Try or no try? Everyone loves a choice

Spectators are the ultimate beneficiaries of the use of technology in sport. So let’s use it correctly.

Rugby league’s power brokers need to rethink the use of the video referee in determining tries.

Let’s think for a moment about the purpose of a video referee or any video review in sport. Simply, it’s the review of an incident (such as a try or foul play) that may result in points being scored, someone being out or a player being removed from the field.

So the decision matters a great deal to the outcome of the game and to the spectacle. The situation can be reviewed because a clear on-field decision is not able to be made, otherwise it would.

Makes sense so far. As it stands, rugby league referees make a ‘live decision’ of a try or no try, which is then reviewed by the off-field official with the addition of the video replay.

The NRL, like many governing bodies, is constantly under pressure from media and spectators about rule changes and having consistency and fairness within the game. There is no doubt that this pressure sometimes influences decisions when it comes to the introduction and removal of certain rules.

As rugby league has changed over time it has become much more of a television spectacle than a stadium one. This has been both positive and negative. The commercial arrangements with sponsors that the large television deals have built are financially beneficial for all parties.

The trade-off here is that the game has been more and more designed for television viewing pleasure than anything else. When you have influential commentators and league journalists constantly changing their minds about what rules are a disgrace and which ones should stay in the situation, it gets even more complicated.

Surely the purpose of a referee is to make a decision on the field, and granted people will make mistakes when it comes to penalties and split-second decisions in-game. However, the purpose of video refereeing is to remove the uncertainty and provide the correct result.

How can the referee make a decision about something that he or she does not know the answer to? Is it not an acknowledgement of lacking the answer that drives a referee to refer?

What of other sports and video reviews?

Most similar here is obviously rugby. Rugby has the video referee review available these days, even on foul play. This has caused some confusion and irritation when it comes to spectators, with foul play often seemingly sought out by referees.

However, overall on that front it is positive and it really doesn’t happen that much. Where rugby union has the video situation more succinct is on the try review. The referee acknowledges that he or she does not know whether or not a try has been scored and asks for confirmation.

If the video evidence is inconclusive the attacking team gets the ball (barring any other action that rules over being held up in goal). Surely this makes sense. It seems due to the external pressure on rugby league officials, the rules have evolved this anomaly to almost pretend that on-field officials are making on-field decisions, as the crowds have demanded.

Tennis’ Hawk Eye rarely receives negative feedback from players and spectators. Some players have proven to be better at the decision to make challenges. Conversely, some players have found it difficult under pressure to use the system adequately, challenging out of anger or hope.

In tennis, this is the interesting note that Hawk Eye has added to the game. It has been beneficial for its accuracy in removing the howler line calls that tennis was prone too. The relationship between player, umpire and linesperson is very clear and all parties mutually respect its decision, with the added intrigue as to when to challenge and when not to.

Cricket originally brought in the video review for run-outs and today it would seem ridiculous if that wasn’t part of the game. Hawk Eye in cricket has a slightly more dubious place in the game. However, the process of challenging is clear to the players. It is a matter of choosing the right moment and knowing the gravity of wasting a challenge.

Cricket generates further controversy in relation to Hawk Eye where the strange situation exists allowing India to choose not to use the technology. This is utterly ridiculous to the other cricket playing nations, but the political sway of the India-controlled ICC determines the ability of that team to do so.

There are some similarities between the Hawk Eye technology used in cricket to determine leg-before-wickets and the issue with the NRL’s try review. However, on the cricket side Hawk Eye’s lwb call requires much more technology to come up with a result.

Given that it is making a judgment about the movement of the ball with the use of cameras to then calculate through an algorithm the projected trajectory of the ball, this process could not possibly be 100 per cent correct. In this case having the on-field decision acknowledges that the decision as a whole is the sum of both on-field and off-field analysis.

It’s not entirely the same in rugby league, but I see the similarities. The review isn’t asking the technology to do anything analytical except produce video for someone to then analyse. Do the referees of league and the referees of union need to get together and have a chat about this? That would probably get a bit weird.

Maybe it’s a storm in a teacup but I worry this type of inclusion in the game is indicative of where rugby league is heading. Viewing experience is important and so are correct decisions. Spectacle for spectacle’s sake, particularly that which doesn’t include the players of the game, is a bit too American football for my liking.