It is currently Sat May 26, 2018 8:53 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions. 
Author Message
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
The Wyn Jones try on Saturday missed an to determine whether the ball was grounded behind the line or not.

The evidence:

- You have one angle where you can see the ball touching the ground.
- The other angles weren't clear. But at least showed where he was relative to the line and at what time.

The missing evidence is whether the ball, which was touched down was behind the line or not.

To resolve, a time should be displayed on each camera to allow simultaneous images of the ball touching the ground on the one angle, then analysis on the other cameras to show whether he was over the line. Surely this is fairly easy.

The same applies to another try this weekend (was it Steff Evans?). Clearly the ball touched the ground, and his foot or knee went into touch. Which one touched first is the question, but the ball being grounded, against the foot going into touch was not analysed simultaneously. It was given, but was possibly less likely to have been a try than the above one which was not given.

Also, there should be super slow mo cameras positioned on the lines, at points. Having a fixed camera that looks along the touch line and then a camera that looks directly across the pitch would have certainly resolved both of the above issues.

Either they do this properly or do away with the video ref all together, too many decisions aren't correct. I hope that posting this after we won shows that I am not being bitter about it.


Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:42 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2515
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Cymru am byth wrote:
The Wyn Jones try on Saturday missed an to determine whether the ball was grounded behind the line or not.

The evidence:

- You have one angle where you can see the ball touching the ground.
- The other angles weren't clear. But at least showed where he was relative to the line and at what time.

The missing evidence is whether the ball, which was touched down was behind the line or not.

To resolve, a time should be displayed on each camera to allow simultaneous images of the ball touching the ground on the one angle, then analysis on the other cameras to show whether he was over the line. Surely this is fairly easy.

The same applies to another try this weekend (was it Steff Evans?). Clearly the ball touched the ground, and his foot or knee went into touch. Which one touched first is the question, but the ball being grounded, against the foot going into touch was not analysed simultaneously. It was given, but was possibly less likely to have been a try than the above one which was not given.

Also, there should be super slow mo cameras positioned on the lines, at points. Having a fixed camera that looks along the touch line and then a camera that looks directly across the pitch would have certainly resolved both of the above issues.

Either they do this properly or do away with the video ref all together, too many decisions aren't correct. I hope that posting this after we won shows that I am not being bitter about it.


We spend enough time on TMO decision as it is, I don't want everything micro-analysed. Look at Daly's try against Aus to see how that sort of situation kills the entertainment. It should be simple, if asked yes or no then the evidence must be clear. If you need to spend ages looking over it then it isn't conclusive and shouldn't be given. On the flip side if asked any reason not to award it then any reason not to should also be clear.

If we had stricter TMO then the final Welsh try would have been disallowed so it's not like it made much difference in the grand scheme of things.

_________________
Image


Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:10 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Troron wrote:
Cymru am byth wrote:
The Wyn Jones try on Saturday missed an to determine whether the ball was grounded behind the line or not.

The evidence:

- You have one angle where you can see the ball touching the ground.
- The other angles weren't clear. But at least showed where he was relative to the line and at what time.

The missing evidence is whether the ball, which was touched down was behind the line or not.

To resolve, a time should be displayed on each camera to allow simultaneous images of the ball touching the ground on the one angle, then analysis on the other cameras to show whether he was over the line. Surely this is fairly easy.

The same applies to another try this weekend (was it Steff Evans?). Clearly the ball touched the ground, and his foot or knee went into touch. Which one touched first is the question, but the ball being grounded, against the foot going into touch was not analysed simultaneously. It was given, but was possibly less likely to have been a try than the above one which was not given.

Also, there should be super slow mo cameras positioned on the lines, at points. Having a fixed camera that looks along the touch line and then a camera that looks directly across the pitch would have certainly resolved both of the above issues.

Either they do this properly or do away with the video ref all together, too many decisions aren't correct. I hope that posting this after we won shows that I am not being bitter about it.


We spend enough time on TMO decision as it is, I don't want everything micro-analysed. Look at Daly's try against Aus to see how that sort of situation kills the entertainment. It should be simple, if asked yes or no then the evidence must be clear. If you need to spend ages looking over it then it isn't conclusive and shouldn't be given. On the flip side if asked any reason not to award it then any reason not to should also be clear.

If we had stricter TMO then the final Welsh try would have been disallowed so it's not like it made much difference in the grand scheme of things.


I agree we spend too much time on it. But if they are being asked, it is worth getting it right. The reason so much time is spent doing it is because the angles are often poor, the considerations I mention aren't an option and the questions the refs ask aren't good.

Either we do away with it or have a decent means of looking at it. There are so many dodgy decisions from the video refs that it asks whether it is worth it.

I agree that the Steff Evans try might have been disallowed, but the Wyn Jones one might have been given. However, these two made no difference to the result in this match. Which is kind of why I feel I can ask this question in a neutral way.


Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:17 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:00 am
Posts: 2515
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Cymru am byth wrote:
I agree we spend too much time on it. But if they are being asked, it is worth getting it right. The reason so much time is spent doing it is because the angles are often poor, the considerations I mention aren't an option and the questions the refs ask aren't good.

Either we do away with it or have a decent means of looking at it. There are so many dodgy decisions from the video refs that it asks whether it is worth it.

I agree that the Steff Evans try might have been disallowed, but the Wyn Jones one might have been given. However, these two made no difference to the result in this match. Which is kind of why I feel I can ask this question in a neutral way.


I agree with giving it a decent view but there needs to be a limit. I say the TMO has x amount of time to make a decision (1 minute from the question being confirmed??) and if he can't find anything clear enough in that time then it should be assumed that it isn't clear and end it. It may end up in some wrong decisions but that's the nature of sport, god knows how we ever managed when a ref had to make a decision there and then.

One hypothetical technology that would be helpful is if there is some way to have a sensor in the ball so it can detect when it is grounded. I don't know if such tech exists or if it is rugged enough to survive being in a rugby ball but it would certainly help with questions about whether the ball was grounded.

_________________
Image


Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:03 am
Profile E-mail
International Player

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2011 7:54 pm
Posts: 919
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Cymru am byth wrote:
The Wyn Jones try on Saturday missed an to determine whether the ball was grounded behind the line or not.

The evidence:

- You have one angle where you can see the ball touching the ground.
- The other angles weren't clear. But at least showed where he was relative to the line and at what time.

The missing evidence is whether the ball, which was touched down was behind the line or not.

To resolve, a time should be displayed on each camera to allow simultaneous images of the ball touching the ground on the one angle, then analysis on the other cameras to show whether he was over the line. Surely this is fairly easy.

The same applies to another try this weekend (was it Steff Evans?). Clearly the ball touched the ground, and his foot or knee went into touch. Which one touched first is the question, but the ball being grounded, against the foot going into touch was not analysed simultaneously. It was given, but was possibly less likely to have been a try than the above one which was not given.

Also, there should be super slow mo cameras positioned on the lines, at points. Having a fixed camera that looks along the touch line and then a camera that looks directly across the pitch would have certainly resolved both of the above issues.

Either they do this properly or do away with the video ref all together, too many decisions aren't correct. I hope that posting this after we won shows that I am not being bitter about it.


You are very much correct. It is something that computers achieve daily in all aspects of life with far more parameters involved and far faster than we can think of it.

A composite based upon discovery of an indication of a grounding would instantly link with an appropriate algorithm to all the associated photographic angles and allow us to more clearly anticipate when and where the ball in grounded in respect of the line.

Taking out the human uncertainty, we could of course always chip the ball which would then like the GPS systems attached to each player give a complete read out of position, orientation, pressure and if necessary the nature of it and even the particulars of the deformation of the ball.

But the purists will cry foul and blubber on about spoiling the game (or should we say errors and gamesmanship) :)


Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:00 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Troron wrote:
Cymru am byth wrote:
I agree we spend too much time on it. But if they are being asked, it is worth getting it right. The reason so much time is spent doing it is because the angles are often poor, the considerations I mention aren't an option and the questions the refs ask aren't good.

Either we do away with it or have a decent means of looking at it. There are so many dodgy decisions from the video refs that it asks whether it is worth it.

I agree that the Steff Evans try might have been disallowed, but the Wyn Jones one might have been given. However, these two made no difference to the result in this match. Which is kind of why I feel I can ask this question in a neutral way.


I agree with giving it a decent view but there needs to be a limit. I say the TMO has x amount of time to make a decision (1 minute from the question being confirmed??) and if he can't find anything clear enough in that time then it should be assumed that it isn't clear and end it. It may end up in some wrong decisions but that's the nature of sport, god knows how we ever managed when a ref had to make a decision there and then.

One hypothetical technology that would be helpful is if there is some way to have a sensor in the ball so it can detect when it is grounded. I don't know if such tech exists or if it is rugged enough to survive being in a rugby ball but it would certainly help with questions about whether the ball was grounded.


I completely agree there needs to be a time limit. A lot of the problems with the video ref at the moment result from bad camera angles and a lacl of simultaneous viewing. I am proposing to make it easier and quicker.


Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:43 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player

Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 2:08 pm
Posts: 3555
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Video refs have generally been a success I feel

This “intellectualisation” of which question is asked, leading to different levels of evidence regarding whether a try is given, is a complication we could do without

Unfortunately despite common sense suggesting wyn Jones try was a try, as the referees weren’t in position, we then had to rely on technology... and since there was no proof of grounding then he couldn’t give it

The main issue was where was the ref... or the assistant ref. Video ref should be a last resort


Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:33 am
Profile E-mail
Online
Regional Player

Joined: Sun Jul 09, 2017 4:16 pm
Posts: 348
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
The system is a bit of a farce. It is plain stupid to watch kickers rushing to take a conversion before a decision is reviewed, that is in itself an admission that the scoring side doubt the legality of their score. Reviews should be allowed right up until the game is restarted.


Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:58 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
AverageBBCjournalist wrote:
Video refs have generally been a success I feel

This “intellectualisation” of which question is asked, leading to different levels of evidence regarding whether a try is given, is a complication we could do without

Unfortunately despite common sense suggesting wyn Jones try was a try, as the referees weren’t in position, we then had to rely on technology... and since there was no proof of grounding then he couldn’t give it

The main issue was where was the ref... or the assistant ref. Video ref should be a last resort


I agree.

I'm not aiming to go into too much detail about specific decisions, other than to state that in one game, the video ref made (I believe) two incorrect decisions. Giving a try which wasn't and denying one that was. This isn't unusual. Introducing a better means of analysing it will reduce the number of mistakes.


Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:16 pm
Profile E-mail
thread ruining clique
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:26 pm
Posts: 19717
Location: Dinbych
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Troron wrote:
Cymru am byth wrote:
I agree we spend too much time on it. But if they are being asked, it is worth getting it right. The reason so much time is spent doing it is because the angles are often poor, the considerations I mention aren't an option and the questions the refs ask aren't good.

Either we do away with it or have a decent means of looking at it. There are so many dodgy decisions from the video refs that it asks whether it is worth it.

I agree that the Steff Evans try might have been disallowed, but the Wyn Jones one might have been given. However, these two made no difference to the result in this match. Which is kind of why I feel I can ask this question in a neutral way.


I agree with giving it a decent view but there needs to be a limit. I say the TMO has x amount of time to make a decision (1 minute from the question being confirmed??) and if he can't find anything clear enough in that time then it should be assumed that it isn't clear and end it. It may end up in some wrong decisions but that's the nature of sport, god knows how we ever managed when a ref had to make a decision there and then.

One hypothetical technology that would be helpful is if there is some way to have a sensor in the ball so it can detect when it is grounded. I don't know if such tech exists or if it is rugged enough to survive being in a rugby ball but it would certainly help with questions about whether the ball was grounded.

I've often thought the same. All the players have trackers in their shirts these days, so it must be possible. There's also the hawkeye technology, which would clearly show where a ball was under a heap of players, but rugby hasn't adopted it at all.

_________________
Wubba dubba dub dub


Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:52 pm
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 4950
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
There is always the option of allowing the 4th official full power and not show the replays outside his box. They could even allow the kick to be taken on the understanding it only goes with the try, and there is only one attempt.

It may not be any more 'fair' than the system in now, but it would stop a lot of bitching and allow the game to continue.

_________________
.
Live for ever or die trying


Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:26 pm
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:24 pm
Posts: 45415
Location: Llanharan
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
soap wrote:
There is always the option of allowing the 4th official full power and not show the replays outside his box. They could even allow the kick to be taken on the understanding it only goes with the try, and there is only one attempt.

It may not be any more 'fair' than the system in now, but it would stop a lot of bitching and allow the game to continue.


I'd rather have VAR as it is now than strip the Rugby Ref of power.


Fri Feb 09, 2018 6:12 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Bouch wrote:
soap wrote:
There is always the option of allowing the 4th official full power and not show the replays outside his box. They could even allow the kick to be taken on the understanding it only goes with the try, and there is only one attempt.

It may not be any more 'fair' than the system in now, but it would stop a lot of bitching and allow the game to continue.


I'd rather have VAR as it is now than strip the Rugby Ref of power.


I agree.

I am not proposing stripping the ref of power, rather making sure that if it goes to the video ref, they have the best information available to make an accurate decision. At the risk of repeating myself, I think two dodgy decisions were made in one game last week. They balanced out so no problems. But if you are going to the video, get it right.

Players are paid something like £26k a match. There is obviously money to get the technnology there.


Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:35 am
Profile E-mail
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2011 6:24 pm
Posts: 45415
Location: Llanharan
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
Cymru am byth wrote:
Bouch wrote:
soap wrote:
There is always the option of allowing the 4th official full power and not show the replays outside his box. They could even allow the kick to be taken on the understanding it only goes with the try, and there is only one attempt.

It may not be any more 'fair' than the system in now, but it would stop a lot of bitching and allow the game to continue.


I'd rather have VAR as it is now than strip the Rugby Ref of power.


I agree.

I am not proposing stripping the ref of power, rather making sure that if it goes to the video ref, they have the best information available to make an accurate decision. At the risk of repeating myself, I think two dodgy decisions were made in one game last week. They balanced out so no problems. But if you are going to the video, get it right.

Players are paid something like £26k a match. There is obviously money to get the technnology there.


Yep, 100%.


Fri Feb 09, 2018 9:02 am
Profile
World XV Player
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 5:19 pm
Posts: 7729
Post Re: Video Ref, the cameras and the decisions.
The TMO!


Sat Feb 10, 2018 9:11 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 18 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: