Bunker far superior to video ref

[OldRedEyes]

We spent decades not having VR at all games. We need to be flexible for the greater good as this is turning people off the sport. 

[Luke HKR]

It would also help, if not every try is sent to the big screen. I know why, but sometimes it's excessive. That really doesn't help.

In general I don't mind it, but think the refs,  then video refs should back themselves more.

[sam4731]

25 minutes ago, OldRedEyes said:

We spent decades not having VR at all games. We need to be flexible for the greater good as this is turning people off the sport. 

Have you got any evidence to suggest that attendances or TV viewers have dropped since the advent of the VR?

[Harry Stottle]

6 hours ago, sam4731 said:

Have you got any evidence to suggest that attendances or TV viewers have dropped since the advent of the VR?

Sam be honest, it has got much worse this season and also now having Captains Challenge has elevated it even more.

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

17 hours ago, sam4731 said:

When the discussion comes to getting rid of VR/VAR I always ask the same question, which I will ask anyone who has said that they want to get rid of it here.

Would your opinion stay the same if you knew now that your team would lose a CC/SL final based on a bad call that would have been overturned by VR?

If your honest answer is yes, then you're a better man than me.

Yes. 

It can happen now. Let's say ref makes an error, player tackled- score off next tackle. It won't go to video ref. 

By the above logic would check every play the ball. 

Fundamentally rugby league is meant to be entertaining- and there's no sport if neutrals switch off matches. 

I took friends to both this year and last year Magic Weekend- without due influence from me- all 8 people (who'd previously been to about 1 match each) said the video ref process was far too long and was boring. At what point do we start listening? 

[whatmichaelsays]

10 hours ago, Harry Stottle said:

Sam be honest, it has got much worse this season and also now having Captains Challenge has elevated it even more.

The problem is that a lot of these complaints are problems that fans, coaches, and to some extent, club executives, have brought on themselves. 

You really don't have to look far through matchday threads of post-match press conferences to find complaints about match officials - it's a cultural thing at this point, where we obsess far more about the mistakes (or often, not) of match officials than we do the players and coaches. The response to this from the game has been to introduce more technology. 

Yes, there are things we can do to improve the process of how we use technology but fundamentally, we can't have it both ways. Either we all get much more mature about this and accept that match officials will make mistakes, or we accept that matches will keep getting longer as technology creeps into more and more aspects of the game. 

[hunsletgreenandgold]

The biggest change that would resolve a lot of why SL/Sky's VR is so awful would be to adopt the NRL's approach of going with on-field decision for tries and then the bunker reviews all angles/replays in the background and only flags up to the ref if they do see anything. Most VRs go up as try awarded and are looking for basic checks like onside/offside, in-touch and grounding. All of that could and should be done without having to listen to Ben Thaler 'have we got any more angles' 'just go back on camera 4, nice and tight, no the last angle, pause it there' - it's awful. 

[Harry Stottle]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

The problem is that a lot of these complaints are problems that fans, coaches, and to some extent, club executives, have brought on themselves. 

You really don't have to look far through matchday threads of post-match press conferences to find complaints about match officials - it's a cultural thing at this point, where we obsess far more about the mistakes (or often, not) of match officials than we do the players and coaches. The response to this from the game has been to introduce more technology. 

Yes, there are things we can do to improve the process of how we use technology but fundamentally, we can't have it both ways. Either we all get much more mature about this and accept that match officials will make mistakes, or we accept that matches will keep getting longer as technology creeps into more and more aspects of the game. 

Micheal, I have been going to watch Pro Rugby League for 60+ years and it is nothing new to hear discussions/complaints about match officials it has and always will go on. 

Yes I do believe that the process can be improved, the OP of this thread is how the functionality of these measures are so much better in the NRL than here which is very evident to anyone who watches both comps, so I honestly don't agree that games will just keep getting longer with technology in fact that should be the reverse with improvements in the technology and more importantly how it is utilised over here, if we are copying the NRL then copy it don't do if by half measures.

 

 

[Oxford]

You've got to think there's an Aussie thread on a forum somewhere entitled "Video Ref Far Superior to Bunker!" unless they feel their stuff is always better which seems so un-Aussie to me.

Edited May 19 by Oxford

[JF1]

If we're stuck with the vr preocess, at least streamline it a bit. Have the "swingometer on the screen from when the ref sends the decision upstairs. Then when he has made the decision,hit the button and display it immediately.

That way, the smart meter sponsor will probably get more time on the scoreboard.

[whatmichaelsays]

28 minutes ago, Harry Stottle said:

Micheal, I have been going to watch Pro Rugby League for 60+ years and it is nothing new to hear discussions/complaints about match officials it has and always will go on. 

Yes I do believe that the process can be improved, the OP of this thread is how the functionality of these measures are so much better in the NRL than here which is very evident to anyone who watches both comps, so I honestly don't agree that games will just keep getting longer with technology in fact that should be the reverse with improvements in the technology and more importantly how it is utilised over here, if we are copying the NRL then copy it don't do if by half measures.

 

 

Fundamentally, introducing something like a captain's challenge will introduce a delay into the game. We can by all means look at how we optimise that process, but it is a process that has inherent delay.

I don't know what camera hardware the NRL uses compared to the UK, but Sky Sports is a credible broadcaster with the sort of hardware you'd expect of one wanting to deliver to their standards - I'd be very surprised if there was a material difference in the standards between the two. 

There have been discussions this week in fact at RLC about the process and how it works - I think a proposed trial in the last round of games was delayed. Again, we can talk about how we change that process, but we can't hide from the fact that the creep of technology is a response to a bigger problem. 

[Click]

15 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Fundamentally, introducing something like a captain's challenge will introduce a delay into the game. We can by all means look at how we optimise that process, but it is a process that has inherent delay.

I don't know what camera hardware the NRL uses compared to the UK, but Sky Sports is a credible broadcaster with the sort of hardware you'd expect of one wanting to deliver to their standards - I'd be very surprised if there was a material difference in the standards between the two. 

There have been discussions this week in fact at RLC about the process and how it works - I think a proposed trial in the last round of games was delayed. Again, we can talk about how we change that process, but we can't hide from the fact that the creep of technology is a response to a bigger problem. 

The main difference is the amount of cameras the NRL uses as well as the quality of their camera's being a lot higher.

You can instantly tell the difference in quality on replays, SL cameras go blurry while the NRLs are fine.

I'm sure the RFL would love to replicate how the NRL bunker works, but we don't have enough money to pull that kind of operation off it seems.

[hunsletgreenandgold]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

I don't know what camera hardware the NRL uses compared to the UK, but Sky Sports is a credible broadcaster with the sort of hardware you'd expect of one wanting to deliver to their standards - I'd be very surprised if there was a material difference in the standards between the two. 

 

57 minutes ago, Click said:

The main difference is the amount of cameras the NRL uses as well as the quality of their camera's being a lot higher.

You can instantly tell the difference in quality on replays, SL cameras go blurry while the NRLs are fine.

That's exactly it - the NRL/Fox uses fast motion cameras the same quality as Sky use for Premier League football. Unfortunately that equipment isn't being used for SL games currently - we actually use cameras/equipment that was previously used for football until circa 2018. 

[Just Browny]

3 hours ago, hunsletgreenandgold said:

The biggest change that would resolve a lot of why SL/Sky's VR is so awful would be to adopt the NRL's approach of going with on-field decision for tries and then the bunker reviews all angles/replays in the background and only flags up to the ref if they do see anything. Most VRs go up as try awarded and are looking for basic checks like onside/offside, in-touch and grounding. All of that could and should be done without having to listen to Ben Thaler 'have we got any more angles' 'just go back on camera 4, nice and tight, no the last angle, pause it there' - it's awful. 

To be fair to Thaler he does at least give the impression of wanting to get on with it. Some of them like Moore and Vella seem to adopt the tactic of looking at the same thing so many times that people are so desperate for a decision they will accept a wrong one. 

I agree with Harry (I know!) that we have to consider the product for people sitting inside the stadium. As mentioned on the match thread, at Wakefield yesterday the screen was frozen for several minutes while a decision was being made, everyone was totally bemused. 

If we have to have this system the screen needs to work and somebody needs to explain to spectators what is being looked at.

[Harry Stottle]

40 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

To be fair to Thaler he does at least give the impression of wanting to get on with it. Some of them like Moore and Vella seem to adopt the tactic of looking at the same thing so many times that people are so desperate for a decision they will accept a wrong one. 

I agree with Harry (I know!) that we have to consider the product for people sitting inside the stadium. As mentioned on the match thread, at Wakefield yesterday the screen was frozen for several minutes while a decision was being made, everyone was totally bemused. 

If we have to have this system the screen needs to work and somebody needs to explain to spectators what is being looked at.

Re Wakefield, I have made just the one visit this season, and stood on the halfway line where away fans are herded, the quality of the pictures on the screen was terrible no one in the close proximity could distinguish what was being played, but there is a very large screen seemingly just for displaying the score, Wakey fans, why can that not be utilised?

[Phil]

I never thought I’d agree with Barry Mac but a couple of weeks ago, sorry can’t remember which game he said “can’t we just have a try sometime? Does it have to go upstairs in 80% of cases”

[hunsletgreenandgold]

40 minutes ago, Phil said:

I never thought I’d agree with Barry Mac but a couple of weeks ago, sorry can’t remember which game he said “can’t we just have a try sometime? Does it have to go upstairs in 80% of cases”

And this is what doing it the NRL way brings back. 80% (feels about right) would be given on-field, then the behind the scenes checks are taking place - if it's all good then the conversion gets taken. If there's an issue then the ref calls time off again and a replay shows up on screen the infringement. It really is that simple. 

[Chris22]

There is no advantage to a referee not going to the video ref if there is even the slightest amount of uncertainty. Very few will praise a ref if they make a judgement call on a close decision and get it right. Everyone will criticise if they did the same and got it wrong.

Same for video refs. What do they gain by being quicker? If they are quicker, they won't get any praise for it but are more likely to get decisions wrong.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of video referees apart from 1 captain's challenge per game but accept that means more decisions will be incorrect as a result. For me, a less stop start product is more important that a correct decision but I think the majority feel the opposite, hence our current system.

[phiggins]

2 hours ago, Chris22 said:

There is no advantage to a referee not going to the video ref if there is even the slightest amount of uncertainty. Very few will praise a ref if they make a judgement call on a close decision and get it right. Everyone will criticise if they did the same and got it wrong.

Same for video refs. What do they gain by being quicker? If they are quicker, they won't get any praise for it but are more likely to get decisions wrong.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of video referees apart from 1 captain's challenge per game but accept that means more decisions will be incorrect as a result. For me, a less stop start product is more important that a correct decision but I think the majority feel the opposite, hence our current system.

Tend to agree. If we are to keep the VR, then there’s no need for a referee referral now we have captain’s challenge. If a team aren’t happy with the try / no try decision, they can challenge it if they’ve not burned their challenge already.

[Sports Prophet]

What annoys me the most is hearing Ben “Clunky Cogs” Thaler having a conversation with himself for three minutes to answer all the little things he should have answered from the first watching.

”ok let’s play it from the kick to see if the chasers are onside… ok some are offside, let’s roll it on and see if they engage in play… ok we can see the two players engaging, let’s go back to see if they are the two players who were onside… ok, chasers are cleared as onside now… take us to where the players come into contact with the ball… ok we can see a hand there and another hand there, but who’s is who’s, can you get me another angle on that please??? Ok that’s not very clear either, any other angles please??? Ok that looks better, can we go back to the first angle please??? Ok, yeah the other angle is definitely the best angle we have, go back to the other angle please… no not that one, the other one please… ok now if you slow it down right there… and pause it… now back a bit… no not too far… ok there… now let it roll… now go back again…” and on it bloody goes.

Just shut your trap and say something when you have something conclusive to say  

Edited May 21 by Sports Prophet

[Archie Gordon]

The VR/CC just doesn't work with the low budget production values the game suffers from. It just reinforces the feeling that SL is an economy brand.