AUBUSSON WAS OFF SIDE - KENT WRONG!

[MadMarcus]

Ok, Bones - your right. i redrew the line from the ball (as states in the rule)

View attachment 3458


TRY!!!! f%%K. got lucky

Geez I haven't seen so many lines since the Titans end of season trip.

 

[SwornEagle]

Why don't they put a GPS/receiver in the ball and one in a camera on a wire on the side line and the camera tracks up and down the field in relation to the ball.

 

[Rodo]

Why don't they put a GPS/receiver in the ball and one in a camera on a wire on the side line and the camera tracks up and down the field in relation to the ball.

Think this would be too complicated. Where would the touch judge stand if there was a camera going up and down the sideline? It would be difficult for him to get in the best position to see the play. Also the camera/gps in ball system would not work for forward passes because as we know balls can be thrown back but float forward due to momentum which would be difficult for this system to make a ruling on.

 

[Rex]

Was a try IMO. You have the line drawn too far back. Draw it from where the ball is, not from Tupou's back foot.

Given this is his full-time job, shows how sloppy Kent is when he starts the line from the wrong spot (to be fair I may have got this wrong too), and then can't take account of basic geometry to get the lines even close to parallel (I wouldn't have got this so wrong). Anything for a story, no matter how simplistic or sloppy.

This photo also misrepresents what actually happened. There is a clear gap between ball and foot. So the point of contact happened further back than the photo suggests, increasing the likelihood of offside - especially at the pace he was running. Given this needed to be a soft kick to not go dead, this misrepresentation is potentially significant, especially if there was follow-through on the soft kick to increase accuracy.

With all the variables, the touchie was in a much better position to judge than all the photos and camera angles so far presented.

And if the NRL considers that Tapou did not intentionally involve himself in the play by backing up the player with the ball, running right beside him and calling for the ball, then I am dumbfounded.

 

[TWO DOGS]

The game survived for 90 odd years without video referees.

I'd be happy to abolish the video referee for everything other than groundings and let the touch judges and referees make LIVE calls. They won't get every single one right, but they still get them wrong even with the video replays so why waste so much time?! I am happy to simply accept the referees live call and be done with it. Some will go against but plenty will be in our favour too.

The reason there is some scrutiny on every decision these days is because the fans, players, and coaches are fixated on perfection when it simply does not exist.

The problem with that is you would give referees such as Horsehead and Checcin even more ability to determine outcomes of games.

 

[The Who]

There is a simple solution to this. Get rid of all video technology.
The ref ruled it was no try, so move on. Quickly. Before the issue spirals out of control like it has done.
Go back to the ref, and touch judges, being the sole arbitrators.
Sure, they will get some decisions wrong - just like has happened since the sport started in 1908. But second-guessing refs by technology undermines referees and, ultimately, leads to nonsense debate that drags on... until the next round of matches when technology will again interfere with the sport.

 

[SwornEagle]

Think this would be too complicated. Where would the touch judge stand if there was a camera going up and down the sideline? It would be difficult for him to get in the best position to see the play. Also the camera/gps in ball system would not work for forward passes because as we know balls can be thrown back but float forward due to momentum which would be difficult for this system to make a ruling on.

Nah, was thinking the camera would be up above the touchie on the wire, same as they have going now for SOO, Finals etc.. The GPS wouldn't be used to rule on forward passes from the ball itself, but the camera inline with the ball, moving at the same pace as the ball, would show this perfectly.

 

[Dan]

GPS isn't accurate to the cm. it's accurate to about 3m.

They could however fix cameras at specific intervals and angles, and use a Hawkeye like system to map the files and angles based on those camera angles. The angles would be the same always and as such Hawkeye should be reasonably accurate where the ball can be seen.

I do not think it's worth it however and am of the opinion that the game is better when there is some ambiguity to it.

I was against the bunker at first but am absolutely with it now it is q vast improvement over the video ref.

What we need now is to go back to one ref on the field. There is no need for one to police the ruck they just get in the way as they did today and you get an inconsistent result and game