Skeletal tracking - forward passes

[Clogiron]

3 hours ago, DavidM said:

This may be happening right now in a parallel universe , just the other side of a vortex which opened up due to a tear in the space time continuum ... just outside Batley 

If you mean the final frontier it was, it closed down a few years back

[Padge]

2 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

That would be offside not a forward pass,

A deliberate forward pass is a penalty was the point.

[Wholly Trinity]

3 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

How do you think the spin of the ball would affect this non-existent technology?

Not at all, because the location of the ball would be the sensor mounted at the centre of the ball.

[Wholly Trinity]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

A deliberate forward pass is a penalty was the point.

How is a deliberate forward pass defined? 

 

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Let's stop trying to look for ways to improve because some people will still moan... is that what you're saying?

To say "some people" moan about decisions makes it sound like you've never been to a game (which I know isn't true). It's a disingenuous argument.

Like I say, I don't see an issue in looking for improvements if it helps get the right result.

This argument is predicated on the refeering technology improving the game which I don't think is a given at all.

It may make the officiating more accurate but that doesn't mean the game is better overall because of it.

[Padge]

33 minutes ago, Wholly Trinity said:

How is a deliberate forward pass defined? 

 

Penalty for some forward passes If the Referee is of the opinion that a player in giving a forward pass must have been well aware that the catcher was in front of him then the referee is justified in ruling that the ball has been deliberately thrown forward.

 

Footnote from me, it may not be off-side if the intended recipient does not touch the ball or the ball doesn't reach him. Thus the option of the penalty if the ref thinks it is deliberately forward.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

This argument is predicated on the refeering technology improving the game which I don't think is a given at all.

It may make the officiating more accurate but that doesn't mean the game is better overall because of it.

Other than taking extra time, I can't think of any other disadvantage to improving referee accuracy. 

[Lowdesert]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Other than taking extra time, I can't think of any other disadvantage to improving referee accuracy. 

If we’re trying for perfection we will never achieve it.

The introduction of the ‘6 again’ had the NRL spouting how much more play it has given to spectators.  This will take that away, plus, while the VRs are looking at the forward pass, they will probably find an obstruction or other fault to penalise.

I’d leave it alone and put more onus on the TJs.

[OMEGA]

3 hours ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I really don't see the issue people have with using technology to get the right result. It's completely different to the players - human error is what makes competition. Referees are not meant to make errors, so the closer we can get to ensure that there aren't any, the fairer the result.

Of course, entertainment is the number one factor, so if it takes away from that by being too long, then that's an issue. But personally I like the tension of watching the replay back when it's a close call.

Really?

Go back and look at some of the completely ridiculous VAR decisions we’ve seen this year. Goals disallowed even though 4 camera angles say goal but 1 shows a players fringe was blowing the wrong way in the wind and put him offside.

Sport can go too far with technology to a point where it’s detrimental to the sport itself and that serves no one in the long term.

[Padge]

2 hours ago, Trojan said:

How does the ref know what you know? Anyway at the time IIRC they were punishing every forward pass with a penalty.  Perhaps they'd had an instruction to clamp down on it.  Who knows?

Like many things it is based on the opinion of the ref, if the ref thinks he did it deliberately then he has the option of giving a penalty.

Most reffing decisions are down to the opinion of the ref, knock-ons, did the ball go forward in his opinion, high tackle, was it accidental or was intended, reefing the ball in the tackle were two players in the tackle or was the second man just standing close. The list goes on.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

29 minutes ago, Lowdesert said:

If we’re trying for perfection we will never achieve it.

The introduction of the ‘6 again’ had the NRL spouting how much more play it has given to spectators.  This will take that away, plus, while the VRs are looking at the forward pass, they will probably find an obstruction or other fault to penalise.

I’d leave it alone and put more onus on the TJs.

That's a similar argument to "they'll never be happy." So because we can't achieve perfection, we shouldn't even bother got improvement?

I don't see how this will take away the 6 again rule?

Video referees won't necessarily have to look at the forward pass. The technology wouldn't be video-based, so what's the point sending it to the VR?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

11 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Really?

Go back and look at some of the completely ridiculous VAR decisions we’ve seen this year. Goals disallowed even though 4 camera angles say goal but 1 shows a players fringe was blowing the wrong way in the wind and put him offside.

Sport can go too far with technology to a point where it’s detrimental to the sport itself and that serves no one in the long term.

Just because they haven't got it right doesn't mean the concept is wrong.

Technology is very new to football. There are things that need tweeking still to suit, and they can't just do that mid-season.

[Dunbar]

32 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

Other than taking extra time, I can't think of any other disadvantage to improving referee accuracy. 

I think it sucks the emotion out of the game.  The joy the players and fans feel from scoring is then eradicated when the video ref spends a few minutes trying to work out every which way they can that the try can be ruled out.  Football is heading the same way and will probably suffer even more given the nature of (& number of ) the goals and the VAR halting play while everyone doesn't know where they stand.

Add on the the fact that a fair number of the obstruction calls are contentious and hardly black & white and I genuinely feel that the video ref takes more than it gives to the sport.

I like the video ref in tennis and cricket as they are ball tracking and the decisions are always accurate.  But in Rugby League so many of the decisions are subjective... obstruction, ball steals etc. why don't we just trust the on field ref's to make a call, get on with the game and enjoy it.  

[Wellsy4HullFC]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I think it sucks the emotion out of the game.  The joy the players and fans feel from scoring is then eradicated when the video ref spends a few minutes trying to work out every which way they can that the try can be ruled out.  Football is heading the same way and will probably suffer even more given the nature of (& number of ) the goals and the VAR halting play while everyone doesn't know where they stand.

Add on the the fact that a fair number of the obstruction calls are contentious and hardly black & white and I genuinely feel that the video ref takes more than it gives to the sport.

I like the video ref in tennis and cricket as they are ball tracking and the decisions are always accurate.  But in Rugby League so many of the decisions are subjective... obstruction, ball steals etc. why don't we just trust the on field ref's to make a call, get on with the game and enjoy it.  

There are few worse feelings in a game than having a ref have a try that clearly wasn't other than maybe disallowing a try that clearly was. 

If it's clearly a try and they go to the VR, so what? You know it'll be given, so celebrate. If anything, you get to celebrate twice whilst watching a lovely rerun of the try.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

There are few worse feelings in a game than having a ref have a try that clearly wasn't other than maybe disallowing a try that clearly was. 

If it's clearly a try and they go to the VR, so what? You know it'll be given, so celebrate. If anything, you get to celebrate twice whilst watching a lovely rerun of the try.

Fair enough. You like, I dont. These are preferences and so I don't expect us to convince each other either way.

I am just happy to accept the (fallible) human element in the sport... both the players and the officials. 

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, Dunbar said:

Or at least that what we think will be happening. In reality, the machines will be keeping the players in a simulated reality where they think they are playing Rugby League while all the time they are actually being harvested for their bioelectric power.

This could be a new game on Red Dwarf's 'Better than Life"

[Padge]

1 minute ago, Harry Stottle said:

This could be a new game on Red Dwarf's 'Better than Life"

There's an opening Gubrats in this.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Fair enough. You like, I dont. These are preferences and so I don't expect us to convince each other either way.

I am just happy to accept the (fallible) human element in the sport... both the players and the officials. 

I'm happy to accept it from the players. They are the ones playing the game.

The officials should be as close to perfect as possible, and if they need help I say give it to them. I don't like injustice, so getting a decision wrong doesn't sit well with me.

[Harry Stottle]

1 minute ago, Padge said:

There's an opening Gubrats in this.

I know!

[Dunbar]

15 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

I don't like injustice, so getting a decision wrong doesn't sit well with me.

I hear this a lot.

But the fact remains that the best teams are the best teams with or without the video ref. For well over a hundred years our sport crowned the champion team without a video ref and if there was a video ref then they would still have been the champion team.

[Padge]

Video refs are only there because TV these days with many camera angles can clearly show some errors. That is the driver behind it.

A chip in a ball trying to work out forward passes will not be conclusive to the bloke on the terraces or sat in his armchair that he saw what he saw.

Video refs cut out obvious errors or unseen errors, though a try should never be disallowed because the ref didn't see it grounded (another one in the laws).

[DavidM]

37 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

If it's clearly a try and they go to the VR, so what? You know it'll be given, so celebrate. If anything, you get to celebrate twice whilst watching a lovely rerun of the try.

If only . Many time I think ‘  that is clearly a try ‘ but the VR seems to work back in an effort to find some reason to disallow it . It’s a try scoring game but so many get scrubbed out for spurious ‘ obstruction ‘ calls   which are ridiculous and show no empathy with the game at all . And they’re not fact , they’re still opinion  . There is no clearly a try nowadays.  We hang around and wait to see rather than just celebrating it . I just don’t think the game is meant to be played , viewed or officiated in extreme slow motion , dissecting everything after the event . Just my opinion , technology once it’s there will over time always seep deeper and deeper in to a sport and officials will rely on it because it’s there . 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

57 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

I hear this a lot.

But the fact remains that the best teams are the best teams with or without the video ref. For well over a hundred years our sport crowned the champion team without a video ref and if there was a video ref then they would still have been the champion team.

Are you saying there is never an instance were a team were the champion team because they benefited from more incorrect decisions in key games?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

43 minutes ago, DavidM said:

If only . Many time I think ‘  that is clearly a try ‘ but the VR seems to work back in an effort to find some reason to disallow it . It’s a try scoring game but so many get scrubbed out for spurious ‘ obstruction ‘ calls   which are ridiculous and show no empathy with the game at all . And they’re not fact , they’re still opinion  . There is no clearly a try nowadays.  We hang around and wait to see rather than just celebrating it . I just don’t think the game is meant to be played , viewed or officiated in extreme slow motion , dissecting everything after the event . Just my opinion , technology once it’s there will over time always seep deeper and deeper in to a sport and officials will rely on it because it’s there . 

It may be opinion, but it is an opinion with more evidence and is much more likely to get the right decision than without.

It wasn't the officiating that was the issue with the obstruction calls, it was the directive given of the law.

If we're suddenly not that bothered about a few errors here and there then why don't we get rid of the assistants and save a few bob more?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

57 minutes ago, Padge said:

A chip in a ball trying to work out forward passes will not be conclusive to the bloke on the terraces or sat in his armchair that he saw what he saw.

It doesn't matter what he thinks he saw. What matters is that the decision is the correct one.