Rugby WC VAR.

Ireland getting dicked

Not sure the example in the OP puts VAR in a good light at all. Better off just having the ref go with his initial , correct, decision

It’s not VAR in rugby, it’s TMO

comment by Everywhere you go always take Lamela with you. Mopo's #1 fan. (U7905)
posted 2 hours ago
Imo that highlighted an incompetent third umpire or whatever they are called. The ball was clearly forward, he should have seen that and told the ref.

Premier league var is much better than Uefa Var. Don't like the ref seeing things on the screen when there are qualified refs in the studio capable of doing it. The offside decisions which go back lots of phases and look to the mm are my issue with prem var.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Going back to start of the attacking move makes complete sense.

It works much easier because rugby has fewer subjective decisions, they aren’t really a comparable.

comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
It works much easier because rugby has fewer subjective decisions, they aren’t really a comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not so sure that's why it works better. I recently watched a game, Wales-Aussies I think it was, where the ref penalized an Australian for a hand to the neck which was quite debatable in the way it came about, because there was a case to be made that it was actually the Wales player at fault. The ref called the Aussie captain and offending player over, gave them his view, the Aussies respectfully disagreed but in the end trotted off and play resumed with a penalty for Wales. Everyone in the stadium and at home was able to hear the conversation, and that was pretty much the end of it.

I think both of the factors above contribute significantly not only for video reviews to work much better, but for officiating overall to be seen in a far less controversial light.

There's a general appreciation for how difficult the ref's job is. Even when disagreeing, there's a general respectfulness on behalf of the players of the decisions the referee makes.

The fact the ref is wired up and everyone else gets to hear his reasons for making one decision or the other is a massive aid too. You can agree or disagree with a decision, but it actually helps fans understand why one decision and not the other has been made. I also feel that giving the referee humanises him and helps people accept his fallibility more. A voiceless ref may just as well be an android.

giving the referee *a voice* humanises him

I’ve said it before - you should compare more with the cricket model. When decisions like LBW are so fine that an umpire would have difficult spotting it, then they go with the original decision - eg if a batsman is given not out lbw, but Hawkeye says that the wicket would have been hit (and there should be out) but less than 50% of the ball would have hit the wicket, then the original umpires decision stands.

This is how offside and var should work - no more stupid mm decisions - it’s just too close to call so go with the original linesman decision!

comment by it'sonlyagame (U6426)
posted 4 hours, 55 minutes ago
comment by meltonblue (U10617)
posted 7 minutes ago
It works much easier because rugby has fewer subjective decisions, they aren’t really a comparable.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not so sure that's why it works better. I recently watched a game, Wales-Aussies I think it was, where the ref penalized an Australian for a hand to the neck which was quite debatable in the way it came about, because there was a case to be made that it was actually the Wales player at fault. The ref called the Aussie captain and offending player over, gave them his view, the Aussies respectfully disagreed but in the end trotted off and play resumed with a penalty for Wales. Everyone in the stadium and at home was able to hear the conversation, and that was pretty much the end of it.

I think both of the factors above contribute significantly not only for video reviews to work much better, but for officiating overall to be seen in a far less controversial light.

There's a general appreciation for how difficult the ref's job is. Even when disagreeing, there's a general respectfulness on behalf of the players of the decisions the referee makes.

The fact the ref is wired up and everyone else gets to hear his reasons for making one decision or the other is a massive aid too. You can agree or disagree with a decision, but it actually helps fans understand why one decision and not the other has been made. I also feel that giving the referee humanises him and helps people accept his fallibility more. A voiceless ref may just as well be an android.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah that one is different as it’s a subjective decision. Even those though are easier in rugby due to a few factors - no simulation, crowd and player behaviour being a few.

comment by Neo (U9135)
posted 21 hours, 6 minutes ago
Normally the TMO is 100% spot on in rugby but clearly the one acting today had something wrong with his eyes, clearly forward and the ref overruled him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing wrong with his eyes he was just Australian 😂