Technology and forward passes

[Quidgybo]

We all know that video refs aren't allowed to rule on forward passes. The reason generally given is that cameras are not in line and the angle can be deceptive for humans trying to judge correctly from replays.

It occurs to me if we can have Hawk Eye accurately judge the path of a cricket ball for predicting LBW, and it can accurately track the path of a tennis ball hitting a line, why can't a system track a Rugby League ball and tell us if a ball is passed back, sideways or forward relative to its current momentum?

Why can't we have a system that simply signals the referee through his earpiece when a ball is passed forward, and then allow a instant replay with animation overlay demonstrating the relative path of the ball for commentators and the general public in the stadium and at home to understand why it called the pass forward?

If real time notification to the on field ref is too much, why can't we allow a review of forward passes by the video ref where the video ref tells the system which frame was the last frame of the replay which the ball was in contact with the player's hands? Then let the system confirm whether the ball travelled forward or back relative to the current momentum at that point in time.

Leigh

 

[Quidgybo]

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4675816.html

An active system that would use a transmitter in the ball to accurately track position instead of relying on visual tracking from cameras. Probably overcomes issues of players obscuring the ball from camera view. Would still need the same momentum processing on the back end.

Leigh

 

[griff]

Bugger, I had that idea years ago and someone beat me to it

 

[innsaneink]

Momentum....theres the problem

Cricket - the balls travelling initially in the direction it will be aimed.
Tennis - the ball isnt travelling in any direction initially
RL - the ball is travelling usually in the opposite/angled direction to where it will be intended

 

[Quidgybo]

Momentum....theres the problem

It all comes back to being able accurately track the ball in space and time. If you have accurate tracking and can determine the instant that the ball leaves the hands (either programmatically or by human input) then the computer could determine the average forward speed of the ball over say the previous ten video frames prior to that point (two-fifths of a second of normal speed PAL video). And it could determine the average forward speed of the ball over the ten frames after that point. Knowing these two vales then, in the simplest scenario where no other player touches the ball in that subsequent two-fifths of a second, if the second measured speed Y is greater than the first measured speed X it's forward : Y > X = Forward Pass.

Leigh.

 

[westie]

They reckon Hawk Eye has been proven inaccurate anyway.

 

[chefman21]

Would a set of cameras on a dolly along each sideline work?

 

[Loudstrat]

How about trust the ref? Gee, what a novel approach.

 

[Talanexor]

Or we could just get better referees.

After some of the calls we saw this season, video refs would probably rule better on forward passes - some of the missed ones were so blatant it was ridiculous.

 

[chefman21]

Trust the ref? Yep... They have earnt everyone's trust.

 

[applesauce]

Bring in the SkyCam. That alien looking thing from SOO and used in the NFL each game.

It has the abiltiy to get above the play, look down on it and be in line at the sme time while traveling at the speed of the players.

I think this whole argument will open up yet another gray area in the refereeing and cause confusion as many fans don't seem to understand the laws of physics where if you pass a ball "backwards" while running at 30km/h the ball is also traveling at that speed so it has a force acting on it to go foward.

It's outof the hands it needs to go forward so it is the first metre or so that determines those line ball calls. Too hard to measure IMO.

 

[KeepingTheFaith]

Would a set of cameras on a dolly along each sideline work?

Probably not. The players don't go at a constant speed, they slow down and speed up in split seconds. Unless a dolly/skycam/any other technical gizmo can consistently stay in exact line with the ball then any camera angle is going to be misleading in one direction or the other depending on the angle.

 

[Quidgybo]

Or we could just get better referees.

From where? What comp is hiding all these great refs who are so much better than the current crop who do the job as a full time occupation?

Leigh

 

[chefman21]

More discretion from the video referee to pull incidents up? Even a second referee who purely monitors back play incidents so the video ref can focus on the play?

 

[innsaneink]

It all comes back to being able accurately track the ball in space and time. If you have accurate tracking and can determine the instant that the ball leaves the hands (either programmatically or by human input) then the computer could determine the average forward speed of the ball over say the previous ten video frames prior to that point (two-fifths of a second of normal speed PAL video). And it could determine the average forward speed of the ball over the ten frames after that point. Knowing these two vales then, in the simplest scenario where no other player touches the ball in that subsequent two-fifths of a second, if the second measured speed Y is greater than the first measured speed X it's forward : Y > X = Forward Pass.

Leigh.

Surely then if this sort of technology is possible, it wouldnt be out of the realms of possibility to gain technology to gauge this with cameras using geometry mathematics etc, and thus give it back to the VR, which is ridiculous having him not being able to rule on this but the onfield ref can where he gets a split second and may be out of line with the play too, which is the argument they use for not allowing the VR to rule on forward passes in the first place.

 

[El Diablo]

no no no no no

 

[moltznmarshall]

Check out Locata
www locatacorp com

it's amazing new technology developed in a backyard shed in Canberra that has been swamped by the US Military and Mining Companies

It's main advantage over GPS is that it doesn't use satelites, instead it uses mobile base stations. That way it can be used indoors and in cities. Since the base stations talk to eachother instead of a Satelite, their accuracy is to within 2cm.

it is currently being used deep underground in mines to move massive pieces of mining machinery. It's also being included as a fifth standard for tracking chips (GPS, Galileo, the Russian one and the Chinese one PLUS Locata), so we'll all be using this soon.

There is no reason why such technology couldn't be used to track balls.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

Employ touch judges whose eyes haven't been painted on.

 

[1 Eyed TEZZA]

How much would this technology cost the NRL? How much does Hawk Eye cost Cricket?

If its too expensive, I think it can take a back seat to other things that we could be doing with the money.

 

[no name]

Employ touch judges whose eyes haven't been painted on.

Or employ touch judges who actually have an opinion. Touchies do sweet fa in the game atm and rely on the video ref to pick up on any errors the ref or they miss.