Hawkeye in Rugby

Just been reading an article on PR that the IRB and Premiership Rugby are in talks to use Hawkeye for TMO decisions.

What are peoples thoughts on this? I think i'm for it to speed up the game, of course it will only work in certain situations. Happy for Premiership Rugby to trial it next season.

Source: Planet Rugby

if its used for forward passes then we won't see many tries scored as most have a forward pass ( by the strict definition of the law) in them hence the "clear and obvious, check direction of the hands" guidence to refs / tmos.

Yep TJ is right, think it would be a bit farcical

If they could figure out a way to see if a try had been grounded etc, that would be a lot better, but I'm not sure how they would manage that or if its even possible

You couldn't use it for forward passed as the camera would need to be in line with it which wouldn't be possible for every pass obviously and it wouldn't be able to tell whether the ball was passed back even if it were possible (only that it moved forward).

Also perhaps a referral system like they have in tennis and cricket would be good.

Each team could have 2-3 opportunities to refer an incident. Would help stop inconsistencies like in the AP final where the TMO checks and rules out 2 tries but doesn't check others.

Plus it would be nice if the ambiguity of whether a ball is grounded or not is cleared up. If the technology can do that then I don't see why not.

Personally I think we already have enough officials, aids to decision making and stop/starting in the game without introducing another layer of technology.

Let the officials do their job, right or wrong and just get on with it. At the rate that's being advocated, games will take hours while each and every angle of play is dissected.

It isn't American Football, but it'll end up like it if we aren't careful.

Isn't Hawkeye used to build a 3D model and use it to determine the movement of things? So the camera's wouldn't need to be inline but there would need to be a lot of them. Or does Hawkeye work differently?

I say give it a crack, no harm in trying it out.

It still wouldn't be able to spot a forward pass though.

HammerofThunor wrote:Isn't Hawkeye used to build a 3D model and use it to determine the movement of things? So the camera's wouldn't need to be inline but there would need to be a lot of them. Or does Hawkeye work differently?

I say give it a crack, no harm in trying it out.

That is exactly right. It would involve setting up a number of cameras at various parts of the pitch which are synchronised to each other. Mapping those images together would then allow the software to plot the actual path of a ball on the field.

But it works in tennis and the like because there are only 2-4 players there and those players are usually a distance away from the ball making contact with the ground. It is used in GAA, but only kicks in for goal line and point verification. It works in that situation as there isn't usually a player in the goal area of higher than the cross bar so again most cameras get a direct line of sight.

For rugby, there are up to 15 players moving on the advantage line, all running different angles, I can see it being a nightmare to try and ensure you would have the correct number of cameras having unobstructed views at the right time.

A simpler solution would be an Opta(o) chip in the rugby ball itself. We can monitor and track the players so well, surely the same tech could be lightened and put inside the ball and the GPS location used to verify grounding, accuracy of kicks and dare I say it forward passes. Because the gps chip could tell if there was a backwards force behind the pass, ie. was the pass made a slower rate of speed down the field of play than the player making the pass, the ball should demonstrate an initial deceleration to prove it was passed back relative to the player making the pass.

Yes but would the chip be accurate enough to have the position of the ball, and where in the ball would you place it? You'd have to have it so that whichever part of the ball touched the ground, it ts position could be verified to within a millimeters.

BBC are carrying it now but the IRB refused to confirm talks and the PRL have said they've spoken to Hawk-Eye but have no plans for implementation.

They should be looking at all new(ish) technology to see if it can improve the game. Most of it won't, some of it will.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/27686850

As someone else posted previously I'm not sure it would be much use in grounding incidents, like the Saints try on Saturday, it could confirm the ball was grounded at some point in the action but not by who. It might help if linked to cameras as an addition I suppose.

Personally I'm old school and would rather the decisions were made (for better or worse) by the referee on the pitch with the help of the touch judges where possible and the TMO should only be used for indcidents that the referee didn't get a view of such as off the ball handbags, etc.

X-ray the game in its entirety and simply see where the ball is regardless of how many big guys are in a 'disguise the ball' defensive huddle HawkFry

Okay, so it might mean extremely short careers for players but..... well they get well paid.

Irish Londoner wrote:As someone else posted previously I'm not sure it would be much use in grounding incidents, like the Saints try on Saturday, it could confirm the ball was grounded at some point in the action but not by who. It might help if linked to cameras as an addition I suppose.

Personally I'm old school and would rather the decisions were made (for better or worse) by the referee on the pitch with the help of the touch judges where possible and the TMO should only be used for indcidents that the referee didn't get a view of such as off the ball handbags, etc.

If you can see the ball on two camera they can be used to determine it's position, on the line or not. So it could be used for specific cases rather than a general catch all.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:As someone else posted previously I'm not sure it would be much use in grounding incidents, like the Saints try on Saturday, it could confirm the ball was grounded at some point in the action but not by who. It might help if linked to cameras as an addition I suppose.

Personally I'm old school and would rather the decisions were made (for better or worse) by the referee on the pitch with the help of the touch judges where possible and the TMO should only be used for indcidents that the referee didn't get a view of such as off the ball handbags, etc.

If you can see the ball on two camera they can be used to determine it's position, on the line or not. So it could be used for specific cases rather than a general catch all.

Guess it would be good for the 'that drip goal went over' issues too.

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:As someone else posted previously I'm not sure it would be much use in grounding incidents, like the Saints try on Saturday, it could confirm the ball was grounded at some point in the action but not by who. It might help if linked to cameras as an addition I suppose.

Personally I'm old school and would rather the decisions were made (for better or worse) by the referee on the pitch with the help of the touch judges where possible and the TMO should only be used for indcidents that the referee didn't get a view of such as off the ball handbags, etc.

If you can see the ball on two camera they can be used to determine it's position, on the line or not. So it could be used for specific cases rather than a general catch all.

Guess it would be good for the 'that drip goal went over' issues too.

Hmmm...would it? There was big controversy when Hawkeye was getting started in GAA. In one game the ball was clearly inside the posts and a score but Hawkeye deemed it a miss. The system had to be closed down and big apology came from Hawkeye. I've noticed too that the system hardly gets a mention anymore - don't think I've seen it used once this season (someone who watches the games more often will tell me I'm wrong). But that's the thing about the system when used in certain areas such as balls and posts, you have to pay for it but it sometimes doesn't get used sufficiently to justify the expenditure. Eyes are still pretty good and most fans generally still trust the eyes of refs...as well as their own.

Fly, dunno if the GAA have dropped Hawkeye quietly, but haven't heard a whisper of it so far in the championship this year - either in football or
hurling

There are lots of good posts here but I am still none the wiser as to what the technology will actually be used for. Most incidents involve a player carrying the ball and therefore obscuring it, rather than an assessment needing to be made about how the ball itself travelled. Will Hawkeye be mapping the movement of the players themselves rather than the movement of the ball? That really would be impressive.

As TJ says, you couldn't use it for forward passes in isolation because of what the rule says and I can't count more than 3 occasions when I've seen a dispute about whether the ball crossed the bar/went between the posts on a kick at goal.

Then again, I am a bit of a simpleton.

George Carlin wrote:There are lots of good posts here but I am still none the wiser as to what the technology will actually be used for. Most incidents involve a player carrying the ball and therefore obscuring it, rather than an assessment needing to be made about how the ball itself travelled. Will Hawkeye be mapping the movement of the players themselves rather than the movement of the ball? That really would be impressive.

As TJ says, you couldn't use it for forward passes in isolation because of what the rule says and I can't count more than 3 occasions when I've seen a dispute about whether the ball crossed the bar/went between the posts on a kick at goal.

Then again, I am a bit of a simpleton.

Put downs George.  No not my put downs of Sin or his insults back at me ... ball down either on the try line and a discussion about whether it actually was on the line, not over the line, touched the line before being pushed back off the line etc.  Like in Tennis.  I assume Hawkeye would be assisting that area if adopted.  
But then we're back to the huddle of players that are usually around a player grounding a ball these days, and therefore the obscurity of the put down as it relates to camera angles.  Would the ball still be capable of being calibrated for position even with players obscuring the view?  It seems silly if not, because if we can see the ball for ourselves then the ref usually has enough to make the judgement himself anyway.  It's the 'can't see' moments that fans fight over.
Incidently, maybe they could calibrate Hawkeye to see what goes on in the middle of a maul for all!  Eye gouging, hair pulling, finger insertions and Granny insults..... and such like.

It is very limited in what it can be used for (almost certainly not worth the cost). Also it appears that it is Hawk-Eye who are pursueing this and it's not clear if anyone is actually interested. PRL are the only ones who've admitted to speaking to them and they don't sound that keen.

As others have said, it's hard to see where it would help. There are far more areas of the game that need better/more accurate policing than the touch down, e.g. obstruction off the ball, forward passes, illegal slowing down in the rucks etc. Some just need more consistant reffing like feeding in the scrum. Technology is not what's needed IMO.

If it could somehow be used to detect forward passes as they are judged right now, then bring it on, it would save a lot of time, otherwise, maybe they could be used for detecting the ball carrier's feet into touch or balls touching the touchline before going out, or checking if dropgoals have been scored or missed.

I think if they were proposing a system that ensured the offside line was kept whereby players were fitted with electronic sensors and increasing voltages were passed through the offending players when they passed over the offside line, I'd be on board. Sure we'd probably see quite a few deaths initially and it would definitely see the demise of McCaw, who cannot be killed by conventional weapons, but eventually we'd all get to see that time and space for the players in the backline and we'd move away from the need for backs to all look like the Georgian forward pack and we'd revert to more Shane William types. The death of the gym monkeys and the rebirth of the energizer bunnies. The circle of life and all that.

Hawkeye in MASH had too much creative control and got tiresome but this proposal has the potential to make a positive influence and I for one am on board with that.

Better still - hand the voltage buzzer over to the red-buttoner couch potatoes watching their TVs. Now there's an even quicker way to 'retire' McCaw.

Buzz when you're Losing.

SecretFly wrote:

ScarletSpiderman wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:As someone else posted previously I'm not sure it would be much use in grounding incidents, like the Saints try on Saturday, it could confirm the ball was grounded at some point in the action but not by who. It might help if linked to cameras as an addition I suppose.

Personally I'm old school and would rather the decisions were made (for better or worse) by the referee on the pitch with the help of the touch judges where possible and the TMO should only be used for indcidents that the referee didn't get a view of such as off the ball handbags, etc.

If you can see the ball on two camera they can be used to determine it's position, on the line or not. So it could be used for specific cases rather than a general catch all.

Guess it would be good for the 'that drip goal went over' issues too.

Hmmm...would it?  There was big controversy when Hawkeye was getting started in GAA.  In one game the ball was clearly inside the posts and a score but Hawkeye deemed it a miss.  The system had to be closed down and big apology came from Hawkeye.  I've noticed too that the system hardly gets a mention anymore - don't think I've seen it used once this season (someone who watches the games more often will tell me I'm wrong).  But that's the thing about the system when used in certain areas such as balls and posts, you have to pay for it but it sometimes doesn't get used sufficiently to justify the expenditure.  Eyes are still pretty good and most fans generally still trust the eyes of refs...as well as their own.

That was a unique situation for GAA. The system figures out the centre of the ball/sliotar and checks the calculated edge against the imaginary line of the post. There are different dimensions for hurling and football (obviously enough). The tech didn't switch all the settings over correctly after a football game before a hurling match started. So hawkeye correctly tracked a sliotar going over between the posts and that image was shown on the big screen. But the point/wide calculation was still based on the diameter of a football (which would have hit the post) so hawkeye stated wide. Very bad incident but it was down to a twit not using the tech correctly rather than a fundamental issue with how it works.

Does raise a question on the shape of a rugby ball. Surely that is a tricky bit of calculation to figure out if a squibb kick went over the post?