Crusaders v Chiefs
-
@booboo said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph We didn't see that still image during the game though. As I said, they made the decision way too fast and should have checked it better. In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
What footage were you watching?
Or perhaps I should ask through which eye?
Although you may be right, it was perhaps video showing Weber didn't touch it, not a still. Shown twice, once immediately after the first angle just as the TMO flubbed his lines, and then again just before the restart for the penalty try. Both of which were "during the game".
can I just confirm, is the footage we see on TV screen exactly what the TMO sees or does the TMO have multiple screens with all angles at the same time? If so wouldn't the TMO have been able to see that second angle earlier?
Not much has been said about the McKenzie try review, I thought on the second angle there the try looked more dubious.
-
@nevorian said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@booboo said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph We didn't see that still image during the game though. As I said, they made the decision way too fast and should have checked it better. In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
What footage were you watching?
Or perhaps I should ask through which eye?
Although you may be right, it was perhaps video showing Weber didn't touch it, not a still. Shown twice, once immediately after the first angle just as the TMO flubbed his lines, and then again just before the restart for the penalty try. Both of which were "during the game".
can I just confirm, is the footage we see on TV screen exactly what the TMO sees or does the TMO have multiple screens with all angles at the same time? If so wouldn't the TMO have been able to see that second angle earlier?
Not much has been said about the McKenzie try review, I thought on the second angle there the try looked more dubious.
Gibbit did an explanation years ago having observed inside the broadcast truck first hand. It may have changed since then but the TMO works with the producer who tells him if there are other angles and how long it will take to get them up.
Considering that the on field ref is designated as the ultimate decision maker and they watch the big screen (which is the same as what we see) then it would be rare that the TMO is seeing something other than what we do. -
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
During my days playing sport I was an absolute fluffybunny to refs. If they pissed me off they would hear about it. Not something I am proud of, and quite the personality floor if I am honest. It ruined my enjoyment of sport and probably contributed to me giving up playing.
In the middle of my playing days and being a fluffybunny, a curious thing happened. Someone I cared about started being a ref. I would watch them ref and hear and see spectators and players being their own version of a fluffybunny towards them. I hated those people. That someone that I cared about was trying to do their best and they did not deserve the vitriol that was coming their way. But it didn't stop me being a fluffybunny the next time I played.
I guess what I am getting at is the refs fucked up last night, but they are humans trying to do their job to the best of their ability and we should remember that. At least until a call goes against the Crusaders or the ABs. That's when the gloves can come off.
I agree with this point, but right now the technology has started impacting the game so much that assistant refs don't even look at whether a player's foot may have touched the ground in the act of scoring a diving try, and they are willing to let play go on even if it doesn't pass the pub test, because they know that the TMO will end up making the decision anyway. The incentive here appears to push them away from making a decision, and it's leading them to become worse.
Then the TMOS are incompetent, and we end up with a worse product that takes longer, with a bunch of strange rulings.
Personally speaking, if we are going to have a Captain's challenge, I'd prefer it if they just cut the TMO back to grounding and foul play (or even nothing unless they are called on by the captain), so that when the TMO does get involved it is because the player's have got them involved. In that case, I hope that the TMO would also be 'less' on the referee side, and perhaps a bit more likely to judge the situation more objectively. In reality though, I think it would be still be a lottery, so why bother having them at all?
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@nevorian said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@booboo said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@kiwimurph We didn't see that still image during the game though. As I said, they made the decision way too fast and should have checked it better. In defence of the officials though, we as fans always complain when the game is interrupted for too long because of the TMO looking at all the angles etc, so we want decisions to be made faster. Now they make a decision fast, and it appears it was made too fast. Whatever TMO protocols you use and whichever way it is applied, there will always be people complaining.
What footage were you watching?
Or perhaps I should ask through which eye?
Although you may be right, it was perhaps video showing Weber didn't touch it, not a still. Shown twice, once immediately after the first angle just as the TMO flubbed his lines, and then again just before the restart for the penalty try. Both of which were "during the game".
can I just confirm, is the footage we see on TV screen exactly what the TMO sees or does the TMO have multiple screens with all angles at the same time? If so wouldn't the TMO have been able to see that second angle earlier?
Not much has been said about the McKenzie try review, I thought on the second angle there the try looked more dubious.
Gibbit did an explanation years ago having observed inside the broadcast truck first hand. It may have changed since then but the TMO works with the producer who tells him if there are other angles and how long it will take to get them up.
Considering that the on field ref is designated as the ultimate decision maker and they watch the big screen (which is the same as what we see) then it would be rare that the TMO is seeing something other than what we do.Assuming that the technology has not, at least, got worse in the last 20 years, I can speak from my experience of working at the TAB as the video operator in the stipes room. They had their own operator (me), access to all camera angles, and all the recordings were set up to rewind and play at that same time; we had a few small screens and one big one (which they would ask me to bring up, e.g., "back straight camera first gt12, then let's see it from the stand camera, then....").
I would assume that the protocols must include something like that to allow TMOs to rule on foul play during the game (i.e., when the ref can't see it), but for movements shown on the stadium screen, I assume that it is the 'big' screen selected by the video operator/Sky director for the TMO. I assume that this screen is chosen at their guidance, which means that if they fuck it up, it's on them.
-
Watching back now.
The penalty against Weber at scrum time to give the Crusaders an 11-10 leaf was questionable - ball was out and he didn't look offside. The next lineout after the restart, the ref judged the crusaders going forward, which they didn't look to be at all, after both players grabbed it in the air.
McKenzie's try was a bit sus as well.
EDIT: penalty against Black 2 in the 36th minute completely ignored red player in the side at the same ruck.
The ref coaches will have some work to do this week.
-
One of the advantages of using Sports Ears at SR games is that I listen to the referees feed which is communication between the ref and ARs and any on-field sound. In previous years I was surprised how often the officials liked to pat each other on the back when making a decision (great call that, well done this, etc). Some of the dialogue was cringe-worthy. The ARs were very reluctant to disagree with the ref unless the evidence was blatantly obvious. Now with this "not clear and obvious" directive they, but more so the TMO, have a "get out of jail free" card. There won't be any accountability from Lawrence and co.
-
@bovidae said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
The ARs were very reluctant to disagree with the ref unless the evidence was blatantly obvious
The ref is the sole judge if Law on the park 😉
You don't disagree with the captain unless he asks for your opinion 😎
-
@bovidae said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
There won't be any accountability from Lawrence and co.
I guess if you're already using the top refs you have available, you can't bench them.
The problem arises when they won't take direction. A few refs I've met are pretty arrogant, when I'm on the sideline as an accredited AR, but a lot appreciate the help.
There's a young bloke coming through the ranks who I reckon could do the top job. Fit and great temperament.
-
Ok well I just saw the tackle leading up to Weber's yellow.
No fucking way that hit a black player. Not a single fucking chance looking at the reverse angle they cut away from. That was fucking appalling.
Scrum down just inside the 22 was the only result.
I quit watching the replay at that point. Get. Fucked.
-
@nta said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@bovidae said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
There won't be any accountability from Lawrence and co.
I guess if you're already using the top refs you have available, you can't bench them.
Well you can! The 5 top-rated officials are involved in SRA and they have rotated roles so far. Only 4 are needed each week so Williams could be stood down for incompetence.
The problem is that the NZR High Performance Referee Manager is Bryce Lawrence, who was an ordinary ref himself, just like his old man.
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
-
@gt12 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crazy-horse said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
During my days playing sport I was an absolute fluffybunny to refs. If they pissed me off they would hear about it. Not something I am proud of, and quite the personality floor if I am honest. It ruined my enjoyment of sport and probably contributed to me giving up playing.
In the middle of my playing days and being a fluffybunny, a curious thing happened. Someone I cared about started being a ref. I would watch them ref and hear and see spectators and players being their own version of a fluffybunny towards them. I hated those people. That someone that I cared about was trying to do their best and they did not deserve the vitriol that was coming their way. But it didn't stop me being a fluffybunny the next time I played.
I guess what I am getting at is the refs fucked up last night, but they are humans trying to do their job to the best of their ability and we should remember that. At least until a call goes against the Crusaders or the ABs. That's when the gloves can come off.
I agree with this point, but right now the technology has started impacting the game so much that assistant refs don't even look at whether a player's foot may have touched the ground in the act of scoring a diving try, and they are willing to let play go on even if it doesn't pass the pub test, because they know that the TMO will end up making the decision anyway. The incentive here appears to push them away from making a decision, and it's leading them to become worse.
Then the TMOS are incompetent, and we end up with a worse product that takes longer, with a bunch of strange rulings.
Personally speaking, if we are going to have a Captain's challenge, I'd prefer it if they just cut the TMO back to grounding and foul play (or even nothing unless they are called on by the captain), so that when the TMO does get involved it is because the player's have got them involved. In that case, I hope that the TMO would also be 'less' on the referee side, and perhaps a bit more likely to judge the situation more objectively. In reality though, I think it would be still be a lottery, so why bother having them at all?
I very much agree with this. Why does the TMO need to interpose to check D Mac's try? If the Crusaders had an issue with it, let them challenge. They chose not to. I don't see that the TMO should get involved in that situation when everyone on the field was happy with it.
-
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of. -
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
-
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
Why is it that whenever a supporter of the losing side makes a point about poor reffing someone else shouts it “you would have lost anyway “
That point has been well accepted by every Chiefs fan. It doesn’t negate the shit reffing discussion which is being supported by the sameTMO again today.
I’m pretty sure there have been studies over other sports that indicate how top teams get more “run of the green “ than weak teams. This just adds another few inches to the hole you are trying to dig yourself out of.I just thought we were here to discuss rugby and not refereeing. It is a strange phenomenon that a team gets thrashed and we still spend 90% of the time talking about the referee. There is zero analysis of the actual game. If the refereeing did not affect the result, why bother talking about it so much? Why not spend time talking about the idiotic decision to go from a scrum instead of a 22 when you are getting done in that facet? People absolutely use refereeing as a distraction point even when they acknowledge their team was 2nd best. It is better than talking about the reality of the situation.
Having said that, I am glad you are "pretty sure" there are studies. The Crusaders got more penalties last night because they dominated the scrum, held the ball and made line breaks (put the Chiefs under pressure). It was nothing to do with the Chiefs being shit last year and everything to do with them being shit last night.
-
@nepia said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@hydro11 said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@crucial said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
Upshot is that it shows how hard it can be to break a losing run when subconcious decision making and confirmation bias by refs is added into the general malaise. Blues copped it for ages in a number of losing runs. I remember Ali Williams totally losing his rag against one ref such was the way that they were being judged as if they could do no right. The ref was judging them very differently to the dominant side.
This happens a lot at the moment with momentum periods. Penalties are coming in batches against one side as they get judged more and more on a fine line each one. That penalty against Weber stealing the ball at the back of the scrum was one. He kept ahead of the flanker until the ball came out but the ref's immediate thought was that he was wrong (and he may have been by a toe) rather than that the Saders had had a bad scrum and lost control, leaving the ball open for a steal.I'm not sure I get where you are coming from. The Chiefs' losing run shows that they are a substandard Super Rugby team, just as the Blues were. The Weber penalty at the scrum was marginal (the call came from the AR, BTW). The Chiefs were given marginal penalties too (like Jacobson's turnover when he was on his knees). There is another confirmation bias which is people remember decisions more against the team who lost.
The TMO got one big call wrong last night and that is disappointing. The Chiefs were reemed in the scrum, dreadful defensively and had poor discipline. I'm sure it is theoretically possible but it is hard to see the Chief beating that Crusaders team, if they played them 10 more times. As Stargazer has pointed out, the Chiefs should probably have had another man in the bin at some point. They conceded a lot of penalties (especially if you count the advantages).
You can't disregard one big call just because of the likelihood of one team winning. That one big call happened when the game was close and it caused a 14 point advantage (including the try with a player in the bin) to the eventual winners.
But, as has been said, 15 penalties for a game (plus some advantages) would normally get you a yellow card anyway. So if Weber had not gone then, someone would have likely gone at some other time. If Jacobson had been penalised in the first half, things could have been different as well.
Weber is an experienced player. He should know better than to tackle a player from an obviously off-side position. Therefore you can't put the subsequent try when the Chiefs were down a man on the TMO. The TMO's mistake would have only cost 7 if Weber had been smarter in that situation. The subsequent try is on Weber's ill-discipline.
Look, I get the TMO decision hurts worse than other decisions. You make a challenge, you want them to have a proper look and ultimately come to the correct decision. It is the same thing with VAR in football. People copped a bad call better when it was a snap judgement. I am just objecting to people who say it happened to the Chiefs because they were bad last season.
I suppose if the TMO had made the correct call, the Chiefs could have turned it around and won the game. We watch sport because there is always a chance. The reality is that I would have put very long odds on that happening. The Chiefs were just too poor up front and too ill-disciplined.
-
Yeah I would like to talk about the game too.
From a Sader's perspective it was good to see Douglas pull his weight after falling off a cliff last year. I thought he ran on to the ball well and stood up in the lineout.
Havili played played ok at 12 but it didn't feel like the midfield really gelled. Goodhue was quiet, maybe the ball just didn't go his way?
-
@kiwimurph said in Crusaders v Chiefs:
@stargazer the second angle was as clear as day for the Weber/Mounga tackle.
Weber hits Mounga's wrist causing the ball to fly forward.
It’s not clear, without arrows or bright yellow circles.
