Video Ref and Offsides

[jonno_knights]

Why in this day and age with the video ref and technology aren't we using an NFL style "line of scrimmage" to determine if players are onside or not?

I think RTS's try off of the bomb today was questionable at best, but they barely had a look at it, and went with the refs call who would have been in a horrible position to adjudicate an offside.

I dont think it made much difference as he got there with enough time to set up a tent, but in a close game it could prove the difference.

We can superimpose the sponsors logos on the ground, why not a simple line?

 

[user_nat]

Because although we spend 42 years per game watching replays, they refuse to use better technology to improve decision making.

 

[Danish]

I honestly don't know why they don't do this, and it absolutely should be done.

I remember years ago when Ben Hornby scored a try that was for all money offside (where his threatened to jump out of the box) they actually did out the line on the field during the Sunday footy show and he had a foot onside somehow.

The only thing I can think of why the NFL can do it easily while league may not be able to would be that the NFL have small markers for every yard on the field at either sideline. This might make it easier to impose the line as it gives a nice point of reference for the editors. I'm sure that could be overcome though.

It seems like one of the easiest and most definitive uses of technology that they could impose that would definitely make the video ref's job easier

 

[Card Shark]

Na, just bring in the bunker, it'll solve all problems. :roll:

They'll be able to f**k up in 1 centralised location.

 

[Snappy]

I thought it was a pretty clear cut offside. I understand the camera angle made it a bit difficult, but you could see how much closer to the 10m line RTS was compared to Malonley.

But, I agree. Surely its not hard to get the line on the screen thing.

 

[Danish]

I thought it was a pretty clear cut offside. I understand the camera angle made it a bit difficult, but you could see how much closer to the 10m line RTS was compared to Malonley.

But, I agree. Surely its not hard to get the line on the screen thing.

Thing is though the offside rule doesn't work like soccer, it's not based on bodies. it's from where the ball is compared to where RTS's grounded foot is. So the ball is way in front of Maloney and Sheck's back foot is the furthest thing back out of his body. So it looks a lot worse than it probably was.

I go back to that Hornby try back in maybe 05. He looked 2 metres offside but when they superimposed the line his grounded back foot was onside.

Either way, video footage is always going to be tough to judge. The line will make it easy and definitive. Surely they can get it done.


They could potentially even use one to judge forward passes. Simply have a line which keeps moving down field at the speed the player was going when he threw it to account for momentum, and see if it stays behind.

 

[Loose Cannon]

Surely its not hard to get the line on the screen thing.

Nah, they couldn't do that. It might interfere with the digitally imposed sponsorship logos, rendering them of lesser value to the TV rights deal!

 

[Last Week]

It's actually really simple to do. In the NFL, the main reason why it's even remotely complicated is because they keep the digitally imposed line on the field, in the same spot, even when the camera is moving to follow the players moving. And they have three cameras with the needed technology.

Here, we would only need it a few times a match if that and I don't think it would need the level of technology to that used in the NFL.

Boggles the mind as to why not do it.

 

[Canard]

It's just a TV thing in the NFL right?

It's not used in any official capacity?

It's seems to be insinuated in this thread that the officials use the line to make in game decisions

 

[Captain Apollo]

It's just a TV thing in the NFL right?

It's not used in any official capacity?

It's seems to be insinuated in this thread that the officials use the line to make in game decisions

To answer your two questions, the answer to both is yes. Even the NFL still have a 10 yard long chain which is used as the official measuring device to determine whether a player has a first down or not.

 

[jonno_knights]

It's just a TV thing in the NFL right?

It's not used in any official capacity?

It's seems to be insinuated in this thread that the officials use the line to make in game decisions

Its not used for the same thing in the NFL though...

It is used as an indication for the first down marker, not to tell if people are onside/offside. Also as it is a thick line and superimposed by TV stations it has a margin of error, hence why they still use the chains.

Ensentially, the NRL Video refs should be able to apply lines at 1m intervals via technology which could assist in the adjudication of onsides/offsides. This would take out any effects of camera angles.

Its not hard... if they can put the sponsors logos on the ground in fixed positions, can't see the issue with this. If they are worried about margins for error, just make the line thicker and give the attacking side the advantage.

 

[Canard]

Its not used for the same thing in the NFL though...

It is used as an indication for the first down marker, not to tell if people are onside/offside. Also as it is a thick line and superimposed by TV stations it has a margin of error, hence why they still use the chains.

Yep what I thought, its not like they are an exact science.

 

[Danish]

It's just a TV thing in the NFL right?

It's not used in any official capacity?

It's seems to be insinuated in this thread that the officials use the line to make in game decisions

Its not used in official capacity in the NFL as they have a perfectly acceptable and failsafe method now with their 10 yard chain and stoppage between each play to adjudicate the distance. So a superimposed line could never be as accurate as actual measuring equipment and thus making the switch would actually reduce the accuracy of the officiating.

This is at odds with the NRL, where right now the best we get is forcing refs to try and eyeball it from camera angles that are not in line with the play. A superimposed line which places itself across the field, even taking into account a margin for error of 6-7 inches (it wouldn't be any worse than that) would still prove much more accurate and reliable than the current method.

 

[jonno_knights]

So with the limited technology i have available, its pretty much line ball under the current interpretation (planted foot behind ball at time of contact) in which the benefit should go with the attacking team.

Im not sure why the TV stations don't even introduce this? We had hotspot, snicko, hawkeye etc. in use well before they become officiating tools. Might need to have a few more dashes on the field if they need more control points?

 

[Rosetta]

The touch judge up top is in line and played on, surely he's the best judge in this case, not a vidiot.

 

[jonno_knights]

The touch judge up top is in line and played on, surely he's the best judge in this case, not a vidiot.

You mean this touch judge?

Yeh you're right, he can certainly be trusted to make the big calls.

And in all seriousness, he can't exactly freeze frame like a vidiot...

 

[Rosetta]

Ball out of the hands is backward in the first pass so no problem there.

The last pass is the referees call (he is in line, the touch judge is not) and the still shot doesn't show the direction of the hands.

No vidiot required once again.

 

[Danish]

Trying to declare either of those passes as forward simply shows your inability to understand momentum

 

[jonno_knights]

Trying to declare either of those passes as forward simply shows your inability to understand momentum

I should hand back my engineering degree then... here i was thinking the law of inertia would be a good explanation for this phenomenon...

 

[Danish]

I should hand back my engineering degree then... here i was thinking the law of inertia would be a good explanation for this phenomenon...

And yet you still want to use freeze frame pictures and stationary ground markings to decide whether or not a ball went backwards relative to a moving passer.

How about you check where Maloney and Tupou are in the 2nd photos you've posted of each pass relative to the receivers (Toops in the 2nd, RTS in the 4th)