Video referee

[subsbligh]

What about the effect of Watmough being offiside and preventing McCullough from scoring? Penalty try?

 

[Anonymous person]

Both referrees failed to follow procedure.

The on-field ref should have called no-try, check for grounding.

If he calls try, its like "video ref, I see this as a try unless you've got something beyond doubt that says its not"

But that's what happened?

He said "I see this as a try, can you make sure he got it down", and the video referee said "no he didn't get it down, no try".

 

[Porthoz]

There is enough doubt not to reverse the decision:

Another thing which I don't recall, is whether this happened:

7. If a ‘Live Decision’ has been overturned and after it has appeared on the screen, the head referee will communicate briefly the reasoning for the overturning.

 

[Anonymous person]

There is enough doubt not to reverse the decision:

How do you guys not understand that every person has a different opinion on it? The video referee, like myself and the other 3 guys I was watching the game with, all thought there was no doubt that he came up short. It all comes down to what the man in the box thinks. He thought there was no doubt.

 

[Porthoz]

I doubt anyone had a better view than the guy in pink, and he gave it a try!

 

[john1420]

the mere fact that there is debate over whether or not it is a try is the proof in itself that the evidence is not conclusive

you can't possibly suggest that 2 people have differing opinions on something yet they both have conclusive proof they they are right

the very fact that they don't agree proves that they don't have conclusive proof

the on-field ref said "TRY"

the video ref has to prove it wasn't

if he was able to do that, there wouldn't be a debate

 

[Coxy]

the mere fact that there is debate over whether or not it is a try is the proof in itself that the evidence is not conclusive

you can't possibly suggest that 2 people have differing opinions on something yet they both have conclusive proof they they are right

the very fact that they don't agree proves that they don't have conclusive proof

the on-field ref said "TRY"

the video ref has to prove it wasn't

if he was able to do that, there wouldn't be a debate

Yes, BUT, only 1 person needs to be convinced, and he was.

 

[Anonymous person]

the video ref has to prove it wasn't

if he was able to do that, there wouldn't be a debate

he proved it to me, and more importantly he proved it to himself, and thats all that matters.

 

[Dexter]

The test is sufficient not conclusive john1420. I came in late during the game and missed the no try, watched it last night in normal motion on a big screen and I have to say I thought it was obviously short.

 

[john1420]

well it clearly hasn't stopped the contentious calls has it

 

[john1420]

Yes, BUT, only 1 person needs to be convinced, and he was.

Sorry Coxy, but I think that's crap if it's true

If the only person who needs to be convinced is himself, then it's not actually any different to last year

The video ref makes his own decision

Thats no different to 2012

It's supposed to be different this year - the ref makes a call and the video ref only changes it if its totally clear the ref was wrong

EG, the point of the video ref is to overrule an absolute howler

Anything where there is interpretation and debate, etc. stays as the ref called it

I am convinced that the video ref in this case thought it was 2012, where the call would have been right, and he just forgot the new interpretation

 

[john1420]

he proved it to me, and more importantly he proved it to himself, and thats all that matters.

That's the whole problem AP, as I understand the 2013 changes, he does not have to convince himself, otherwise he is just making the decision he thinks is right - which is the same as last year and no change

But we have been told there has been a change, therefore, it's not about the video working out what he thinks

It's about overturning a howler

And when the call was 50/50 as the discussion here shows, it can't be a howler

Put it this way, if that try gets allowed, some would say good call, others would cry foul. As a no try, it gets the same response. It's far from a howler, just one of those 50/50 calls that sometimes go your way

That shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that the on field ref's call should have been upheld

 

[Anonymous person]

Sorry Coxy, but I think that's crap if it's true

If the only person who needs to be convinced is himself, then it's not actually any different to last year

The video ref makes his own decision

Thats no different to 2012

It's supposed to be different this year - the ref makes a call and the video ref only changes it if its totally clear the ref was wrong

EG, the point of the video ref is to overrule an absolute howler

Anything where there is interpretation and debate, etc. stays as the ref called it

I am convinced that the video ref in this case thought it was 2012, where the call would have been right, and he just forgot the new interpretation

not at all what the changes were brought in to do.

the changes were brought in to get on field refs to make decisions, and then have the video referee to confirm/reject that decision without using benefit of the doubt.

previously the ref just said "i dont know, you figure it out".
now the ref says "Try, double check the grounding".
the video referee looks at it and unless he is convinced that its no try he rules it a try. theres no benefit of the doubt anymore - if the on field ref says no try, and the video referee would have ruled benefit of the doubt before, he rules no try now.

so take the mccullough example:

2012:
referee: "check grounding"
video referee looks at it a million times, decides he was short.
video referee: "no try, play the ball"

2013:
referee: "try, check grounding"
video referee looks, decides he was short.
video referee: "no try, play the ball"

in this instance, the outcome is exactly the same. its only different when benefit of the doubt wouldve come into it. basically now if the video referee wouldve awarded benefit of the doubt he just goes with the on-field refs decision. he basically says "i cant rule against what you said conclusively, so what you said stands".

its not about correcting "howlers", its about correcting incorrect decisions when there is no doubt in the video referees mind that it was incorrect.

the video referee thought the referees "try" decision to mccullough was wrong so he changed it. i agree with the change.

 

[Big Pete]

Good consistency in the Titans/Raiders game. >_>

 

[Dexter]

Yep, no difference to my eye from last week, I thought Srama was clearly just short but we get denied and that one stands.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, no difference to my eye from last week, I thought Srama was clearly just short but we get denied and that one stands.

All it proves is that it comes down to the individual judgment of the referee of the day.

 

[Browny]

As in every game

 

[Coxy]

As in every game

Exactly.

I think some (Gus mainly) are guilty of assuming video referees are computers, therefore they should make the same decision in every similar situation.