Rugby or NFL
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby or NFL:
a slight knock on nobody saw except the guy with 10 super slow-mo cameras is not a dodgy decision though. The game needs to learn to live with this stuff.
They won't though, because no one in sport is mature enough. Losing teams, coaches and fans default to ref bashing.
With refs like Doleman who can’t see infringements at the end of their arms, TMOs are essential
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby or NFL:
@mariner4life said in Rugby or NFL:
a slight knock on nobody saw except the guy with 10 super slow-mo cameras is not a dodgy decision though. The game needs to learn to live with this stuff.
They won't though, because no one in sport is mature enough. Losing teams, coaches and fans default to ref bashing.
With refs like Doleman who can’t see infringements at the end of their arms, TMOs are essential
hard disagree, but we'll never meet on any common ground so I'll leave it alone
what you mean is "can't see infringements against my team at the end of their arms" because no one gives a solitary fuck about their own openside "pushing the line" and anyone who says they do is flat out lying.
At any given time on a rugby field there are probably 3 players infringing. There is a wild inconsistency of what gets looked at.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby or NFL:
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby or NFL:
@mariner4life said in Rugby or NFL:
a slight knock on nobody saw except the guy with 10 super slow-mo cameras is not a dodgy decision though. The game needs to learn to live with this stuff.
They won't though, because no one in sport is mature enough. Losing teams, coaches and fans default to ref bashing.
With refs like Doleman who can’t see infringements at the end of their arms, TMOs are essential
hard disagree, but we'll never meet on any common ground so I'll leave it alone
what you mean is "can't see infringements against my team at the end of their arms" because no one gives a solitary fuck about their own openside "pushing the line" and anyone who says they do is flat out lying.
At any given time on a rugby field there are probably 3 players infringing. There is a wild inconsistency of what gets looked at.
You can look at it this way, but when obvious infringements are committed and missed by the the three onfield officials it’s quite galling
Regardless of whether it’s for or against your team, or rugby fans with no national skin in the game who just want to see a fair contest
-
what are you talking about though? Offside? Side entry? taking too long with your hands on the ball? not rolling away fast enough? blocking the kick chase? obstruction? scrum infringements? Not 5m at the lineout? off your feet at an attacking ruck?
Rugby has a thousand rules, it's the most complicated fucking sport on earth for almost no reason. If you want everything 100% "accurate" (however you want to measure that given so many infringements are open to the interpretation of the ref in question) you are basically asking for a game of almost non-stop penalties and set pieces.
And that brings me to the biggest point, whose interpretation matters most? refs or TMO's?
-
@mariner4life well we already know different refs and different TMO's have different interpretations, so goes back to your comment re overly complicated rules.
Not black and white, we have 50 shades of grey!
-
It's not a shot at rugby either, League has like 5 rules and the bunker comes up with the weirdest shit every week and people hate it.
-
@mariner4life said in Rugby or NFL:
what are you talking about though? Offside? Side entry? taking too long with your hands on the ball? not rolling away fast enough? blocking the kick chase? obstruction? scrum infringements? Not 5m at the lineout? off your feet at an attacking ruck?
Rugby has a thousand rules, it's the most complicated fucking sport on earth for almost no reason. If you want everything 100% "accurate" (however you want to measure that given so many infringements are open to the interpretation of the ref in question) you are basically asking for a game of almost non-stop penalties and set pieces.
And that brings me to the biggest point, whose interpretation matters most? refs or TMO's?
I don’t care who calls it, but I’d be really happy to see consistent and correct calls for knock ons, forward passes, offsides, and grounding
-
offside has never been called by a TMO except on poor old England when they thought they had beaten us.
You're dreaming on the rest. There has never, ever been a clear consensus across the world on a forward pass. Knock ons are way open to interpretation and probably for the really little ones not best viewed by a TV angle.
What's the problem with grounding?
-
@mariner4life Im with you on this. Referral would be perfect (with right ot retain if call upheld) If it wasnt glaringly obvious enough for the ref & touchies to notice, along with the captain & his team being not convinced enough to appeal - award it. Every now and then it might lead to a lucky try but thats part of the beauty of the game in my opinion. That fijian try that was dissallowed by an Aussie foot in touch on the other side of the field really epitomised TMO over reach in my opinion. Reward good play and focus on the balance of the game, there is space for margin of error in rugby.
Im sure they could put trackers in players boots, the ball, have AI scanning the field at all times and just handover the reigns entirely if they wanted every single call to be correct and nothing would ever be missed, if all we cared about was accuracy, but no the subjectivity is part of the enjoyment, the dark arts and the bounce of the ball. Rant over -
@barbarian said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
The idea being it removes the TMO from intervening, or intervening much less. At the moment the TMO is randomly intervening, causing huge delays in some games where he thinks there's a lot to make calls on.
Little Jonny could blow his only two reviews in the first 10 minutes then bitch and moan about calls against him for the rest of the game, and it'd fall on deaf ears because he wasted his reviews on calls he got wrong.
I just don't think this would work well in practice.
Here's a scenario that happens fairly regularly - ball carrier in tight, carrier 2/3 tacklers over the line, mass of bodies but knocks the ball on slightly before grounding it over the line.
It would be understandable the players might not see this, nor the referee. But the cameras pick it up. I'm not sure it's fair on the defending side to expect them to challenge something they had no way of seeing. So does the TMO intervene, or let a dodgy try stand?
Cricket already lives with this scenario where say the batsmen has faintly edged it, the umpire gives it not out, and the bowling side doesn't review even though the 3rd umpire can see a clear edge on the slow mo and snicko etc. In that scenario, the immediate reaction from fans is they should have reviewed it, not that the 3rd umpire should have intervened even though technically he could have. It puts the onus back on the players as well as the ref, which helps people remember that they are all human out there doing their best.
-
I also take the point that this would take a pretty big cultural shift. Screaming at the ref for your sides inadequacies is very ingrained in rugby, more so than it ever was in cricket.
-
@MiketheSnow said in Rugby or NFL:
You can look at it this way, but when obvious infringements are committed and missed by the the three onfield officials it’s quite galling
There'd be less complaining if the standard of on field officiating was better because the TMO would be involved less. BOK had a clear view off the foot in touch in the Wallabies game - he should've made the call in real time. The illegal maul setup with a player in front should not be difficult for an on field official to spot either
-
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@barbarian said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
@MN5 said in Rugby or NFL:
@No-Quarter said in Rugby or NFL:
One thing that the review system in cricket has really helped with is taking the heat off the umpires. There is so much less scrutiny on them these days. If an umpire gets a call wrong, then the expectation immediately falls on the players to review. If they don't review, then it's much harder to just blame the umpire when the professional players didn't notice either. Then in the scenario where the umpire gets a call wrong and the players don't have any reviews left, then the first comment is they shouldn't have wasted their reviews on calls they got wrong and the umpire got wrong. I think that's been a really good thing overall.
Rugby is a very different sport to cricket though, but some form of onus on the players also making the right call would help, at the moment the assumption is all the players on the field except the ref knew what happened in the moment, and that won't be true at all.
Good God.
If Rugby allowed players to review that might kill the game stone dead. Imagine if Jonny Sexton was still playing ?
The idea being it removes the TMO from intervening, or intervening much less. At the moment the TMO is randomly intervening, causing huge delays in some games where he thinks there's a lot to make calls on.
Little Jonny could blow his only two reviews in the first 10 minutes then bitch and moan about calls against him for the rest of the game, and it'd fall on deaf ears because he wasted his reviews on calls he got wrong.
I just don't think this would work well in practice.
Here's a scenario that happens fairly regularly - ball carrier in tight, carrier 2/3 tacklers over the line, mass of bodies but knocks the ball on slightly before grounding it over the line.
It would be understandable the players might not see this, nor the referee. But the cameras pick it up. I'm not sure it's fair on the defending side to expect them to challenge something they had no way of seeing. So does the TMO intervene, or let a dodgy try stand?
Cricket already lives with this scenario where say the batsmen has faintly edged it, the umpire gives it not out, and the bowling side doesn't review even though the 3rd umpire can see a clear edge on the slow mo and snicko etc. In that scenario, the immediate reaction from fans is they should have reviewed it, not that the 3rd umpire should have intervened even though technically he could have. It puts the onus back on the players as well as the ref, which helps people remember that they are all human out there doing their best.
That's a fair point, although at least in the case of cricket you can't suggest the players weren't able to see/judge for themselves.
Plenty of cases in rugby where something happens where no player would see it - foot in touch, small knock-on etc. Now going back to Mariner's point that maybe we should be happy to live with that, but as he himself acknowledges that's never actually going to happen. The genie is out of the bottle.
-
You know for all the moans about the rules/laws can be to complicated etc. It's the laws/rules whatever, if it too tricky, perhaps (and I know it happens now) just watch something else or something? I actually think it gives so many an out why their teams lose it probably keeps people watching. as they think their team would win if only................
-
AFL, a game that hates the umpires with white hot passion.
Collingwood just scored a goal after a blatant uncalled incorrect disposal.
One replay, a quick comment from the commentators, and on we move.
There's a lesson there
-
@mariner4life there is, and IMHO it's to do with speed of the game. With AFL the pace of the modern game simply wouldn't allow for the kind of shitfuckery rugby entertains.
And the NH does not want more pace in the game
-
hmmm
rugby union is my game but i follow all the football codes closely
all of them (and probably all sports) are trying to speed their games up and maintain flow to drag in consumers (both viewers and participants), it is a modern commercial imperative
a stop start product just isn't guna cut it
someone on this thread complained about the last 2 minutes of some basketball games going on for 20 minutes with all the stoppages
rugby is like that for the full 80 minutes! (sorry 120 minutes)
if you watch a rugby game on replay and fast forward all the shitfuckery, you'll be thru in less than an houri think there is a space in the world sports market for a full contact field football code to fill
and rugby union should have already made a few changes and filled it, making it a way bigger sport worldwide than it is nowAustralia is interesting because the battle of the football codes is probably more intense in that country than any other, and rugby union is running in a distant 4th place to AFL/NRL and soccer
and the product RU is dishing up at the moment is only sending Aus rugby back to the amateursbut there is hope, the current WR boss is an Aussie, so he'll be fully aware of what has to be done
and if he cant do it, no one can
and some other code will move inmaybe NFL - they have a huge amount of money behind them
seen a couple of interviews with Roger Goodell (NFL commissioner) over the last couple of years, and they are absolutely determined to expand internationally
they are playing 7 regular season games internationally this season, and next season they are going start a series of regular season games in Melbourne
and they have flag football in the next olympics (NFL players are eligible) - their gateway productand . . . NZ will have zero influence in any of this : probably not possible to increase participation in NZ (unlike every other country in the world) and the NZ commercial market in world terms is barely existent
-
The biggest pathway to spectating is playing
Get more people playing union from a young age and you have your future spectating market
-
A lot of the TMO interference would be solved if guys like Murphy stuck to “clear and obvious”. To me that means watching a replay at normal speed, can you see something worthy of reversing on field call? If you have to slow it down and watch it 5 times, it is neither clear nor obvious! Therefore the decision on field stands.
-
@Snowy that is a very good point.
Maybe they should only be able to rule on things they can see at normal speed, leave the slomo for the judiciary to dissect.
But still feel they should restrict it to 60 sec otherwise refs call stands.
