Two ways to possibly solve the video ref problem

[DC_fan]

The video ref was brought in to solve a problem. All it has done is create more problems.

They get it right on most occassions. But as proven last night when they get it wrong, boy do they get it wrong. I would hate to see them make a similar mistake in the grand final.

I don't believe we should get rid of the system. As I have said they get it right most of the time. What we need to do is look at ways to improve the system.

I have come up with two possible ideas.

Idea #1

Instead of having the video ref(s) up in the grand stand making the decision how about we have the match referee make it.

In the NFL the match referee watches a TV down on the sideline and makes the decision.

For mine the match ref, because he is involved with the flow of the game may have a better idea of what has happened. He just may need to clarify his thoughts by viewing in on a monitor.


Idea #2

3D TV.

Yeah I know the cost of covering every game with sufficient 3D cameras would be extreme.

But it just may make easier for the video ref to get the decision right.

 

[WaznTheGreat]

Idea 3

Hire people who are not dumb

 

[Tonearm Terrorwrist]

Lol has this guy ever had a thought without mentioning NFL?

 

[Timmah]

How about instead of Benefit of the Doubt try, benefit of the doubt scrum to the attacking team?

 

[RABK]

How about instead of Benefit of the Doubt try, benefit of the doubt scrum to the attacking team?

I like the idea, has a lot of merit.

You are a league nut, take the initiative to use LU as a platform to go through the refereeing issues one by one and come up with a popular, well thought out logical solution. Table the final results into a detailed fan suggestion report and send it to NRL HQ.

I bet the lot of us could come up with a better 300 page NRL rule book in an off season than the powers that be.

 

[dogslife]

Put them on a desert island in a fight to the death, the lone survivor gets to work every match of the season

 

[Ronnie Dobbs]

Option 4

Public stoning of match officials.

 

[some11]

Idea #2

3D TV.

Yeah I know the cost of covering every game with sufficient 3D cameras would be extreme.

But it just may make easier for the video ref to get the decision right.

You're serious?

I think your intentions are good but please don't ever say this out loud to anyone.

 

[BranVan3000]

Get rid of benefit of the doubt

 

[Pierced Soul]

Option 4

Public stoning of match officials.

i vote for this one.

but if they got rid of beneift of the doubt and instead approached it from the point of view of does it 'look like a try' instead of finding weird obscure definitions of rebounds and ricochets like haarigan promotes it'd go much better.

it boggles the mind that for some things like the foran incident everyone else who isnt a manly player/fan can see it went forward off foran but the 2 numbnuts in the box cant see it.

timmahs idea also has merit

 

[dogslife]

I for one like it when the refs change the rules on a weekly basis, keeps the game interesting :sarcasm:

 

[bennoonthehill]

i vote for this one.

but if they got rid of beneift of the doubt and instead approached it from the point of view of does it 'look like a try' instead of finding weird obscure definitions of rebounds and ricochets like haarigan promotes it'd go much better.

it boggles the mind that for some things like the foran incident everyone else who isnt a manly player/fan can see it went forward off foran but the 2 numbnuts in the box cant see it.

timmahs idea also has merit

i think you'll struggle to even find manly fans who thought it was a try

 

[bartman]

Idea #5
Only use a video referee if there is a captain's review. Limit the number of capatain's reviews to one per half per team.

Don't have video refs miked up to the on-field refs during play, so the onfield refs call learn how to have the balls to make a call on what they see again. Players will respect them more for it, and the captain will still apparently have the option to ask for for this "captain's review". If a ref is shown to regular get their on-field calls wrong, piss them off to reggies to improve their skills.

And get a code going with the broadcasters to get their commentators foucssed on the skill of the plays leading up to tries rather than on the stupid slow-mo camera focus on the micro-pixel of separation or if the camera thinks it was touched forward or not.

 

[amaline]

For the majority of cases, when the commentators are discussing it while the video ref is making their decisions, I agree with what they come up with. Would making the commentators the video refs work? Surely they can get past issues of bias and that wouldn't be an issue. Would there be anything else preventing this from working?

 

[bartman]

How about instead of Benefit of the Doubt try, benefit of the doubt scrum to the attacking team?

Yeah, good idea :thumn. If you don't get a "clear" try over the line, you've earnt the right to get another six tackles to have a go at it.

For the Foran one last night, they could call it an I've Got No Idea Scrum, since the debate was about a potential knock on, rather than doubt in getting over the line (should have been Ref's Call and the on-field guys having to wear the blame).

 

[Perth Red]

I'm still baffled what the video refs (isn't there two of them now?) we're watching that didn't show forans fingers touch the ball? Did they see an angle we didn't?

Maybe the answer is ask the audience? Every seat has a red and green button attached and fans get to vote try, no try. Would encourage people to attend games if nothing else!

 

[Gmac]

I'll argue the Tafua call. To me thats the kind of try benefit of the doubt was introduced for. Its a 50/50 call. The Foran call was wrong. No doubt about it. The whole sorry state of affairs annoys me because I thought we were easily the better side last night. But instead of a good game of footy all everyone is talking about is the referees.
16-12 with 15mins to go would of made for a great finish to the game. I feel for the cowboys. To there credit they were outplayed for big periods in that game yet they still should of been within a chance. I thought JT, Tate and Bowen were off there game but they were gutsy enough to hang in there. (Sign of a good side.)

Anyway, I cant fathom how 2 blokes, with a tv monitor, numerous camera angles and slow motion replays could get it so wrong so often. My only conclusion is that since Harrigan got his hands on the rules of the game we have been going downhill fast. This shit about "Separation" and benefit of the doubt to the attacking side is a load of ballux.
Our game is built on toughness and hard hitting defence. Yet now we rewarding mediocrity in attack. If your not good enough to CLEARLY break the defensive line and put the ball down ( WITH CONTROL) then it should never ever be a try.

 

[Dr.J]

I'll give two serious suggestions (given that "shoot them all" unlikely to help):

1. On-field referee makes an initial call and announces it. Video is just to overrule a clear mistake by the on-field referee (i.e. any doubt = on field decision stands).
2. For video decisions, get rid of any rule which requires referee to judge 'intent', e.g. did he play at it? would the tackle have been made? did he intend to promote the football? All decisions should be clear without intenet

 

[the beavers]

rugby has it right.... video ref for grounding of the ball only...
Everything in between the goal lines is for the on field ref only....
It shouldn't be that difficult....

 

[ceagle]

Get rid of it would be the simple solution