FORUMS > The Virtual Terrace > Time to ban the refs try or no try onfield decision |
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Board Member | 28357 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Feb 2002 | 22 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2024 | Oct 2019 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
973_1515165968.gif Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total:d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_973.gif |
|
| I think the system is fine as it is. Sadly we don't have enough people good enough to be a VR, which it turns out is a completely different qualification than being an on-field ref.
For example, the other week, Silverwood failing to see what everyone else in the land could see, that a ball had been nowhere near grounded. I reckon because he was in a mindset of looking at other things, and forgot to look for the obvious.
As a result, we have had far too many VR decisions that were plainly wrong, on any reasonable view, and that just shouldn't happen.
The system was brought in partly precisely because it cannot be good for the sport to have televised games where a crucial and yet plainly bad call costs a team. The idea of using technology to eliminate or reduce such cockups is in principle sound. The problems now mostly arise when a VR who clearly should know better, misses something totally obvious.
I really don't see what is wrong with the primacy of the ref on the field. If no VR, he'd HAVE to make a call, in every case, and so we are being told what the decision would be, if no VR present. Then, the theory at least says, if there is conclusive evidence it's the wrong call, it will be overturned, but not otherwise. To me, (if the VR could be relied on to not do crazy things) that strikes the correct balance.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Club Owner | 8627 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Nov 2003 | 21 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Feb 2020 | Feb 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
users/saintsold.gif Forever in Rented Accomodation:users/saintsold.gif |
|
| why do they not just talk to each other, rahter than trying to make the decision in isolation - in the same way that THlar was trying to guide Alibert in France.
Rather than the split second decision by the on field ref taking primacy, they have a sensible conversation about what to look at, then review it together in real time - with the on field ref watching on the screen.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Star | 15521 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Mar 2010 | 14 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
May 2020 | May 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
50722_1319672516.jpg :d7dc4b20b2c2dd7b76ac6eac29d5604e_50722.jpg |
|
| Let Barrie McDermott decide - he likes to award the try based on effort and desire; seems reasonable.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2833 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2009 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2022 | Apr 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| The problem inherently wrong with the system is that it doesn't take account of multiple factors.
For example, in a game recently a referee gave a "no try" decision based on a player putting his foot on the touchline before grounding the ball. The video reply clearly showed this was not the case, however there was some doubt that the ball wasn't grounded properly. The video referee (rightly according to the guidelines) stuck with the "no try" decision based on this, but this was not the reason the on-field referee gave the initial "no try" decision (indeed, as he didn't ask to check the grounding it is reasonable to assume the referee would have given a try).
Also take the Solomona "no try" in the Cas v Wigan game. The referee gave a "no try" decision based on a double-movement. Even though there was no double-movement, the VR stuck with "no try" as there wasn't a clear shot of the ball touching the line. However, this wasn't what the on-field referee asked the VR to look for, so again it can be assumed he was happy that the ball touched the line and if he hadn't suspected a double-movement, the try would have been given.
|
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
Player Coach | 2833 | No Team Selected |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Apr 2009 | 15 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Apr 2022 | Apr 2022 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
: |
|
| The other issue, of course, it the quality of the VRs. Whilst ever we have blatant errors (tracking the wrong player, not looking at the correct incident etc) then the principle is flawed.
I'd remove it completely. However, the key would be to also remove the big screen from the ground so that referees don't get immediately berated if they make a questionable decision.
For me, the VR has sanitized the sport and taken away a key element of the game. When my team score and the VR is in operation, it's hard to celebrate a try at the point of scoring as I know it's likely to be two or three minutes before the decision is made. Likewise, when the opposition scores, I'm hoping the VR can get us off by finding a technicality and disallowing the try.
I much prefer the decision to be made immediately by the officials on the field and I can accept they might make genuine mistakes. But it's embarrassing when the bloke with all the camera angles available does the same.
|
|
|
|
Rank | Posts | Team |
International Chairman | 9721 | |
Joined | Service | Reputation |
Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
Online | Last Post | Last Page |
Aug 2020 | Apr 2020 | LINK |
Milestone Posts |
|
Milestone Years |
|
Location |
|
Signature |
icons077e_files/5885-54zedonite-msnicons.jpg regards
and ENJOY your sport
Leaguefan
"The Public wants what the Public gets" - Paul Weller:icons077e_files/5885-54zedonite-msnicons.jpg |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|