大象传媒

Good article George and I think it highlights some of the conflicts inherent in having such technology available to us. Having so many camera angles on offer when Sky is in town should, in theory anyway, ensure fair decisions are made but of course that isn't always the case and sometimes instead of the on-field ref using their judgement it is the video ref doing so, which really is no advantage (and sometimes a disadvantage). Being able to see an error of judgement, or just an unfavourable one, is not necessarily any more comforting than suspecting one is there but being unable to prove it. Also, on a more mundane level, having video technology present can spoil the celebration of a try. I'm not sure how often the video ref was consulted in the early days but now it seems that the on-field ref refers back an awful lot, sometimes when the try is quite clearly either a try or not a try. When that happens only for a try to be confirmed, a lot of the pleasure experienced on scoring is taken away. A trivial point maybe, but another to consider nonetheless.

I can appreciate why rugby league clubs don't want to pay money out for what is of debatable value, bearing in mind the point I made above about judgement calls. There are probably very few clubs which could afford to part with that kind of money for something that is used relatively rarely and is not exactly crucial to the success or otherwise of the team. There have been many occasions this season when I would have happily binned the video ref completely. Either way, I can't see universal video technology ever being part of rugby league because we just don't have that kind of money available within the game. But the possibility is still worth discussing of course.

How would the Harlequins vs Wigan game have benefited by not having video technology in Warrington for the visit of Huddersfield? Obviously it would not, so scrapping it completely is completely illogical and would do nothing to improve anything.

Is it any more unfair than not having the same referee at every game? Each have their own quirks and interpretations, after all.

Comparing matches with and without technology is a pointless exercise as the two points on offer do not depend on anything happening elsewhere.

In a game with a video referee someone tried will be given that otherwise would not have been, and some will be disallowed that would have otherwise been given. So long as the referee is fair to both teams the net effect is the same. And egregiously bad decisions can just as easily be made regardless of the presence of technology as we saw with the Blanch try last weekend.

And if you think there are complaints now about decisions at non-televised games, wait until the high definition replays, close-ups, and freeze frames highlight every bad decision made by a referee who has once glance at a pile of bodies several yards away go uncorrected.

Of course every video technology at every game would be the ideal. But I would very surprised if, as Brian Noble suggests, anyone was wiling to spend a quarter of a million pounds sponsoring a technology that will only be used for non-televised games and so only exposed to the fans in the stadiums.

But until someone is willing to spend the 拢1,800 per match it would cost (based on those numbers from Cummings) I see no basis on which anyone can show that results or positions on the table are unfairly affected by only using the technology at televised games. Or that the quality of the games or the refereeing would be improved by abandoning it completely.

The referee is only human so any help he can get has to be welcomed. I have to say that American Football has to be the most 'policed' sport I have ever seen and I think we could learn a thing or two from how they do things across the pond. And they could learn how to play league from us :)

I do think the RFL should be implementing video ref at all Super League games for consistency across all matches.

RL has always been a sport that embraces cutting edge technology (unlike some others...), and the cost does not seem exorbitant if the figuresstated are correct.

The RFL should not have to fund cameras at every game.

Instead, follow the NRL where every game is televised by either CH9 or Foxtel, then the broadcaster picks up the cost.

I'm sure SKY or another smaller broadcaster would be interested in covering every game in the round...

Isn't every game filmed anyway? So what's the problem with using the video ref even if the fans can't see it on the big screen. I do agree that it should be all or none though. Fairness should be seen to be done.

Interesting debate George however, not taking into account the cost of technology, where would we get the actual video refs from? There would need to be a pool of Video refs, are they full time or part time, how do we monitor performance, after all they are still human and one persons "benefit of the doubt" differs from another, you only need to watch sky to see Eddie, Stevo, Phil Clarke, Brian Carney, Brian Noble all come up with differing views as to whether a try should be given!
Whether using the video ref or not, some decisions will be questionable (as a supporter all the ones that go against your team).

If the technology is to be used it should be there for all games and not for a selection arbitrarily chosen by a sponsor. The RL has just posted a profit for the 9th consecutive year so perhaps they should fund it? There are two in-goal officials at each non-televised game, if they are good enough for that role then they should be good enough to be a video ref, after all that's why they are there.

Great debate George. I have to say from the common view of the terraces the video refereeing has been positive for our game, when available that is.
Many of our Super League teams are pushing their own internet TV so infrastructures are in place. Why not encourage this further and utilise a central pool of video referees (2 should suffice on a match day). The cameras could be set under fixed guidelines.
Could even take the benefit further and use these remote referees to conduct 鈥淥n Reports鈥�, and have delayed sending offs. This could be a huge benefit for any club wronged by foul play. Many believe the 鈥淥n Report鈥� system unfair because only opponents of the next fixtures gain an advantage of a side weakened by ill discipline.
If the cost are considered too high next best thing lets have some decent touch judges, but I suppose that鈥檚 another debate.

How can a referee be overruled by a touch judge? Especially one who is 60 yards away?

How can a referee be overruled by a touch judge? Especially one who is 60 yards away? That's a weak excuse from the ref imo.

Personally, I like the video ref initiative - I think it's one of the great ideas of our game. But I would like to see it at all SL matches, and at all later stage Challenge Cup games too. The idea of getting a sponsor on board to finance this, is a good one.

The RFL need to think hard about this and come up with a way to offset the cost. They should have traded some of the revenue from Sky to put in Video technology at every ground. This would be cheaper than the RFL buying and maintaning themselves, as Sky should provide at cost. Sky would then not have to transport a screen around and equipment associated with the screen and not all the cameras. It would also enhance Sky's coverage for Boots'n'All the tries, the video coverage looks like it is a bit amateur.

I'd have thought you could improve the abilities of the touch judges for a lot less than 拢250K pa. I think the refs are pretty good at what they do, but some of the touchies' decisions can appear to be rubbish from the stands. Video refs are a good thing - they take a lot of pressure off the ref. I'd hate to lose them from the televised games.

Maybe some minimum level of camera coverage should be defined, for the purposes of TMO video arbitrage, and video replays restricted to those cameras. It is surely distressing and inappropriate that television viewers might have a better view of an incident than the TMO - and misleading, since the referee is the sole judge of fact...

Interestingly, if the broadcasters could be trusted, this would make "live" games more attractive on television, because the 'recorded' games would be restricted to the "official" camera views, while live games could show LIVE anything the tv channel chose... but in replay or recorded, only the 'offical' 'minimium' TMO requirements. I really think that it is not helpful to have TV coverage that goes beyond the TMO supervision; I think it undermines the authority of referees if pictures are shown after the event that contradict the referee's decisions on matters of fact.

SC

Good article. Every SL game should have a video ref...should be working towards this.....oh and we should have two ref's......

Good article but I must add a few comments - Mr Cummings states that we have sufficient officials at the games and I agree - one referee, two touch judges and 2 in goal judges - why is it then that the touch judges appear scared to raise their flags. I sit in the stands and in every game, and I mean every game, there are forward passes and opposition defences not retreating 10 yards and the touch judges do nothing. It's usually the booing of the crowd that finally gets through to the referee to do something. I take friends to games who can't understand how a sport can be so accurate with video technology, yet so poor with human decision making - come on flag wavers - get involved.

Blimey - I didn't even know that not all games have vid refs - not that I'm a RL fan but you naturally assume that all games do. I know all cricket matches don't have all the technology but it's on an agreed basis.

When I saw the Crusaders at Catalan last month I noticed that the game was being televised by a French TV station and had a video ref. I was told that they cover all their home games. I believe that having video reffing for all their home games gives Catalan an advantage, if one team has it then surely we all should

AT LAST!!!
I've said this from Day one.
I can understand the financial problems associated with doing it, but surely, the RFL can negotiate alongside Sky & get the kit for a lot less than they are claiming?
It does smack of the RFL wanting to keep as much money in the bank as possible rather than see the sport rightly lauded for leading the way in the technology stakes.

dont start this football ideology argument here, do you want to send RL back to the darkages with football? It's no more different to having hawkeye only on certain matches in big tennis tournaments. Even in some national ranking tournaments players call their own line calls. A nonsense argument to remove it from RL just because you cant have it at all games

VR at non Sky games was trialed at the Hull KR/Hull game in 2009 but it was estimated it would cost 拢50,000/game, economic suicide for the game in the current economic crisis.

I agree with George - this needs to be looked at. It has to be all Super League games or none. So if Sky want to have it for the matches they televise live, they should make it available at every game - after all they show the highlights of every game on Boots 'n' All. But what also needs to happen is a review of the extent to which video technology should be used for certain decisions - e.g. why not for forward passess? why the use of slow-mo to determine downward pressure? etc.

Dont they have video ref at all catalan home matches even though they dont televise on sky ???

Well highlighted George.....what a shambles, I thought this was a 'professional' game. It's certainly played for high stakes.

Can't understand how you were able to discuss the video of the 'quins/Wigan game with Cummings if video technology "wasn't available" ?

Perhaps a standardised approach of a camera behind each goalmouth and one on a rostrum in the stand at halfway to watch for onside/offside at kicks ?

Won't be perfect, but will be affordable and consistent.

even with the video ref why are so many tries awarded when the ball is not grounded.players dive over the try line with the ball in the crook of the arm and the ball does not touch the ground.this happened twice on saturdays telivised game.
has the ball got to be grounded or have the rules been changed.
[it is the same in rugby union as well]