Is it time to redefine the role of the video referee?

[stevethegas]

Watching the challenge cup games at the weekend I was struck by how often decisions were passed up to some faceless (though named) referee. If the game wasn't televised then the referee would (assisted by in-goal judges) have to make decisions on the park. I can see little evidence that decisions made without video replay are any less fair or accurate than when we do have cameras at the ground. And the delays waiting while 16 cameras' shots are viewed are a pain.
So the question is, should we manage without the video ref? Or should we redefine the role that they can take?

The money that has come from television has revitalised our great game. But we also discover that the camera does see what referees and touch judges may miss. I do not think we can accept the money and then whinge when TV shows that we make mistakes.

Perhaps we should try a different approach. Two things are worthy of consideration.
First, define much more specifically what a video decision can address. For example:- "Was this a 40/20?"; "Was the player offside?"; "Did the player go into touch?" etc. What we should accept is that some decision can't be made on camera. It's a given that you can't decide on a forward pass, and in my opinion neither can you decide on obstruction. On the other hand I think we should be able to look at off-the-ball foul play.
Secondly, change the request from the on field referee to the captains of either side. We could allow both captains two (unsuccesful) appeals only per game. If their appeal was succesful then, like in tennis, it goes uncounted.
The captains would only risk asking if they perceived a genuine issue and not some whim.

Experimenting with the video ref. has been interesting, but I'm not sure the way we use it now is always for the best. Time for a rethink?

[Kittwazzer]

Interesting points there Steve. All worthy of discussion.

I have said all along that we have a two-tier game at present ie. one which has a video ref and one which doesn't.

Bearing in mind the closeness of many games in the current season, the absence or presence of a video referee could well have had a huge impact on end of season placings!

[MrDave]

The extra use of the video referee is causing a lot of inconsistency.

In Huddersfield v Saints game the video referee overruled the touch judge to award Saints a scrum because on a replay it showed that Hodgeson had touched it, correct decision fair enough. The thing is in the Wigan v Wire game when the Wire player was knock-out it clearly showed on the replay that the Wire player had dropped the ball, so why didn't the video referee tell Ganson he had got the decision wrong.

It brings up the question of when and how often should video technology used. Personally I think video referee should be or 'try' situations and then serious off the ball incidents only (for example kicker taken out when referee and lines-men weren't watching).

As for the 'challenge' system like in tennis I think its a good idea if you believe everyone will use it fairly but I think teams might just use it as an opportunity to slow the game down.

[Kiwiseddon]

It's a good point Gasman, my only concern being that if the technology is there to determine the correct decision over a passage of play, then it should be used. Unfortunately that means that almost every decision that the ref isn't 100% over is going upstairs and possibly it should.
Remember Gansongate. That wasn't a try. He was at least 4 miles offside yet it was awarded. The video ref is valuable but firstly it should be at all games and secondly if the refs are constantly checking technicalities, are they that good at their job?
Common sense injection (no pun intended) I think. :sly:

[robjoenz]

...so why didn't the video referee tell Ganson he had got the decision wrong.

The video referee can only give input when the field referee asks him for it. Ganson didn't ask him whether there was a knock-on.

It brings up the question of when and how often should video technology used. Personally I think video referee should be or 'try' situations and then serious off the ball incidents only (for example kicker taken out when referee and lines-men weren't watching).

When the field referee asks for assistance, but not for forward passes or where the ball enters touch.

...The video ref is valuable but firstly it should be at all games and secondly if the refs are constantly checking technicalities, are they that good at their job?

The last time clubs voted they voted against funding VRs at all games.

On the latter point, how many times do you sometimes need to watch an incident to make a decision. For example, it can be extremely difficult to judge between an obstruction and a poor defensive read in real time.

The way I see it though is that when the VR is there it can benefit you or go against you and when there is no video referee you may benefit from that or you may not. Look at tries in the corner, sometimes the player hits the corner flag first, sometimes they get the ball down first, sometimes they hit the touchline a fraction of a second before they hit the corner flag (difference between a scrum and 20 m restart)... the VR will get this right more often than a TJ due to the benefit of replays. This can benefit either side.

[cpwigan]

Tony Smith currently advocates ending the use of the VR and relying on ingoal touch judges. Phil Gould advocates using thwe VR to check solely the grounding of tries.

I do think a VR at every SL game which is what several coaches want is totally unrealistic on financial grounds. SKY / BBC sometimes struggle to provide definitive camera shots so imagine something done on the cheap.

Personally if you have VR I would prefer a maximum time to be permitted as the delay/time wasted is a negative on the game. I do not think a VR as any referee can be 100% correct. You often see the referee use a challenge system ad hoc by asking the VR to look at something that the captain of a team has highlighted in a try.

Saints v Hudds VR decisions. I certainly missed the Hodgson hand until the replay showed it. The Huddersfield trythat hit a Saints player on the head I thought could have been a benefit of the doubt try as personally it looked as if the ball touched the fingers of the Hudds player onto the head of the Saints player. Although the Hudds player may have touched it backwards. Simply shows how difficult the job is and nothing is perfect.

I thought the pass for Sam's try was forward by like a good fan I accepted it as a gift.

[stevethegas]

The comments above all point to the reason that I raised the topic in the first place, namely that the video referee simply hasn't solved all the problems that it set out to do. We still have inconsistencies, and two people from different viewpoints can watch the same incident and come to differing conclusions.
The really hard part is defining what constitutes obstruction for example, and whether a ball actually touched the ground. Technology simply does not give us reliable and respected answers.

I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle, but I do think the whole game needs to accept the very significant problems that come with attempting to solve dynamic plays with slow motion technology.

The greatest game of all needs fast open play. If we keep on slowing it down then we risk the stop start of American football, or (dare we say it) RU! Please let's keep our great game flowing, and persuade the referee to actually make decisions. Only check them if there's real concern by a defending captain.

[robjoenz]

...Only check them if there's real concern by a defending captain.

Currently they're only checked if there is genuine concern from the field referee. The referee's responsibility it spot infringements whereas players are concerned with preventing a try.

If a team had a quota on the number of times they could goto the VR they may miss some that the field referee may have checked or they may run out of checks and there may be a tight decision. You could bring in more inconsistency.

I think you either have to stick with them or get rid altogether.

[OAMJSONA]

Watching the challenge cup games at the weekend I was struck by how often decisions were passed up to some faceless (though named) referee. If the game wasn't televised then the referee would (assisted by in-goal judges) have to make decisions on the park. I can see little evidence that decisions made without video replay are any less fair or accurate than when we do have cameras at the ground. And the delays waiting while 16 cameras' shots are viewed are a pain.
So the question is, should we manage without the video ref? Or should we redefine the role that they can take?

The money that has come from television has revitalised our great game. But we also discover that the camera does see what referees and touch judges may miss. I do not think we can accept the money and then whinge when TV shows that we make mistakes.

Perhaps we should try a different approach. Two things are worthy of consideration.
First, define much more specifically what a video decision can address. For example:- "Was this a 40/20?"; "Was the player offside?"; "Did the player go into touch?" etc. What we should accept is that some decision can't be made on camera. It's a given that you can't decide on a forward pass, and in my opinion neither can you decide on obstruction. On the other hand I think we should be able to look at off-the-ball foul play.
Secondly, change the request from the on field referee to the captains of either side. We could allow both captains two (unsuccesful) appeals only per game. If their appeal was succesful then, like in tennis, it goes uncounted.
The captains would only risk asking if they perceived a genuine issue and not some whim.

Experimenting with the video ref. has been interesting, but I'm not sure the way we use it now is always for the best. Time for a rethink?

i think it should be stopped and go back to making there own decisions beacause they cannot make a decision for themselves these days

get rid and make them do the job they went full time to do

[cpwigan]

I think the crux is do you want to waste so much time trying to get perfect decisions which even with the VR you never get. Should we accepte that officials on the pitch, in a van are human and will make the odd mistake but keep the game flowing? Unless you change the rules around the VR then referees if they get it wrong but do not use the VR will get criticised for not using the VR. In the NRL referees do that more but if they get it wrong they get blamed.

Something that some commentators in Aus argue is that if you make a break knowing the official has snot spotten an error do not score the try because the VR will spot it. Far better to run up field, gat tackled before the try line and get a try in the subsequent set.