Take the emotion away from the bunker

[catgrub]

Gus should decide each try.

 

[Someguy]

So the ref doesn't know, it goes to the bunker....What happens when they can't figure it out conclusively? Benefit of the doubt? Nope, whinged about that. Refs call? See original whinge....

They can't win

That’s what I am saying take away an bias on the decision. Video ref looks at everything available and decides what was the most probable result from what he has seen.

Yeah it will be wrong sometimes and people will still whinge but it will take away the decisions where it is clear to everyone what the result should be but the system doesn’t allow the correct ruling.

 

[TheVelourFog]

That’s what I am saying take away an bias on the decision. Video ref looks at everything available and decides what was the most probable result from what he has seen.

Yeah it will be wrong sometimes and people will still whinge but it will take away the decisions where it is clear to everyone what the result should be but the system doesn’t allow the correct ruling.

The bunker can already overturn decisions. The refs call is there for when the bunker cant decide either.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the system, it is the framework of rules that are far too open to interpretation.

 

[Someguy]

The bunker can already overturn decisions. The refs call is there for when the bunker cant decide either.

There is nothing inherently wrong with the system, it is the framework of rules that are far too open to interpretation.

Bunker can overturn with conclusive evidence, that leads to a decision that is wrong being unable to be overturned due to the exact camera angle not being available

 

[TheVelourFog]

Bunker can overturn with conclusive evidence, that leads to a decision that is wrong being unable to be overturned due to the exact camera angle not being available

How do you know it is wrong then?

 

[unforgiven]

Bunker can overturn with conclusive evidence, that leads to a decision that is wrong being unable to be overturned due to the exact camera angle not being available

So you want to overturn without evidence? So guess? Isn't that what you said the onfield Refs are doing when they make a ruling before sending it up to be checked?

 

[Someguy]

How do you know it is wrong then?

The way it is to overturn held up you need a frame that actually shows the ball on the ground. You can have someone going to ground the ball clearly no obstruction to the put down, some random player flashes into shot and blocks the camera and it cannot be overturned. Conclusive evidence is the issue for me. You get those decisions where the bunker almost groans ‘cannot be overturned ruling stands’ when they know they are giving a wrong decision

I’m talking a scientific approach take in all the available evidence and come to the most likely conclusion

 

[TheVelourFog]

The way it is to overturn held up you need a frame that actually shows the ball on the ground. You can have someone going to ground the ball clearly no obstruction to the put down, some random player flashes into shot and blocks the camera and it cannot be overturned. Conclusive evidence is the issue for me. You get those decisions where the bunker almost groans ‘cannot be overturned ruling stands’ when they know they are giving a wrong decision

I’m talking a scientific approach take in all the available evidence and come to the most likely conclusion

A scientific approach...where you are completely guessing whether the ball got down because you cant actually see.

Righto then

 

[TheVelourFog]

What you are actually saying there is benefit of the doubt to the attacker. Which everyone hated and whinged about.

We are back to square one.

 

[unforgiven]

The way it is to overturn held up you need a frame that actually shows the ball on the ground. You can have someone going to ground the ball clearly no obstruction to the put down, some random player flashes into shot and blocks the camera and it cannot be overturned. Conclusive evidence is the issue for me. You get those decisions where the bunker almost groans ‘cannot be overturned ruling stands’ when they know they are giving a wrong decision

I’m talking a scientific approach take in all the available evidence and come to the most likely conclusion

No, that would be a terrible way to do it. How do you know that the onfield ref that is standing 1 metre away didnt see the ball still off the ground in that blocked shot?

You want games decided on what is most likely to happen, then why play the game at all, just give the points to the team that is most likely to win.

 

[Someguy]

A scientific approach...where you are completely guessing whether the ball got down because you cant actually see.

Righto then

No, that would be a terrible way to do it. How do you know that the onfield ref that is standing 1 metre away didnt see the ball still off the ground in that blocked shot?

You want games decided on what is most likely to happen, then why play the game at all, just give the points to the team that is most likely to win.

Fair call but I do think most would agree the ref needs a ‘I have no f**king idea’ option so the decision bias we currently have is not just borne out of a guess when the ref couldn’t see what happened.

Also with the current system what if multiple parts of the try are in doubt does the refs try/no try decision leave the burden of overturn on all parts in doubt?

 

[thorson1987]

Fair call but I do think most would agree the ref needs a ‘I have no f**king idea’ option so the decision bias we currently have is not just borne out of a guess when the ref couldn’t see what happened.

Also with the current system what if multiple parts of the try are in doubt does the refs try/no try decision leave the burden of overturn on all parts in doubt?

Which is exactly what we used to have.

 

[unforgiven]

Fair call but I do think most would agree the ref needs a ‘I have no f**king idea’ option so the decision bias we currently have is not just borne out of a guess when the ref couldn’t see what happened.

Also with the current system what if multiple parts of the try are in doubt does the refs try/no try decision leave the burden of overturn on all parts in doubt?

No that's the point, the onfield ref is not guessing, do you think the refs were guessing tries for the 90 years before we got the video ref?

They were doing what the refs do now, they get themselves into the best position to make a decision and make it based on what they, and their assistants, see. It is the Bunkers job to check that decision if there is any doubt.

I dont understand your second point?

 

[Chimp]

How do you know it is wrong then?

Because the decision didn't go the way he wanted, obviously......

The refs gut feel is the most likely correct outcome in situations where the video cannot determine - in the vast majority of these situations, in comfortable to ref will have made the right call. We're talking about very very few occasions, and with no proof definitive proof either way with technology, I'm happy to wear the refs original call - most times he'll be right, there will be the odd occasion he was wrong, but nobody will ever be able to prove it....
The current system is the best way - the only potential improvement is to reduce reliance on technology, probably through a captain's challenge process, that way, the result is more pinned on the players. If they don't challenge and replays show they should have done, not the refs fault. If they do challenge and there's no evidence to overturn refs decision, well done ref, players fault. Will add a level of honesty to the players who claim to have scored when they know they haven't, or claim to have held someone up when they know they haven't.

 

[unforgiven]

Because the decision didn't go the way he wanted, obviously......

The refs gut feel is the most likely correct outcome in situations where the video cannot determine - in the vast majority of these situations, in comfortable to ref will have made the right call. We're talking about very very few occasions, and with no proof definitive proof either way with technology, I'm happy to wear the refs original call - most times he'll be right, there will be the odd occasion he was wrong, but nobody will ever be able to prove it....
The current system is the best way - the only potential improvement is to reduce reliance on technology, probably through a captain's challenge process, that way, the result is more pinned on the players. If they don't challenge and replays show they should have done, not the refs fault. If they do challenge and there's no evidence to overturn refs decision, well done ref, players fault. Will add a level of honesty to the players who claim to have scored when they know they haven't, or claim to have held someone up when they know they haven't.

Agree 100%

 

[Someguy]

No that's the point, the onfield ref is not guessing, do you think the refs were guessing tries for the 90 years before we got the video ref?

They were doing what the refs do now, they get themselves into the best position to make a decision and make it based on what they, and their assistants, see. It is the Bunkers job to check that decision if there is any doubt.

I dont understand your second point?

My second point is if it is no try for grounding, does it mean the protocol of conclusive evidence and the bias of no try apply to an earlier knock on or offside decision?

Why can’t the ref say I have no try cause of knock on but if that is ok I have no try for offside but if that is fine try but check grounding

 

[unforgiven]

My second point is if it is no try for grounding, does it mean the protocol of conclusive evidence and the bias of no try apply to an earlier knock on or offside decision?

Why can’t the ref say I have no try cause of knock on but if that is ok I have no try for offside but if that is fine try but check grounding

They could.