Video ref

[ride the tiger]

why cant those who are happy with onfield refs making errors have the same view towards the VR.

that's how i look at it. it's just a part of footy. ref's make mistakes & that includes VR's.

In fact the large amount of bad calls that are made makes the VR its own little drama, as you just don't know what they are going to do.

the thing they should do though is a) accept you can't get it correct all the time no matter how many times you look at it, & b) therefore have a 30 second time limit.

If they can't decide in that time then move on because they're going to screw it up anyway.

 

[Quidgybo]

The complaint isn't so much that the video can get it wrong - we all recognise that the video ref is still human and that often the call is so close as to be a 50/50 lottery. The real complaint is that the technology and its benefits are inconsistently applied.

Example 1 - Ball rolls out of a tackle...

a) Ref calls penalty - video can't review
b) Opposition dives on ball and ref calls play on - video can't review
c) Ref calls scrum - video available

The referee now has an incentive to call scrum because that gives him a safety net he doesn't get with either of the other calls. Not only is the availability of the video replay inconsistent for the same event on the field but that inconsistency actually influences the way the situation is likely to be called.

Example 2 - Team A knocks on, team B looks like it knocks on picking up ball but the ref is unsure...

a) Ref calls scrum - video can't review
b) Ref calls play on and try is scored - video available
c) Ref calls play on and one tackle is made prior to try being scored - video can't review

If after picking up the ball it looks as though team B may score then the ref has an incentive to call play on because of the opportunity to send a call he is unsure about to the video ref. But if after calling play on team B is tackled before scoring then the opportunity to review the bad call is lost. In the same situation where a try didn't look like being scored the ref may have been inclined to call scrum. The presence of the video encourages the on field official to rule a particular way and depending on how the play unfolds the video may then not actually be available. The presence of the video and its limited availability may serve not only encourage a bad decision but to then to enshrine it if the video turns out to be unavailable due to the way the play pans out.

The solution to these problems is simple. Don't eliminate the video or restrict it further but do remove the video option from the on field referee altogether. Leave him to make his decisions as he sees them without the influence of the video being available in some circumstances but not others. Hand the power to call the video a limited number of times to the competing teams as a means to challenge existing decisions that they feel are wrong and are important enough to them to try and get overturned. If a ball roles out a tackle then either team can Challenge it regardless of whether the ref calls scrum, play on or penalty. If there is a question of if a ball is knocked on then either team can Challenge regardless of whether what the ref calls or whether a try is scored or not. Remove the inconsistent application of the video and leave it up to those who would complain loudest about bad calls to decide whether it is important enough to ask for the decision to be reviewed.

Leigh.

 

[brooksy19]

3 Challenges per game per coach.

In the NFL the referrees make the call (either for touchdowns, fumbles or receptions) and then the coach can challenge that ruling. I guess it could only really be used here on try scoring plays and only in the play preceding the challenge (as it is now)

I just get sick of ref's being gutless and going to the VR on the most obvious tries, like Ink says it just ruins the moment.

 

[Rohan]

I agree with everything in insanneink's post.

Time to get rid of (or greatly reduce) the role of the VR.

 

[phonetic]

that's how i look at it. it's just a part of footy. ref's make mistakes & that includes VR's.

In fact the large amount of bad calls that are made makes the VR its own little drama, as you just don't know what they are going to do.

No. The video ref's purpose is to get everything right. His only KPI should be getting 100% correct 100% of the time. That's why he is there. If he is unable to hit that mark then get rid of him. If he's not gettings things right more often than the men in the middle would be, then where is his relevance?

I can accept a ref and his touchies making a bad call, but when the man in the box has every camera angle to look at, and STILL gets it wrong, which happens VERY OFTEN, it's just not good enough. And then when Billy Harrigan gets on radio and tells me I'm wrong for knowing I'm right about the rules, it's insulting.

And the rubbish this year about checking every knock on. It's embarrasing. Players pointing to the big screen as soon as they lose the pill 'aw but he stripped it, Sir'... embarrasing. I cringe every time. Just play footy!

Phil Gould for NRL CEO.

 

[Rohan]

I cant think of any other sport in the world which has the level of video officiating in the NRL!

Soccer - none
AFL - none
Basketball - none
Baseball - none
Rugby union - not even close to the amount in NRL
NFL - not even close to the amount in the NRL

These sports seem to get by ok.

I reckon 85-90% of tries Ive seen this year have gone to the VR - its outgrown its original purpose ten fold.

 

[Slackboy72]

I don't mind the VR havig a look at foul play especially if it's off the ball and the ref is unsure of who did what because he was looking elsewhere.
Otherwise offside and tries only.

And another thing. I would prefer the referee have access to a video screen and video controls where he can look at the tape himself and MAKE HIS OWN DECISION (shock-horror). We have the technology to do this easily. Just have a booth at either end that has access to a PVR with the last two minutes of video from all relevant cameras.
I have no faith when someone says Harrigan is the video ref as you don't know what rulebook he's reading in that box.

 

[The Dodger]

I want DRAMA in my league.

you rang?

 

[Roll Tide]

Does anyone know what percentage of tries are overturned by the video ref?

I agree with most people here. Having to review a try by video does spoil the moment.

 

[Quidgybo]

Does anyone know what percentage of tries are overturned by the video ref?

None. Quite literally. Unlike the video review in the NFL, the referee on the field doesn't make a decision but instead hands it off to the video ref. So there is no existing decision awarding a try that can be either overturned or upheld. As far as the success rate of challenges in the NFL, around 35 percent of decisions are over turned when challenged (with some teams using their challenges a lot more skillfully and successfully than others). The criteria for overturning the existing decision is "indisputable visual evidence" unlike the NRL where close decisions are decided by the "benefit of the doubt". By definition the NRL system leaves close decisions open to dispute, controversy and bad publicity for the video replay system.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

NFL - not even close to the amount in the NRL

These sports seem to get by ok.

I reckon 85-90% of tries Ive seen this year have gone to the VR - its outgrown its original purpose ten fold.

Absolutely. And I'd suggest in the vast majority of those cases the on field officials could have made the correct decision had they not had the opportunity to second guess themselves or wimp out on making the call. Leave them to call the game as they see it and let the teams themselves challenge a limited number of decisions - those that they are confident enough of getting overturned to risk an interchange and those that they see as the most detrimental to their chances of winning the game. Put the responsibility for catching and rectifying refereeing mistakes back in the hands of those who would spend the most time come the Monday morning papers whinging about them - the players and coaches.

Leigh.

 

[Quidgybo]

3 Challenges per game per coach.

In the NFL the referrees make the call (either for touchdowns, fumbles or receptions) and then the coach can challenge that ruling. I guess it could only really be used here on try scoring plays and only in the play preceding the challenge (as it is now)

I just get sick of ref's being gutless and going to the VR on the most obvious tries, like Ink says it just ruins the moment.

And is unnecessary. Take the option away from the ref and let him do the job that in almost every case he is able to do unaided. And if a team thinks he's got one wrong then let them challenge it if they dare risk an interchange and one of only three challenges to do so. But I don't agree with limiting it to try scoring plays, that's how we got into this mess of inconsistency to start with. An obvious knockon can be picked up on video review if a try is scored immediately after it but not if just a single tackle is made before that try. It's stupid because we all know that the most critical match turning decisions can occur without being anywhere near a try being scored. A disputable dropped ball while fighting to run the ball out from deep on your own half can be death for your chances of staying in the match. We can't review that yet we waste time looking at endless onside and grounding that the on field ref could call correctly in his sleep.

Far from reducing the scope of the video, it should be opened up to nearly the entire game. The cap on the amount of time wasted by video review shouldn't be achieved by restricting when it can be called but by limiting how many times it can be called. Give each team a maximum of three challenges per match and let them use them to challenge whatever decisions they see as most important to them, whether it involves a try or not. The most we'd ever see is six referrals to the video ref per game - or an average of one review every 13 or 14 mins of play. We already see plenty of games now that have six or even more replays. But I'd argue that we'd frequently see less than six challenges used in a match. After all, as a coach or captain the last thing you'd want is to be going into the last five minutes of a tight game without a Challenge up your sleeve if you need it. So in most games I think we'd see no more than four challenges used. And just because you have the Challenges left to use doesn't mean an opportunity will arise to use them. For the record there are plenty of matches in the NFL that see no challenges used at all.

Leigh.

 

[Simo]

In my opinion in the act of scoring the try only (held up, groundings, foot out etc) If there were mistakes in the lead up to the try that the ref missed then so be it, encourage and train better refs.

This rubbish about stopping scrums and chiling out whilst the ref watches to see if it were stripped is crap and ruins the flow of the game.

I dont think stunting the game to get every single itsy bitsy decision maybe right is the way to go.

Its time touch judges started to work again and refs made a call.

 

[urban eel]

this is my 1st real opinion piece on these forums (my first 2cents worth)
so here it goes
I don't know why they don't trial a round without any VR early in the season, when it doesn't have much influence on final standings
then on the Tuesday after the rounds has finished get the refs and Video refs together and review each game
they can watch it as many times as they like without holding up play discuss what and why they made any particular call etc
I reckon you would find that the refs would get it right 90% of the time(its not like going to the VR ensures you get 100% right calls anyway they get it wrong plenty of times too)
it then would gives the refs more confidence in their own ability and relate to better games with less stoppages etc

I also think that they should have 2 more touchies(the 2 outthere arent useless enough)
when following play up field they would stop at 1/2 way and let the other set take over then they go down towards the in-goal and the other set of touchies would look after the sidelines etc and the others would ready down the other end for any action

 

[mepelthwack]

At risk of being shouted down by the vocal minority I'm going to say I love the video ref and the direction it is heading.

I would even go further and say they should make calls on obvious forward passes as well.

I have absolutely no dramas at all with them examining possible strips and think the time spent to check is very, very minimal.

Not happy they missed one on Saturday night anyway but things would be worse without using the technology at all, IMO.

 

[ride the tiger]

No. The video ref's purpose is to get everything right. His only KPI should be getting 100% correct 100% of the time. That's why he is there. If he is unable to hit that mark then get rid of him. If he's not gettings things right more often than the men in the middle would be, then where is his relevance?
.

If you think that things become instantly black & white just b/c he has a replay to watch then you have been deluded. I shouldn't have to explain this any further as it is a very simple concept to understand. Things happen in this world that you can't tell what really happened or appear different then what actually happened.

This is where things have gone wrong with the VR. Your ignorantly expecting perfection, something that just doesn't occur in any area of life.

The reason why it was brought in was b/c there were blatantly obvious errors being made by the refs.

And that's all it should be used for.

Replaying the video 100 times to get this perfection your after is just painful & impossible.

And sitting & watching blatant errors (that you are happy to see) is just as bad.

Plus harrigan is usually correct - it's not the VR that's getting it wrong it's the way the rules are written.

& then people talk about the VR using common sense like when those players that were offside & within 10 meters. How about the players use some common sense. if your offside don't f%$ken run!

As far as when & where to use it replays should only be for try's.

there should also be an nrl official who has access to all the things the tv director has. ie be watching all camera angles at once on multiple screens & then sending the best anlges straight away.

Basicly, just do it quickly for the obvious things otherwise get on with the game.

 

[urban eel]

slightly off the point
but has anyone listened to the game on foxtel "active" and had the audio on REF only
i was surprised by just how much talk goes on between the VR and on-field ref

and does anyone use those sportsears at the game?

 

[phonetic]

If you think that things become instantly black & white just b/c he has a replay to watch then you have been deluded. I shouldn't have to explain this any further as it is a very simple concept to understand. Things happen in this world that you can't tell what really happened or appear different then what actually happened.

This is where things have gone wrong with the VR. Your ignorantly expecting perfection, something that just doesn't occur in any area of life.

I'm sorry, but if you have access to every camera angle in slow motion, you have to get it right.. You have to be at least be consistant from decision to decision, which they are not.

There are always going to be 50/50 calls, and on these you can understand the vid ref going either way. Sometimes you can accept TRY or NO TRY as the correct decision, either one of them. But when there are still glaring mistakes on obvious calls and inconsistancies being made on decisions other than the 50/50 ones, it makes me wonder why the VR is there at all.

 

[Callan Pk]

21 min mark, Raiders lose ball cold in tackle, Bludger rules strip, not looked at be VR, yet replay shows loose carry????????????????????????
In
con
sis
ten
see

 

[~knights~]

and does anyone use those sportsears at the game?

yep I use them at every home game

they are unreal