Blues v Highlanders
-
@booboo said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crazy-horse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@gt12 said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crazy-horse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@gt12 said in Blues v Highlanders:
@booboo said in Blues v Highlanders:
Allow me to whinge about refereeing decisions given against the winning team.
Apparently that never happens.
And I know it's been said, but the Akira forward pass and the Sotutu vicious back charge really were crap. I get how @mariner4life Is losing his shit with rugby after crap like that.
Akira: went back out of his hands, and he was always in front of the ball indicating the ball travelled backwards relative to the player. How come us ignorant slobs on an internet forum know these rulings and the highly paid officials fucking don't?
I can see how they came up with the Sotutu ruling, I just disagree with it (ie., they got it wrong) and assert it was 100% unnecessary to even look at it.
Why have a TMO if they can't get simple decisions right?
There's whinging about whinging on the Saders v Chiefs thread about time taken to review. These were two examples where inordinate amounts of time were taken to review and get the wrong decision.
Its a lottery and they add no value. TMOs were meant to prevent howlers; now they create them.
Get rid of them.
Shirley you are not serious? We'd have to stop TV replays completely otherwise the internet would implode.
So you mean fans might get involved in caring about the game? That would be horrible. At least they'd know that it was a real person who made a real mistake in real time, rather than an idiot who can't understand the laws (and their application) with every video tool available. I'm happy to accept that given that we've tried the TMO and it is clearly not working.
If we must have it, the captain's challenge can respond to your concern, otherwise having the challenge is pointless. I'd give captain's one per half and that's the only situation in which the referee's ruling is challenged. If a TMO fucks up a captain's challenge, they get benched.
We have a citing commissioner who can deal wit foul play that gets missed in the game. Double or triple the bans for foul play and piss off with the 'good record' bullshit.
I would be all for less TMO intervention, but don't forget the TMO has evolved in multiple sports for a reason. TV technology improved, people at home saw the mistakes and spewed on social media, commentators made a big deal of them, coaches had dummy spits etc etc. It would need quite the cultural change for us to be comfortable with no TMO.
As for limiting the TMO to captains calls only, may work, may not. I don't have much faith in people so I still see plenty of dummy spits happening. People aren't going to sit back when their team has been screwed over by a bad ref call when the captain has used up their referral. It's easy to say "Tough titties, the team used their referral" but that won't stop the controversy. People will still find something to get pissed off about.
Benching TMOs for fucking up a call? Pretty harsh. Given a lot of decisions are opinion based we'd probably run out of suitably qualified refs. In some ways I see this response as our very own version of cancel culture. They made a mistake! Get rid of them!
Better yet, since we can all do the job of a match official way better than they can, why don't we have some sort of internet voting system. If a ref isn't sure, it gets sent out for the viewers to vote in real time. Nobody is one eyed (except people supporting teams from ChCh, but we could just ban them from voting) so voting will be fair, we will get consensus every time and the decisions will always be right because the majority is never wrong.
.A pattern of mistakes though.
Perhaps they need to be told to go away to focus on their work-ons... (and come back with learnings, so they can contra beaut...)
I am sure they are focusing on their work ons. We probably have the best refs available doing the job now, maybe there isn't the depth to bench refs for a period of time?
I mentioned this in the other thread about refs. I think a problem these refs are facing is that we are privy to their conversation while they are making decisions. I know from my work experience, having people listen in on the decision making process hinders things somewhat. We walk away from people and stop our recording devices when talking about how we are going to deal with things. That way we don't have to worry about what we say.
The refs are well aware they are being listened to and I reckon they would be conscious about what they say. We very rarely see them disagree and I don't think I have heard a ref ask another ref to clarify a law for them. This is not a healthy way to make good decisions. I quite like the way they do it in basketball and possibly other American sports. The refs have their wee debate in private, then they announce their reasoning once their decision is made. The process might take a bit more time I suppose but I reckon more refs would speak up if they disagree.
-
@crazy-horse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@booboo said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crazy-horse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@gt12 said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crazy-horse said in Blues v Highlanders:
@gt12 said in Blues v Highlanders:
@booboo said in Blues v Highlanders:
Allow me to whinge about refereeing decisions given against the winning team.
Apparently that never happens.
And I know it's been said, but the Akira forward pass and the Sotutu vicious back charge really were crap. I get how @mariner4life Is losing his shit with rugby after crap like that.
Akira: went back out of his hands, and he was always in front of the ball indicating the ball travelled backwards relative to the player. How come us ignorant slobs on an internet forum know these rulings and the highly paid officials fucking don't?
I can see how they came up with the Sotutu ruling, I just disagree with it (ie., they got it wrong) and assert it was 100% unnecessary to even look at it.
Why have a TMO if they can't get simple decisions right?
There's whinging about whinging on the Saders v Chiefs thread about time taken to review. These were two examples where inordinate amounts of time were taken to review and get the wrong decision.
Its a lottery and they add no value. TMOs were meant to prevent howlers; now they create them.
Get rid of them.
Shirley you are not serious? We'd have to stop TV replays completely otherwise the internet would implode.
So you mean fans might get involved in caring about the game? That would be horrible. At least they'd know that it was a real person who made a real mistake in real time, rather than an idiot who can't understand the laws (and their application) with every video tool available. I'm happy to accept that given that we've tried the TMO and it is clearly not working.
If we must have it, the captain's challenge can respond to your concern, otherwise having the challenge is pointless. I'd give captain's one per half and that's the only situation in which the referee's ruling is challenged. If a TMO fucks up a captain's challenge, they get benched.
We have a citing commissioner who can deal wit foul play that gets missed in the game. Double or triple the bans for foul play and piss off with the 'good record' bullshit.
I would be all for less TMO intervention, but don't forget the TMO has evolved in multiple sports for a reason. TV technology improved, people at home saw the mistakes and spewed on social media, commentators made a big deal of them, coaches had dummy spits etc etc. It would need quite the cultural change for us to be comfortable with no TMO.
As for limiting the TMO to captains calls only, may work, may not. I don't have much faith in people so I still see plenty of dummy spits happening. People aren't going to sit back when their team has been screwed over by a bad ref call when the captain has used up their referral. It's easy to say "Tough titties, the team used their referral" but that won't stop the controversy. People will still find something to get pissed off about.
Benching TMOs for fucking up a call? Pretty harsh. Given a lot of decisions are opinion based we'd probably run out of suitably qualified refs. In some ways I see this response as our very own version of cancel culture. They made a mistake! Get rid of them!
Better yet, since we can all do the job of a match official way better than they can, why don't we have some sort of internet voting system. If a ref isn't sure, it gets sent out for the viewers to vote in real time. Nobody is one eyed (except people supporting teams from ChCh, but we could just ban them from voting) so voting will be fair, we will get consensus every time and the decisions will always be right because the majority is never wrong.
.A pattern of mistakes though.
Perhaps they need to be told to go away to focus on their work-ons... (and come back with learnings, so they can contra beaut...)
I am sure they are focusing on their work ons. We probably have the best refs available doing the job now, maybe there isn't the depth to bench refs for a period of time?
I mentioned this in the other thread about refs. I think a problem these refs are facing is that we are privy to their conversation while they are making decisions. I know from my work experience, having people listen in on the decision making process hinders things somewhat. We walk away from people and stop our recording devices when talking about how we are going to deal with things. That way we don't have to worry about what we say.
The refs are well aware they are being listened to and I reckon they would be conscious about what they say. We very rarely see them disagree and I don't think I have heard a ref ask another ref to clarify a law for them. This is not a healthy way to make good decisions. I quite like the way they do it in basketball and possibly other American sports. The refs have their wee debate in private, then they announce their reasoning once their decision is made. The process might take a bit more time I suppose but I reckon more refs would speak up if they disagree.
That's a really good point. I'd rather then be able to turn off their mikes, sort out the decision, and then announce their decision.
I don't agree they should be scrapped, but they should be making less mistakes than the ref sprinting around the field without the benefit (mostly) of a replay.
-
Looks forward out of his hands to me. At the very least I don't think its as clear cut 'not forward' as some are making out
edit Im sure some expert somewhere can do the calculations to se eif it was forward out of the hands or not. It went a long way forward but this would ahve to be adjusted for speed of the passer
-
i think im onboard with the no TMO idea, if there was no TMO we may all be annoyed we could see on the reply that it was one thing or the other...but eventually we would have to accept the on field refs can only see what they can see
-
@winger said in Blues v Highlanders:
Looks forward out of his hands to me. At the very least I don't think its as clear cut 'not forward' as some are making out
edit Im sure some expert somewhere can do the calculations to se eif it was forward out of the hands or not. It went a long way forward but this would ahve to be adjusted for speed of the passer
Nah, clearly backwards out of the hand.
-
or they make it less subjective and just say it cant go forward at all, so yes, people will have to pass a long way behind them when they are running at speed...but less argument
-
By the way, whoever was the commentator for this game was great. Sounded like he enjoyed rugby, got excited by both teams doing something good. And in a game where there were a few "interesting" decisions, was quiet about them and just let the pictures and ref audio tell the story.
Much more enjoyable than having TJ inflicted on us.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
or they make it less subjective and just say it cant go forward at all, so yes, people will have to pass a long way behind them when they are running at speed...but less argument
Pretty much every pass where a player is running will be forward if that's the standard. Will only be able to pass the ball when pretty much standing still.
-
@kirwan thats not true, basic physics mean you just have to pass it further backwards to offset the the running players momentum, so support players cant run as flat
personally i think id rather that was the case then continued arguing over "cleary forward out of the hand" or "clearly backwards out of the hand"...when in reality neither is clear, and the refs having to make subjective decisions which is going to put people off watching
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan thats not true, basic physics mean you just have to pass it further backwards to offset the the running players momentum, so support players cant run as flat
personally i think id rather that was the case then continued arguing over "cleary forward out of the hand" or "clearly backwards out of the hand"...when in reality neither is clear, and the refs having to make subjective decisions which is going to put people off watching
Watch the video posted above to see how wrong your post is.
-
@kirwan i did, so you're saying its impossible for them to pass it ruther backwards?
-
@kirwan said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
or they make it less subjective and just say it cant go forward at all, so yes, people will have to pass a long way behind them when they are running at speed...but less argument
Pretty much every pass where a player is running will be forward if that's the standard. Will only be able to pass the ball when pretty much standing still.
Or you won’t be allowed to make long passes because they appear worse.
One way of judging is whether you would call the pass forward if caught by a player behind you but close by.
The thing that annoys me most about that call is that the understanding of why the ball can be passed legally but forward relative to the ground is 101 stuff for refs. WR even went as far as to make that video for spectators so they could understand the refs call. Apparently NZs best ref (judging by RWC appointments) doesn’t understand.
Apart from that we had the spectacle of a fantastic try of great skill and speed wiped off the record. -
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
personally i think id rather that was the case then continued arguing over "cleary forward out of the hand" or "clearly backwards out of the hand"...when in reality neither is clear, and the refs having to make subjective decisions which is going to put people off watching
mate, if you think that'll take out the controversy you're completely wrong. All it will do is shift to a TMO trying to figure out if a parallax skewed pass travelled forward over the ground. It'll be a disaster.
also, you'll have the deepest backlines you've ever seen. Flat support will be gone, it'll be all so deep it's not funny. Defenses will love it - and the last thing we need in modern rugby is more defensive advantages.
Edit: the concept that you can give the ball to a player behind you is spot on, and should be maintained.
@winger - have a look at where Akira is when Rieko catches the ball. The ball has gone backwards a long way relative to him, unless he turned on the gas after throwing it
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan i did, so you're saying its impossible for them to pass it ruther backwards?
Players could do. But it would totally change rugby as we know it. I prefer a few debatable calls. And even if the rules were changed we would still have contentious decisions
I just accept now that refs make (wrong?) decisions I strongly disagree with. A fact of life
-
@nzzp said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
personally i think id rather that was the case then continued arguing over "cleary forward out of the hand" or "clearly backwards out of the hand"...when in reality neither is clear, and the refs having to make subjective decisions which is going to put people off watching
mate, if you think that'll take out the controversy you're completely wrong. All it will do is shift to a TMO trying to figure out if a parallax skewed pass travelled forward over the ground. It'll be a disaster.
and everyone is really enjoying this shit, at least there are graphics for a straight line across the field the could use
@winger said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan i did, so you're saying its impossible for them to pass it ruther backwards?
Players could do. But it would totally change rugby as we know it. I prefer a few debatable calls. And even if the rules were changed we would still have contentious decisions
I just accept now that refs make (wrong?) decisions I strongly disagree with. A fact of life
fair enough, thought there was just some chat about alternatives
I'll move on, just glad it didn;t effect the result
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kirwan i did, so you're saying its impossible for them to pass it ruther backwards?
In the case of throwing the ball over your head while running forward just how far back would you like the receiver to be or the pass to be?
Rieko was a long way behind his brother when the pass was made anyway.
The law is simple. You can’t pass the ball toward the opponents line. Nothing about whether the ball can’t land or be caught closer. Judge the pass and only the pass. If it isn’t obviously being passed forward then it gets the benefit of the doubt. -
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
and everyone is really enjoying this shit, at least there are graphics for a straight line across the field the could use
This is blowing up because the call was so badly wrong. The controversial ones to referee are where the pass gets thrown in or immediately before contact, and that's where 'backwards out of the hands' is so important. Someone decelerating makes it look way way worse (even if it is technically correct).
This is just a howler. Player running, throws a big spiral pass backwards, keeps running, gets hit and the ball is still always behind him. It's just a no brainer.
-
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
@nzzp said in Blues v Highlanders:
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
and everyone is really enjoying this shit, at least there are graphics for a straight line across the field the could use
This is blowing up because the call was so badly wrong. The controversial ones to referee are where the pass gets thrown in or immediately before contact, and that's where 'backwards out of the hands' is so important. Someone decelerating makes it look way way worse (even if it is technically correct).
This is just a howler. Player running, throws a big spiral pass backwards, keeps running, gets hit and the ball is still always behind him. It's just a no brainer.
i agree but other dont so it cant be so clear and obvious
-
@kiwiwomble The backwards out of the hand directive was an effort to simplify these sorts of ruling (mainly for the impossibility of the physics involved).
That's how it's ruled now, and they even got that part wrong. As said above, a howler.
If you watch the video you'll see that what tyou asking for is basically netball, you'd have to stop in order to pass.
-
@kiwiwomble said in Blues v Highlanders:
@crucial there is somewhere between directly over your head and flat
I understand the rules, its the subjective aspect of "out of the hands" that annoys me like all the subjective rules, we've all probably watched it loads of times each and there is still disagreement of if it was clearly backwards out of the hands or not
I'm just tired of the solution to reffing mistakes being for them to get better, too much human error and subjective decisions, i imagine the field had lines in the first place take decisions clear, in or out
maybe i should just be happy i got everyone agreeing to disagree with me
We’ve had these discussions before but the easiest way to judge this particular instance is the velocity of the passing and catching players. If they remained relatively constant and the catcher was the same distance behind the passer through the travel then quite obviously the ball was passed back. Physically impossible for that ball to have been passed forward unless Rieko put 15 metres on his brother in three steps.
