Jump to content
Total Rugby League Fans Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Total Rugby League

Video Referees: A potential solution

Recommended Posts

50 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

The ref should still be able to send the decision up blank if he genuinely didn't see the ball grounded

Just to reiterate a point I asked about earlier ....If the referee on the field doesn''t make a decision and just sends it to the video referee; what would then be the next step in the decision process if the video is also inconclusive (ie: lots of bodies on top of the potential try scorer and which are therefore hiding the ball from view) ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Just to reiterate a point I asked about earlier ....If the referee on the field doesn''t make a decision and just sends it to the video referee; what would then be the next step in the decision process if the video is also inconclusive (ie: lots of bodies on top of the potential try scorer and which are therefore hiding the ball from view) ?

That's the same system we had for about 18 years. You give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Maybe, but if you look at the cricket, it is interesting that the blame for poor decisions in the last two games was put as much, if not more, on Bairstow and Guptill (who wasted previous reviews) as on the umpire who eventually made a poor decision. The ref should still be able to send the decision up blank if he genuinely didn't see the ball grounded or whether a foot brushed the touchline.

The problem is that in cricket they are largely judging 3 or 4 objective issues. Where did it pitch, where did it hit, would it have hit. Or was he in or out and you can go through and tick the box as you go through

In RL there are a lot more subjective issues with regards to knock ons and obstruction. even Onside/offside becomes something of a subjective decision with the lack of cameras everywhere. It becomes impossible for the players to really be responsible for the referee.

In fact the current system proves how unsuitable this system would be for RL. The referee themselves refer the decision the VR because they aren't sure. If the referee isn't sure, it seems wrong to punish the players (by removing the 'challenge') if they turn out to be right. 

I think too much is made of the VR, not just by fans but by the game. The set up for the VR is quite big and can add excitement in some situations but in others can detract from it. There is also the obvious intention to get the decision right. 

I think the problem is that we treat the VR as a thing rather than what they actually are, another assistant. The ref could easily just consult the VR as they do a touch judge, and come to a collegiate decision.

Just use the VR like another touch judge and it should move the ones which the on field officials are pretty sure about a bit faster. If the VR has seen something he can ask for another look, if he is confident the ref will be a bit more confident to award the try on their own. 

If the ref has seen something he should refer it to the VR, explaining what they have seen and come to a decision together.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Just Browny said:

That's the same system we had for about 18 years. You give the benefit of the doubt to the attacking side.

No the system we had the decision got sent back to the ref who’d already said he didn’t have a clue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Manx RL said:

How do they do it in Rugby Union?

RU union have exactly the same system as we have. In typical RU fashion instead of saying try or no try they ask two questions. One means try and the VR / TMO has to prove it wasn’t to over turn. The other means no try and again the VR /TMO has the prove it was to over turn. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, bobbruce said:

No the system we had the decision got sent back to the ref who’d already said he didn’t have a clue. 

No, that's not right Bob. I think we did go to ref's call for 1-2 years, but for the vast majority of time the final decision was with the VR. 


I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

No, that's not right Bob. I think we did go to ref's call for 1-2 years, but for the vast majority of time the final decision was with the VR. 

Fair enough maybe not the system we had for most of the early life of the VR but it was the system we had in place when we switched to this current one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Maybe, but if you look at the cricket, it is interesting that the blame for poor decisions in the last two games was put as much, if not more, on Bairstow and Guptill (who wasted previous reviews) as on the umpire who eventually made a poor decision. The ref should still be able to send the decision up blank if he genuinely didn't see the ball grounded or whether a foot brushed the touchline.

a lot of this is down to the commentators being calm about it too.. however, if england had lost after that awful decision to give Roy out in the semi i am not sure it would have been so calm a reaction 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Maybe, but if you look at the cricket, it is interesting that the blame for poor decisions in the last two games was put as much, if not more, on Bairstow and Guptill (who wasted previous reviews) as on the umpire who eventually made a poor decision. The ref should still be able to send the decision up blank if he genuinely didn't see the ball grounded or whether a foot brushed the touchline.

I suppose I don't see what the benefit is of that system - the ref will still send plenty decisions up - so I suppose it goes back to my original question of what problem are we fixing?

It wouldn't fix appealing, that still happens in cricket.

If you are going down a challenge route, I think you need to go with that only, which is problematic, otherwise it is the current system really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Is there any reason for the VR to be different from any other official i.e touch judges etc?

How do you mean?. If you mean they watch the game and step in then as long as they have a well defined remit. I don’t see a problem with that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, bobbruce said:

How do you mean?. If you mean they watch the game and step in then as long as they have a well defined remit. I don’t see a problem with that. 

its the way it works in RU.. they have a quite word with the ref and say something along the lines of "I have something you may want to have a look at" then chuck it on the big screen and its still up to the ref to make the final call. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bobbruce said:

How do you mean?. If you mean they watch the game and step in then as long as they have a well defined remit. I don’t see a problem with that. 

Kind of yeah. I think the whole VR set up isn't really necessary for a lot of them. He could just say, theres something we should have a look at, the ref could check with him as they do the touch judges when giving a try and if he has seen something he says lets have a look, if not the ref can be more confident in giving the try etc. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RP London said:

its the way it works in RU.. they have a quite word with the ref and say something along the lines of "I have something you may want to have a look at" then chuck it on the big screen and its still up to the ref to make the final call. 

They have had complaints at soccer about the time it takes for the on-field referee to himself then have to check on a screen before making a decision instead of it just being made by the off-field official.

Furthermore, the current RL video referee has direct contact with the tv producer so he can quickly ask to see several different camera angles . If the onus was put back onto the on-field referee, he might then also want to see other different angles to those his colleague in the tv van thought was sufficient. That would then take more time in passing messages back and forth so as to get a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RL does what Sky says said:

They have had complaints at soccer about the time it takes for the on-field referee to himself then have to check on a screen before making a decision instead of it just being made by the off-field official.

Furthermore, the current RL video referee has direct contact with the tv producer so he can quickly ask to see several different camera angles . If the onus was put back onto the on-field referee, he might then also want to see other different angles to those his colleague in the tv van thought was sufficient. That would then take more time in passing messages back and forth so as to get a decision.

But this isnt "pie in the sky" this is actually happening and works well in Union, he can request another angle but equally the TV guy has already picked the 1-2 angles that show it best.

The issue with Football is different as they do not show it in the stadium which is what frustrates people in the ground, they have no idea what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the VR could be used better. If a ref sends it up for check grounding, then he's made his decision that all other factors are fine. Why they have to check offside,interference and so on I don't really know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SL17 said:

I think the VR could be used better. If a ref sends it up for check grounding, then he's made his decision that all other factors are fine. Why they have to check offside,interference and so on I don't really know.

Agreed

It's the same in cricket ... if, for example, an umpire gives a batsman out lbw and the decision is challenged then they always check first if it was a no-ball. Yet the on-field umpire was originally OK with the delivery. What about those other deliveries which didn't produce a wicket and may have actually been no-balls but the umpire didn't call them as such ?  Why are they never checked when the batting side could be losing runs because of an injustice ?

Similarly in RL, why only check for offsides if a potential try has been scored yet on other occasions (ie: a player in front of his own kicker chases downfield and tackles the opponent before he has moved 10 yards) no check is made once the on-field referee has made his judgement ?  The tackled player might have been able to run many yards further up field but for the interference by the offside player.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RL does what Sky says said:

Agreed

It's the same in cricket ... if, for example, an umpire gives a batsman out lbw and the decision is challenged then they always check first if it was a no-ball. Yet the on-field umpire was originally OK with the delivery. What about those other deliveries which didn't produce a wicket and may have actually been no-balls but the umpire didn't call them as such ?  Why are they never checked when the batting side could be losing runs because of an injustice ?

Similarly in RL, why only check for offsides if a potential try has been scored yet on other occasions (ie: a player in front of his own kicker chases downfield and tackles the opponent before he has moved 10 yards) no check is made once the on-field referee has made his judgement ?  The tackled player might have been able to run many yards further up field but for the interference by the offside player.

I believe, but maybe wrong, that the no ball is checked by the 3rd umpire in cricket and if the on field umpires havent called it they get a little word in their ear and they can call it.. 

They certainly check on every dismissal you even see players waiting on the boundary while they check. 

They check every part of the LBW decision because they dont send it up as a specific "this is where i think you are wrong"... and it takes a bit of time for the ball tracking to be finished so they may as well check.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RP London said:

I believe, but maybe wrong, that the no ball is checked by the 3rd umpire in cricket and if the on field umpires havent called it they get a little word in their ear and they can call it.. 

They certainly check on every dismissal you even see players waiting on the boundary while they check. 

They check every part of the LBW decision because they dont send it up as a specific "this is where i think you are wrong"... and it takes a bit of time for the ball tracking to be finished so they may as well check.

I haven't heard of that but, as with yourself, I also might be wrong. However, if that was the case then there would be no need for the umpire to ever call a no ball as it is being checked by the camera, but they still do.

The RL situation is still a matter of "sometimes we will use the video, sometimes we won't".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...