you mean you got to hear the actual decisions being made openly. there's an actual team in rugby not a guy sat in Bromley and the fact is in rugby the ref is approaching it as a tool to help decisions not as a critique of his decisions.
the entire of football is determined to undermine var.
refs seem to have ignored the fact they get dogs abuse anyway so now they have a tool to avoid it. it's been relegated to a third linesman at this point measuring millimetres on offside.
if the matip foul wasn't a pen you can forget about var
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
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.
The fact is the FA made it clear to referees before the season began that they don't want then watching the screen, they should rely on the VAR to get it right as people had issue with it slowing the game down. They also have the get put of jail free card, 'clear and obvious error' which for me ruins it all and leaves way too much subjectivity.
Yes there will be a certain subjective nature but by watching the reply it helps to make a more accurate subjective viewpoint. So use it and don't hide behind 'clear and obvious error'.
Aussie VAR.
As clear a forward pass as you will see.
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.
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 😂
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Rugby WC VAR.
Page 1 of 1
posted on 19/10/19
Sounds dodgy to me
posted on 19/10/19
you mean you got to hear the actual decisions being made openly. there's an actual team in rugby not a guy sat in Bromley and the fact is in rugby the ref is approaching it as a tool to help decisions not as a critique of his decisions.
the entire of football is determined to undermine var.
refs seem to have ignored the fact they get dogs abuse anyway so now they have a tool to avoid it. it's been relegated to a third linesman at this point measuring millimetres on offside.
if the matip foul wasn't a pen you can forget about var
posted on 19/10/19
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 19/10/19
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.
posted on 19/10/19
The fact is the FA made it clear to referees before the season began that they don't want then watching the screen, they should rely on the VAR to get it right as people had issue with it slowing the game down. They also have the get put of jail free card, 'clear and obvious error' which for me ruins it all and leaves way too much subjectivity.
Yes there will be a certain subjective nature but by watching the reply it helps to make a more accurate subjective viewpoint. So use it and don't hide behind 'clear and obvious error'.
posted on 19/10/19
Aussie VAR.
As clear a forward pass as you will see.
posted on 19/10/19
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.
posted on 19/10/19
Ireland getting dicked
posted on 19/10/19
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
posted on 19/10/19
It’s not VAR in rugby, it’s TMO
posted on 19/10/19
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.
posted on 19/10/19
It works much easier because rugby has fewer subjective decisions, they aren’t really a comparable.
posted on 19/10/19
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.
posted on 19/10/19
giving the referee *a voice* humanises him
posted on 19/10/19
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!
posted on 19/10/19
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.
posted on 20/10/19
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 😂
Page 1 of 1