going to be allowed in a 20-minute uncompetitive procession behind a safety car, elite cyclists drifting through the countryside drinking champagne and elite cricketers arguing about whether they should be on the field at all given that the Test was grinding towards a draw.

The day before, the thrilling series-deciding second rugby Test between the Wallabies and Lions ended up, inevitably, with everyone watching lengthy slow-motion TV replays to determine whether the Lions’ last-gasp try would stand.

What we saw was a highly dangerous assault on a Wallaby neck or a perfect clean-out, depending entirely on your bias. My conclusion was that it was probably both. It was legitimate but shouldn’t be. And it was definitely anticlimactic and unsatisfactory.

The entire thing was the apex of the television match official (TMO) madness which has descended on rugby and means its myriad complex laws are being second- and third-guessed all the time.

The authorities need to be asked the Lavigne question. “Why’d you have to go and make things so complicated?”

Judgement calls

TMO’s should be for groundings over the try line and seriously dangerous or foul play which the on-field officials have not seen (an important qualification).

Leave the rest to the judgement of the guys with a whistle and flags. If the occasional marginally forward pass, tiny knock-on, head-on-shoulder contact or truck-and-trailer side-entry channel block (I made that up but it could be a thing for all I know) gets missed, then so be it.

If the disciplinary committee post-match wants to reassess dangerous-play calls and impose bans, then that’s okay, but let’s not stop the game for a Supreme Court hearing.

Meanwhile, back at the venerable Spa-Francorchamps F1 circuit (a legendary track beautifully set in the Ardennes Forest which could soon be replaced by a soulless expansion venue in Thailand), the torturous rules of that sport were, yet again, getting in the way of a decent contest.

Rain was causing issues but watching cars parked for an hour in sunshine and then not compete for one-10th of the shortened “race” before a “rolling start”, which is nothing like the drama of a normal start, probably made cautious sense somewhere in a rule book but made none at all to an average punter like me.

I still do not understand what happened to Lewis Hamilton back in 2021 when he was cruising to a world title over Max Verstappen until some random behind him crashed and his substantial lead was wiped out by the safety car and some drivers were “unlapped” and some changed tyres but he couldn’t.

F1 measures things to milliseconds on lap times and milligrams of vehicle weight and yet cannot contrive a system where a safety car means the gaps remain the same as they were before it came out.

And then we have the compelling yet bizarre dance that is the Tour de France.

So many questions. Why don’t they race properly for most of the final day? Why do the main riders stop when a leader crashes? Why are some teams complaining that one team “wins too many stages”? Why is it unacceptable to attack in a particular way but not in others? Why is the best rider on the day often reined in to help his teammate rather than going for the stage win? In short, “why’d you have to go and make things so complicated?”

And then, the world-champion sport on rules and etiquette complexity, Test match cricket, really kicked in. England were frustrated on the final day at Old Trafford by some superb rearguard batting from India, which gained them a draw and kept an excellent series alive.

Once a decisive outcome was impossible, the English team felt everyone should shake hands and get off work early.

India captain Shubman Gill, rightly, was having none of it because he wanted his not-out batters to reach their hundreds and to tire out his opponents (who had invited this fate by putting them into bat after winning the toss) before the decisive Test starting on Thursday.

The English then sulked and bowled what we used to call “pies” – part-timers delivering rubbish.

It was an unedifying and completely uncompetitive spectacle. And one that is almost impossible to explain to anyone other than a Test cricket tragic.

Sing it one last time, Avril: “Why’d you have to go and make things so complicated?” DM