Video referee

[Kaz]

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

No Gus thinks the video ref should agree with him.

And woe betide him, if he doesn't.

 

[Big Pete]

At least Gus acknowledged he missed Fien's push on Macca (I honestly don't know how he did given it was replayed at least 3 times during the review). Usually he just rambles and raves on until somebody puts on a big hit or he can find some way to name-drop Benji.

Interesting to note that it was Chris Ward in the video referee's box this week and Paul Mellor last week. Might be a case of a former player thinking he knows better?

 

[broncos4life]

At least Gus acknowledged he missed Fien's push on Macca (I honestly don't know how he did given it was replayed at least 3 times during the review). Usually he just rambles and raves on until somebody puts on a big hit or he can find some way to name-drop Benji.

Interesting to note that it was Chris Ward in the video referee's box this week and Paul Mellor last week. Might be a case of a former player thinking he knows better?

When did he acknowledge that? Out of interest

 

[Meat77]

After they finally told him that was the reason for disallowing the try

 

[john1420]

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.

Sorry AP, but I can't buy what you're selling here

2 reasons;

1 - if it's only different when benefit of the doubt would have come in to play, then the only alteration needed to be the removal of the benefit of the doubt guideline/rule. But that is not what has happened. Not only has the BOTD been removed, but also the guideline that the ref must make a call and the video ref checks to make sure the there was nothing terrible missed. He is not there to put his opinion on it, he is there to override an obvious error

2 - it IS about correcting howlers; anderson said that


http://www.news.com.au/sport/nrl/nr...s-to-end-howlers/story-fndujljl-1226516950092

Anderson's appointment as elite performance manager is also a strong one, and one of his first moves will be to ensure the series of "howlers and clangers" that besmirched this season never happen again. Atop that list are the obstruction rule and some of the mystifying decisions from the video referee's box, with Anderson suggesting the benefit of the doubt rule that favours attacking teams could be scrapped. "The howlers, the clangers, came from the video refs and the adjudication of tries," he said. "Maybe that was a result of the policy. It skewed so far that people who watched the game, commonsense-wise, would say, 'I don't know how they got to that decision'. Maybe that wasn't a result of the person, but the rules."

 

[Anonymous person]

Sorry AP, but I can't buy what you're selling here

2 reasons;

1 - if it's only different when benefit of the doubt would have come in to play, then the only alteration needed to be the removal of the benefit of the doubt guideline/rule. But that is not what has happened. Not only has the BOTD been removed, but also the guideline that the ref must make a call and the video ref checks to make sure the there was nothing terrible missed. He is not there to put his opinion on it, he is there to override an obvious error

im not sure how much easier i can word it than what i already posted:

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.

The referee has to make a decision, but that decision can be 100% wrong, and the video referee can correct it. the only difference is that if it wouldve been benefit of the doubt before, now its not, it just goes back to the refs original decision. if the video referees opinion is that the referee got it wrong he very much will overrule the referee. an "obvious error" isnt just the referee missing a clear knock-on - its ANYTHING that would prevent a try being given, as long as the video referee is sure of it.

like i said:

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"

Nothing really changed because benefit of the doubt didnt come into it. we got the same result that we would have last year.

 

[Coxy]

Yeah, floggin' a dead horse here John. In the end the video referees were convinced there was no doubt he was short, and ruled accordingly. Whether you agree with that or not is entirely up to you, but that's why it was ruled that way.

 

[john1420]

OK then, so just to be clear I am not obsessing over whether or not the Broncos should have been awarded that try on that night

The result was not effected so I am happy to let it go

What I'm banging on about is the bigger picture of the process and the supposed change

If the video ref can over-rule the on field ref when he chooses to do so, it hasn't changed from last year

The BOTD ruling has gone, sure, I get that bit is different

But last year the field ref said "I don't know, what do you think?"

Now he has been told to make a decision first, and then ask the video ref to check

That is a difference and must be for a reason

The video refs mindset was "Let me see if this a try" but now it is supposed to be "Let me see if there is anything that I can see that the ref did not"

And I know you guys will say "Yeah, the video ref saw that McC was short" but the field ref was right there - no way the video ref can think he has a better view of it to make a better call

The BOTD ruling going is great, very happy, but this rule that the ref makes a call and the video checks it I just don't see being any different to 2012 in practice

 

[Anonymous person]

And I know you guys will say "Yeah, the video ref saw that McC was short" but the field ref was right there - no way the video ref can think he has a better view of it to make a better call

The BOTD ruling going is great, very happy, but this rule that the ref makes a call and the video checks it I just don't see being any different to 2012 in practice

thats what im saying - the ONLY difference between 2012 and 2013 is, in reality, the removal of benefit of the doubt. unless benefit of the doubt would have come into it, what the referee initially states as his decision doesnt really matter. he may as well just say "i dont know, you figure it out" because if he says try and hes wrong the video ref will change it. if he says no try and hes wrong the video ref will change it. the only time it makes a difference is when the video ref would have used benefit of the doubt.

2012:
- referee: "dont know, check it out"
- video referee: "hmm cant be 100% sure, benefit of the doubt"
- referee: "try"

2013:
- referee: "no try, check it out"
- video referee: "hmm cant be 100% sure, so use referees original ruling. no try"
- referee: "no try"

thats the difference between 2012 and 2013. the only difference really.

And I know you guys will say "Yeah, the video ref saw that McC was short" but the field ref was right there - no way the video ref can think he has a better view of it to make a better call

in most cases the video referee DOES have a better view of it, what with there being a bazillion cameras all watching the action. if a referee is obscured from the view then he cant know what happened for sure. 1 look from a different angle for the video referee can give him a 100000% better view.

 

[Porthoz]

in most cases the video referee DOES have a better view of it, what with there being a bazillion cameras all watching the action. if a referee is obscured from the view then he cant know what happened for sure. 1 look from a different angle for the video referee can give him a 100000% better view.

I'm not trying to revive the whole thing again, but that is exactly the point in the Manly game. The field ref had clearly a better view than the video ref, yet he chose to overrule him with nothing more than a worse view angle than the referee!

 

[Anonymous person]

I'm not trying to revive the whole thing again, but that is exactly the point in the Manly game. The field ref had clearly a better view than the video ref, yet he chose to overrule him with nothing more than a worse view angle than the referee!

he didnt *really* have a better angle though - he got 1 look at it in in full speed in the heat of the moment. video referee gets 10+ looks in super slow-mo in HD.

 

[Coxy]

Still, I think the spirit of the changes was meant to be that the video referee would only overrule when it was clearly obvious that the on field referee was wrong. I think that was touch and go, and the fact a similar case went the other way shows that.

But again, it comes down to the video referee. He was convinced, so fair enough.

It wasn't intended or expected to eradicate inconsistency. It was intended to eradicate the lottery of benefit of the doubt.

 

[Porthoz]

Still, I think the spirit of the changes was meant to be that the video referee would only overrule when it was clearly obvious that the on field referee was wrong. I think that was touch and go, and the fact a similar case went the other way shows that.

But again, it comes down to the video referee. He was convinced, so fair enough.

It wasn't intended or expected to eradicate inconsistency. It was intended to eradicate the lottery of benefit of the doubt.

I disagree, I think it was very much intended to eradicate inconcistency as well as the ridicule of some decisions made from the video box.

The comp is still young though, so hopefully this kind of stuff will be ironed out as the season progresses...

 

[Anonymous person]

nah it was pretty much just to get rid of benefit of the doubt. getting rid of that should help fix inconsistency problems, because each video referee has different opinions on what constitutes doubt. now that theres no benefit of the doubt, that problem is more fixed than it was last year.

 

[Porthoz]

Oh yeah, there is no doubt (pun intended) it's an improvement, but there is still inconsistency as Coxy pointed out, honestly, without BOTD there shouldn't be.

Regardless of what everyone's opinion is on the Macca try, the simple fact is that the polarized discussion about it shows it wasn't a clear cut case, and the video ref should have deferred to the field ref, as happened in the other game. Now that would've been consistent!

 

[Anonymous person]

Regardless of what everyone's opinion is on the Macca try, the simple fact is that the polarized discussion about it shows it wasn't a clear cut case, and the video ref should have deferred to the field ref, as happened in the other game. Now that would've been consistent!

but to the video referee it was clear cut. to me it was clear cut. to many people it was clear cut. he pulled up short. thats why he ruled that way.

just because theres polarizing discussion doesnt mean it wasnt clear cut. it can often just mean a big group of people are clearly wrong, as is often the case with rugby league try/no try decisions.

 

[Porthoz]

but to the video referee it was clear cut. to me it was clear cut. to many people it was clear cut. he pulled up short. thats why he ruled that way.

just because theres polarizing discussion doesnt mean it wasnt clear cut. it can often just mean a big group of people are clearly wrong, as is often the case with rugby league try/no try decisions.

Sorry, no offense meant, but I did have to laugh at that bold part. Albeit exagerated, it reminded me of the soldier marching out of synch at the parade, and then excusing himself by saying it was all the others who were out of synch.

A clear cut case is when all but a few people have the same view/opinion, and that simply does not apply here!

Anyway, this discussion has been done, and we are both clear about our point of view, let's move on...

 

[Anonymous person]

A clear cut case is when all but a few people have the same view/opinion, and that simply does not apply here!

this is hardly an impartial crowd though.

i havent really read/heard too many people outside of BHQ say it was the wrong call.