Video Referees?

Video Referees?

Post by Mark Dutto » Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:00:00


There seems to be a lot of calls for video referees in New Zealand
particularly from some commentators with that on their agenda. Along with
the positives that come with the introduction of the 'third eye' view, there
are definitely negatives. Anyone who has watched some league games can see
that one could easily have a cup of coffee by the time the decision is made.

Another problem with the video is that occasionally the video ref makes the
wrong call. (After all, the guy watching the tape is human as well.) The
problem here is that while your referees and touch judges may make a host of
mistakes, the mistakes generally cancel each other out, but with just one
bad video decision it can turn a match.

The final problem is the reliance on the video: In a big match (a final,
semi, world cup game...) a referee with any doubt in their mind at all would
be hard pressed not to ask for the video. While this is a safe approach it
will disrupt the game and lower the overall quality of the spectacle.

 
 
 

Video Referees?

Post by Don Blac » Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:00:00



Quote:
>There seems to be a lot of calls for video referees in New Zealand
>particularly from some commentators with that on their agenda. Along with
>the positives that come with the introduction of the 'third eye' view, there
>are definitely negatives. Anyone who has watched some league games can see
>that one could easily have a cup of coffee by the time the decision is made.

        This  is a more of  problem in Rugby than League or Cricket,
both of which can get away with the extra stoppage time, but for
different reasons. In League, long duration interruptions are fewer
and so can be tolerated to a certain extent and in Cricket the more
leisurely pace of the game makes delays more acceptable, while adding
sometimes needed drama. It is important not to be trapped into
simplistic conclusions that just because video refs work in some
sports, that they must therefore work in all.
        A more important argument against electronic interference is
the difficult idea that Rugby officiating requires imperfection. If
applied consistently to all aspects of the game and even if always
accurate, such mechanical devices would be a disaster. Omnipotentcy in
referees is a quality that the game could not survive. The game is too
complex for such perfection and would grind to an inevitable
standstill. This is not to say that officiating mistakes should be
encouraged, but it must be recognised that only the limitations of the
human body have allowed an effective game to evolve. The humanness of
the referee is an essential quality and it is a risk to tamper with
this vital element. The proponents of the video ref can only argue
therefore for limited and inconsistent application of this device.
        Why should so much attention be placed on the very last and to
some extent the least important element of a try, the touch down? Some
codes have eliminated this somewhat arbitrary procedure altogether. Is
the blatant unrecognised offence that allowed a team to secure the
possession from which a try scoring move emanated unimportant and the
forcing of the ball all important? We run the risk of hypocrisy not to
mention plain silliness. A frame by frame replay may show a minute
mistake in the placing of the ball, undetectable to the *** eye. Is
this even relevant? Have not we just changed the standard, effectively
making try scoring more difficult, on average, as in most cases tries
tend to be ruled out rather than in with respect to what a referee
would normally rule. Very few tries, when placed under close enough
scrutiny are perfect in regard to the whole try scoring movement. The
complexity of the game all but ensures some fractional mistake will
have occurred at some stage. So why the arbitrary emphasis on just one
area where a mistake may have occurred?

Quote:
>Another problem with the video is that occasionally the video ref makes the
>wrong call. (After all, the guy watching the tape is human as well.) The
>problem here is that while your referees and touch judges may make a host of
>mistakes, the mistakes generally cancel each other out, but with just one
>bad video decision it can turn a match.

        The expectation is for the video ref to always get it right.
While they do (or should) get it right more often in League, when they
do get it wrong it leads to even greater discontent than would
otherwise be the case, because of that expectation factor. Thus there
appears to be little advantage in terms of satisfaction. People just
tend to become less tolerant of mistakes.

Quote:
>The final problem is the reliance on the video: In a big match (a final,
>semi, world cup game...) a referee with any doubt in their mind at all would
>be hard pressed not to ask for the video. While this is a safe approach it
>will disrupt the game and lower the overall quality of the spectacle.

        One of the problems many see as facing the game at present are
the number of prolonged stoppages. Rightly or not, the fact is that
average attention spans are reducing and what was once acceptable is
now not. The game must stay in step with society if it is to flourish,
something I would hope most would harbour ambitions for.

 
 
 

Video Referees?

Post by Rodger Donalds » Mon, 13 Sep 1999 04:00:00

Quote:

>Another problem with the video is that occasionally the video ref makes the
>wrong call. (After all, the guy watching the tape is human as well.) The
>problem here is that while your referees and touch judges may make a host of
>mistakes, the mistakes generally cancel each other out, but with just one
>bad video decision it can turn a match.

There is another facet to that problem; most people (players and fans) can
accept referees will make errors on the field; the ref is no more perfect
than the players, and has only two linesmen to help police thirty players,
at least some of whom will be trying it on, and deliberately flirting with
the boundaries of the laws.

So, if the referee makes a mistake, it may cause a certain amount of upset,
but it is excusable.  However, the video ref has the luxury of focusing only
on one perdio o play, with video equipment, and can scrutinise as closely
and as often as they like.  But, as you say, they still make mistakes - but
these mistakes are, in the minds of players, coaches, and the public,
inexcusable.  The results can be seen in the Aussie Rugby League, where the
dissatisfaction with the quality of refereeing has increased, not decreased.

Moreover, the video ref does not obviate one of the more contentious issues,
that of refereeing interpretations; indeed, the video ref may agrivate them,
by pairing an on-field ref with a video ref who have significantly different
interpretations on key issues (such as rucks and mauls), leading to
inconsistancy is rulings.

And long as the video ref is promoted by commentators and fans as a way to
guarantee results, it will continue to generate more, not less,
dissatisfaction.

--

"I regret to say that we of the F.B.I. are powerless to act in cases of
 oral-*** intimacy, unless it has in some way obstructed interstate
 commerce."     -- J. Edgar Hoover