Video referees need to see it to believe it
Columnist By Luke Doherty, 9 Jun 2012 Luke Doherty is a Roar Expert
- Tagged:
- NRL, Rugby League, video referee, Wests Tigers
Matt Utai scores for the Wests Tigers. AAP Image/Action Photographics/Brett Crockford
Related coverage
Hands up if you agree with the video referee all of the time in the NRL? Just when you think you know what button he’s about to push, along comes another decision that leaves you scratching your head.
The Wests Tigers clash against Melbourne last night was always going to be decided by the smallest of margins, given mother nature didn’t smile on the city.
In the 70th minute, with the Tigers leading 10 – 2, a missed tackle from Benji Marshall and a poor read from Blake Ayshford allowed Ryan Hoffman to send Dane Nielsen hurtling towards the line.
Nielsen found himself wedged between Beau Ryan and Tom Humble.
The Storm centre crashed over and Gerard Sutton, who was right on the spot, asked video referee Russell Smith for some help.
One replay showed the ball on Ryan’s foot which Nielsen tries to force away. The other showed humble clinging to Nielsen and the ball with everything he’s got.
At no point can you clearly see the ball hitting the turf.
In theory, a case could be made for a benefit of the doubt try.
The more logical outcome is to leave it up to Sutton as he was standing about one metre from the incident.
Instead, Smith rules it’s a try. There’s apparently no doubt at all in his mind.
Now, unless Smith has x-ray vision or found a camera on the roof, there is no way he could conclusively say the ball has touched the ground.
Last weekend, I said Player X, writing in the Daily Telegraph, was wrong to question the value the video referee adds to the game.
Given this incident is the latest to diminish my faith in the men in the box it seems like a silly argument to make once let alone twice.
But, as I said last week, the actual process isn’t the problem.
Video shows a situation for what it is.
Most people watching replays of Nielsen struggling to find a blade of grass would agree, I believe, that there was a fair amount of doubt surrounding whether he successfully grounded the ball.
The video referee disagreed.
The decision made it 10 – 6 and the Tigers were out on their feet for the final 10-minutes of the match.
Thankfully, the result didn’t hinge on the controversial try, but the next big call is just around the corner. It could be tonight.
A win or a loss on a questionable call could make or break a season. A coach could lose their job or a team miss out on the eight.
A video referee shouldn’t be able to just believe something has happened. They need to have clear visual proof.
You can follow Luke Doherty on Twitter @Luke_Doherty and on Sky News Australia.
Sport, all day long. Does this sound too good to be true? We're searching for a Group Sales Manager to lead our team in Sydney. If you're a sales star who doesn't mind a hit, kick, throw, or cycle, we want to hear from you. Apply now.
The Crowd Says (20) | Page 1 of Comments
Have Your Say
- Explore:
- NRL, Rugby League, video referee, Wests Tigers
June 9th 2012 @ 7:23am
steve b said | June 9th 2012 @ 7:23am | Report comment
Luke your right a bout no clear evidence in the grounding our tv allows us to trame by frame and reverse the frame and zoom on an area,,,and im sure they have better tech than that at their finger tips ,,, and no way could you see that ball grounded. The right call should have been benifit of doubt or as you say refs call ,, but for mine it was ( no try held up ) . I cant see how they got it wrong,, i to have been saying how i would like to see more video ref used in the run of play,,but get someone up their with a new set of glasses because that call was wrong and it could have cost the tigers the game ….
June 9th 2012 @ 8:33am
roarr said | June 9th 2012 @ 8:33am | Report comment
I think you could see neilsen ground the ball in the very last frame of the replays. It seemed like all the defenders had pretty much stopped battling to keep the ball up because they thought the tackle was completed.
My understanding was that because there was no benefit of the doubt awarded… that the Video Referee adjudged that to be when the try was scored.
Bit dodgy in my opinion, as it must have been a good 10-15 seconds before it happened… but that was how I saw it.
June 9th 2012 @ 9:44am
B.A Sports said | June 9th 2012 @ 9:44am | Report comment
Pretty much agree roarr
You could clearly see the ball finally hit the ground once Neilsen pushed Ryan’s leg out of the road. clearly.
Because the video ref doesn’t know when the whistle was blown, or when the ref said held, and with the replay shown in slow motion, he has very little frame of reference as to when the play was stopped.
So while i don’t like the decision, because i think the defence did enough, it will be a right call.
With all due respect Luke, not your your best work.
June 9th 2012 @ 10:04pm
Sylvester said | June 9th 2012 @ 10:04pm | Report comment
Also agree that it’s the last frame that Smith has ruled on. Would have been interesting to see what the ref would have ruled if it had been sent back down.
The Warriors have copped it on the ref’s calls which has annoyed me. If multiple replays with zoom and slow-mo isn’t definitive, I fail to see how the on-field ref knows. If he thought it was scored, he should just award it.
June 9th 2012 @ 9:27am
Hicko said | June 9th 2012 @ 9:27am | Report comment
Typical Tigers fans. Win and they still whinge. No wonder they love cry baby Farah so much.
June 9th 2012 @ 10:22am
steve b said | June 9th 2012 @ 10:22am | Report comment
Hicko Im not a tigers fan and the decision still sucked !!!
June 9th 2012 @ 1:36pm
Ceebow said | June 9th 2012 @ 1:36pm | Report comment
Hicko Are you a QLDer? you sound just like one.
June 9th 2012 @ 2:25pm
Blaze said | June 9th 2012 @ 2:25pm | Report comment
Thanks for the enlighting constructive comment hicko…
June 9th 2012 @ 10:31am
Pez said | June 9th 2012 @ 10:31am | Report comment
Agree with the principle of this article, but in this instance there was a clear grounding of the ball in the final moments of the footage. And I was behind the Tigers last night.
June 9th 2012 @ 10:50am
Hicko said | June 9th 2012 @ 10:50am | Report comment
Fair try. End of story.
June 9th 2012 @ 11:07am
Gary said | June 9th 2012 @ 11:07am | Report comment
The video referee should only be used as a tool to assist the REAL referee make a decision. Instead – well so it appears – the video ref displays the decision on the screen. Why not lprovide the advice or information to the REAL ref and let hime decide. But let us not get too carried away with things. Of course ref decisions influence all games in one way or another and sometimes wrong decisions are made. It is a human condition so let us just accept that. Pressure on referees and sports officials these days is so scrutinised and criticised that I’m amazed that anyone puts their hands up for it anymore.
June 9th 2012 @ 11:40am
Anakin said | June 9th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
I believe I could see the ball touch the ground .. unfortunately (as far as im aware) this forum doesnt allow me the option to capture the frame and to post as my evidence. What irks me is the need to watch a thousand replays, not just on this occassion, but on most!!
June 9th 2012 @ 11:40am
Bearfax said | June 9th 2012 @ 11:40am | Report comment
A lot has been said about the failings of the video refr system. But many forget what we had before. yes they make mistakes and there needs to be clear instructions given to them about how to adjudicate. perhaps having three video judges may help. But in the end its a move in te right direction and many mistakes made by refrs on the field have been addressed. problem is that with technology, we are all now video judges. Refs on the field dont have that advantage. So you need someone with at least the advantages of the TV audience to determine close decisions. Even this requires improving as the whole process of trying to get it as right as practicable is a work in progress.
June 9th 2012 @ 4:27pm
Gary said | June 9th 2012 @ 4:27pm | Report comment
Hey Bearfaz, not having a go at you but just had a thought……….why don’t we invite the audience at the game and on TV have a vote by text message. They would feel as if they had input and might help reduce post-match whinging
June 9th 2012 @ 10:41pm
Bearfax said | June 9th 2012 @ 10:41pm | Report comment
Good thought Gaz, but then most supporters have a scewed view of even the most obvious decisions…it would just come down to which team has the greater supporter base…dont you think. The other issue, whether palatable or not is that the significant audience of most sport these days is either the radio or TV audience. One or two tens of thousands watch a rugby league match live at the ground, hundreds of thousands watch it live on TV. So realistcially sports have to pander to the couch potato who has alll the technological advantages your ground supporter lacks. Video refs are just the latest ‘necessity’ of an increasingly discerning television audience. Pandering to the ground attenders died in the 70s.
June 10th 2012 @ 6:23pm
Gary said | June 10th 2012 @ 6:23pm | Report comment
Ahhh. Bearfax You spotted my tongue in cheek. Of course I agree with you about bias. I live in Brisbane and I know only too well that Bronco and Qld supporters never concede the correctness of a ruling against them no matter how obvious. Whether it had a bearing on the outcome or not, had the Ingliss try been agianst Qld, then it would probably be before the high court. And let’s not open discussions on the definition of “origin”.
I also agree that it is an “at home” audience these days. But given the prices charged at some grounds and the difficulty in getting there, you can’t really blame the “couch supporters”. But as you also point out, there are tens of thousands tuned in to various codes. I decided, in the end, to watch the Wallabies on TV last night. I absolutely love the atmosphere but ticket cost and travel diffiiculties in dodgey weather clinched it.
OK,:How about this? Scrap the “Voice” style vote SMS idea but how about the NRL charge people to watch the game at home on a game by game basis? And part of that payment would include a vote button for all sorts of on-line questions. The audience could vote on things like: team selection, replacements, whether a particular player has made the right selection of contract, wife, tatoo etc; How involved would that be? And you could save heaps of costs in building stadiums. A local park would do and they would just need to fill the stands (facing the camera only ofcourse) with cardbaord cut-outs or inflatable dummies to give the illusion of a crowd.
June 11th 2012 @ 8:00am
Bearfax said | June 11th 2012 @ 8:00am | Report comment
There have been times when I’ve sat doing other things while watching a minute by minute notification on the NINE net format and have just got as excited with matches, watching the scores change and nothng else….I think I’m losing it somehow. Mind you I also watched much of the Wallabies-Wales match and quite frankly loved it too. I’m really enjoying the forward battles and the skill of Genia, Barnes, Cooper, Beale, OCconnor et al. Of course the refs are always wrong there too. But Union is improving year by year. Shame League cant follow that improvement, but then wit administrators like we have and have had in the past 17 years, what can you expect.
June 9th 2012 @ 12:36pm
Matt said | June 9th 2012 @ 12:36pm | Report comment
Can’t see oxygen so I suppose we’ll have to go “benefit of the doubt” it exists?
Was a try. I don’t think it, or any similar should be, after say 3 seconds it’s simply held up. But previous decisions (or rules) suggest as long as you’re still trying to ground it, you’ve got almost as long as you want.
June 9th 2012 @ 1:03pm
dishes said | June 9th 2012 @ 1:03pm | Report comment
I think the problem is benefit of the doubt- in theory it should go to the attacking team but practically it doesn’t work. You should have to prove you scored, or if the video ref can’t see it is refs call. Plain and simple. Remove benefit of the doubt. It would be a lot clearer and simpler for everyone. I hate the lottery that exists at the moment.
–
Comment left via The Roar’s iPhone app. Download The Roar’s iPhone App in the App Store here.
June 9th 2012 @ 1:06pm
Matt said | June 9th 2012 @ 1:06pm | Report comment
Simultaneous putdown as leg touches the sideline etc… there’s lots of times where a real “benefit of the doubt” comes into play. If you had super slow mode cameras you could tell, but as far as normal cameras go, 1 frame they’re both up, next frame they’re both down.