The Roar
The Roar

Advertisement

Technology needed to improve certainty

Craig Joubert was not to blame, it was a lack of the basics. (AAP Image/Lukas Coch)
Roar Guru
31st July, 2012
56

Have you ever genuinely thought a match official was cheating? While we may scream “cheat” at the referee in the heat of the moment, have you ever thought that the match official was motivated by something other than an honest interpretation of the rules?

The honest among us will tell you that we all think it, but won’t say it.

Naturally, the purists say no, the theorists say maybe, and the conspirators say yes. Is each one right in their belief? Osr is there an element of truth in each thought?

Rugby rules open the door to each of the above statements being correct. Most times it comes back to the word, ‘interpretation’.

The rugby rule book is written in a way that many rules are never black and white or clear cut.

A good example is double movement. Whether something is a double movement is interpreted by opinion. The decision made can eliminate a team who have strived for 20 games of the season. It may decide who is on the winner’s podium at the end of the season.

The decision is further hamstrung by the inability of the decision makers of the IRB to acknowledge that this is now a “money income occupation”, that these athletes now sell their services to the highest bidder based on their ability.

The provider of this money is the fan who pays, whether it is by TV, gate or other means. The income is provided by fan satisfaction and no other, for without him, there is no cash flow.

Advertisement

Technology needs to be introduced to modified rules that remove interpretations from the game.

Making them conclusive would remove the doubt and accusations, and make the fan happier to accept that his team was beaten on the day by a better team.

Getting beaten is never a good feeling. However, being eliminated through any reason other than your own team’s failing is a bitter pill to swallow.

close