Video review

I was having a conversation today with a student who is football mad (he´s Spanish after all), who was trying to clear up some doubts he had over rugby. I had of course encouraged him to see how a real man´s sport was played and spent my time on the clock talking about the thing I loved. Win-win for me!

We were discussing the role of video technology in sport. Football is a game that flows and to stop it all the time would be detrimental to the game. Rugby is more stop start and the opportunity to ask for a video referee decision is greater. But sometimes the little moments can have a much bigger influence on the game.

As it stands, football has shunned the use of video technology whereas rugby has seen its introduction in a limited form. I don´t think many people are opposed to its introduction either. Asking for another opinion is better than keeping to just one. Ruling on a try doesn´t take that long to do. But at the moment, the use of the referee is at the discretion of the referee in the centre of the field.

He raised the example of tennis where players have three possibilities to question the ruling of the umpire. I think it´s important to limit this number to only three because if it were limitless then players would be contesting everything. I also used cricket as an example which went right over his head as that sport is a complete enigma to anybody not familiar with the game (and indeed to many people familiar with the game).

But what if the coach on the sideline had the discretion to use three chances to question the ruling of the game (just three mind you)? For example, if a try is scored and the coach feels there was a knock on and the ref allows the try and the touch judges are not involved, the coach could raise a flag and ask for a specific ruling (look for a knock on in that try at said moment) It must be specific as opposed to saying have a look for anything that might lead you to think a try may not be awarded.

I guess many Welsh posters will say could this be applied to the red card incident. Gatts waves a flag, it goes to the video referee and he makes the call. Personally I don´t like the idea. Once a ref has made a decision about a card I think it´s too late. He had the opportunity to ask the opinion of the touch judges and chose to make the call himself. But that is something he has seen. What I am talking about is something the ref hasn´t seen.

I think this is a way of removing human error but also not calling into question the authority of the ref. What do you think?

I'm not really a fan to be honest. Referees are human and make mistakes, but that's part of the game.

I don't like the idea of the guy in the middle being questioned, if he makes a mistake then unlucky, get on with it. Especially on a matter of opinion (such as a card), you need one guys rule to be final.

I think it's actually very rare that a ref's mistake changes the result.

I say no, and had this debate with cricket a while back when I said for me I prefer not.

We all learnt to live with human judgements in our games, I do not think stopping the game to review an incident 20 times in slow mo from all angles will add to the game. Besides calls evens themselves out over time.

I wish I can put forward a more cohesive argument against video refs, but just my gut feeling is the game is already moved on so far in technology, with game analysis as well as training methods, the humna touch, with the accompanying times of error calls, keeps the games raw.

My 2c worth

Just to add to that, a line call (e.g. "was he in touch") at the moment I feel is fine to go to the video ref, but the on field ref must request it, i.e. he should say "I didn't see a clear view, was the foot in touch". The ref asking for help is very different to people questioning his decisions during the game.

OzT, I kind of agree with Aggers a bit in the cricket in that I think the umpires should be allowed to call in technology to help them. A down side of being able to question the umpires decision is a loss of respect for officials by the players. As you say, these things tend to even out in the end anyway.

I think also the video ref takes responsibility away from the ref. Too many times seen him go upstairs for a try scored when it was obvious the try has been scored, but maybe now they want to be seen to do the right thing?

Much better to make a decision on the spot, and man enough to stick with it.

Screamingaddabs, I think if used upstairs then they should make it all upstairs, which means the umpires become ball counters, and you also make the important point, respect is lost for the umpires/refs

What about the plays he doesn´t see. Let´s face it, even with touchies and a ref there´s a lot to take in all at once. What if nobody spots anything except the coach. Is there wrong with reviewing what he specifically asks for. e.g. Hey what about that hand in the ruck? What about that forward pass? etc.

I agree. Look into using it more.
Problem with it, and you gave it now is that it further separates club rules from high level televised games. It demands video technology in an increasing manner.
I reckon the redcard is a perfect situation for it
althougj roland saw it, replays allow a review from certain angles and a chance to compare with the readily accepted red card situation.
Red card at this level is more important to get right than a try.
Still a refs option but if vid refs are clear about each of the components of a red card incident they can tick them off. On the field the first look can sometimes be a reaction that perhaps needs a bit more thought. Plus it fits with the specific moment criteria