Television Replays being Abused

[TRF_stormer2010]

Ego's get in the path of progress and should be crushed. But by the person themselves first IMO.

On Walsh, I for one like Walsh's apologies. I don't see it as him undermining his own authority. If anyhting I respect people more when they can see their own faults and mistakes; a person not making mistakes doesn't exist.

At the end of the day depsite the players and ref being professional they are still human and this is still sport. That's not to say we should simply accpet the state of affairs as is because we can improve it. We won't get it perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Ego's get in the path of progress and should be crushed. But by the person themselves first IMO.

On Walsh, I for one like Walsh's apologies. I don't see it as him undermining his own authority. If anyhting I respect people more when they can see their own faults and mistakes; a person not making mistakes doesn't exist.

At the end of the day depsite the players and ref being professional they are still human and this is still sport. That's not to say we should simply accpet the state of affairs as is because we can improve it. We won't get it perfect but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

It's big of him to apologise. But he doesn't change the call. It's a bit of an underhanded move by him. It's basically saying "I'm sorry that I made a bad call, but I'm not going to change, so please accept my apology even if it results in your team being negatively affected".

 

[smartcooky]

I'm saying the ref should accept his decisions being overturned without getting all uppity about it if it's the right call; it's about taking steps to ensure the correct decision, not what's best for Walsh's ego... just as an example

When the DRS was first introduced, there were complaints from some quarters that said umpires would resent having their mistakes shown up. Those concerns have proved to be baseless. Cricket umpires have been handling having their decisions being overturned by the DRS with no problems AFAIK, and in fact have embraced the technology as a tool in their toolkit.

 

[squirrel]

When the DRS was first introduced, there were complaints from some quarters that said umpires would resent having their mistakes shown up. Those concerns have proved to be baseless. Cricket umpires have been handling having their decisions being overturned by the DRS with no problems AFAIK, and in fact have embraced the technology as a tool in their toolkit.

Actually a lot of umpires found the job harder with DRS when it was first introduced and were quite upset when their decisions were being overturned on flaky evidence, Mark Benson who was the best international umpire at the time got quite stressed over it. Cricket has only just got the DRS right after about 5 years of trial and error.

 

[smartcooky]

Actually a lot of umpires found the job harder with DRS when it was first introduced and were quite upset when their decisions were being overturned on flaky evidence, Mark Benson who was the best international umpire at the time got quite stressed over it. Cricket has only just got the DRS right after about 5 years of trial and error.

I find Benson's attitude irrational. I might be upset if I incorrectly gave a player out on 99 and got overruled by the DRS., but I would be even more upset if I gave the player out on 99, only to find later that the decision was incorrect.

However, we have to start somewhere. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of top cricket umpires are happy with it now?

 

[TRF_heineken]

I find Benson's attitude irrational. I might be upset if I incorrectly gave a player out on 99 and got overruled by the DRS., but I would be even more upset if I gave the player out on 99, only to find later that the decision was incorrect.

However, we have to start somewhere. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of top cricket umpires are happy with it now?

I would agree with that.

In fact I think the entire cricket community agrees with it except the BCCI

 

[goodNumber10]

DRS in cricket is very different to something that's implementable in rugby though, yes i know the captain requests it but Hawkeye, Hot Spot and Snickometer aren't really transferable and that means the issue in all of this is that it's coming down to a human decision and whilst that is in play there will always be room to argue the toss.

what happens when a captain calls for review and still doesn't get the result he wants AND it's a contentious issue.

How many times are we going to re-invent the wheel?

I like the solution/process Smartcooky laid out above, for me that's workable, though i'll be honest i don't think it's anywhere near as big a problem as Hansen and co are making out.

 

[Mikel92]

It might not be a gigantic problem at this very second, but that doesn't mean it won't quickly become one. This year has been pretty bad for it, at a few venues now.

 

[goodNumber10]

meh! tomato tomatoe.

 

[thechosenfamily]

Interestingly Major League Baseball has just introduced a remote based replay system which seems to be working.

Could work in this case.

If and when a replay or a challenge is in place then the feed is looked at by multiple umpires based in New York and the result is fed back to the on field officials.

Decision is therefore distanced from the ground in question and should be neutral.

 

[SelimNiai]

I find Benson's attitude irrational. I might be upset if I incorrectly gave a player out on 99 and got overruled by the DRS., but I would be even more upset if I gave the player out on 99, only to find later that the decision was incorrect.

However, we have to start somewhere. Would you agree that the overwhelming majority of top cricket umpires are happy with it now?

I would, infact I think its on the whole increased the amount of decisions that were right first time.

Its a system that in rugby would only be used in the same ways the TMO is now, tries being "scored" and any foul play, maybe if theres a dispute over who got last touch before ball went out of play.

 

[j'nuh]

Can someone provide any evidence that referees are being swayed by crowds? Except for in maybe isolated incidents?

It's coming across as, "The referee made a decision I disagree with therefore they were wrong and were swayed by the crowd."

Also, out of interest, who shows the replays in-ground? Who has that decision? Does anyone actually know that it is the broadcaster, or is this just guesswork?

 

[SelimNiai]

Can someone provide any evidence that referees are being swayed by crowds? Except for in maybe isolated incidents?

It's coming across as, "The referee made a decision I disagree with therefore they were wrong and were swayed by the crowd."

Also, out of interest, who shows the replays in-ground? Who has that decision? Does anyone actually know that it is the broadcaster, or is this just guesswork?

Its a perception thing. Its an easy accusation to throw by those who feel the refs are against them as its something that you just cannot prove. Maybe I'm just a bit niave but I don't think any ref makes a call based, in full or partially, on what the crowd is shouting.

 

[TheSaffycen]

I think what happens normally is that the big screen shows foul play, then the crowd start yelling, then the ref looks up at the big screen and then makes the decision to go to the TMO or not. After that though I don't think that the crowd gets the decision it's up to the ref/TMO. Look at Ulster v Saracens with Payne's red card, that was for the home team in a massive game. As is said before the TMO can't hear the crowd, he shouldn't be swayed.

 

[squirrel]

@smartcooky the problem was that the decisions were not exactly wrong but more that the 3rd umpires were looking for excuses to overturn fair decisions. An example was when Ramnaresh Sarwin was given LBW off Steve Harmisons bowling but the umpires decision was overturned on the basis that itmight or might not go over the stumps. He went on to score 290 and Harmison rightly felt robbed and the umpire felt a bit ****** that a decision was overturned on flimsy evidence.
DRS had a very rocky introduction to cricket but I would say it's spot on now that it is being used to eliminate the howler and 50/50 calls go in favour of the umpire because hawkeye, hotspot and snicko are far from accurate.
I would agree that most umpires are happy with it now and it has made umpiring a non existent excuse for losing unless your Australian and think its Broads fault that you used up all your reviews on speculative appeals.

 

[Da Grappla]

I don't like that challenge system. Referee authority shall stay paramount and not challenged. On the other hand, TMOs could be better placed outside of the stadium so they couldn't be affected by crowd noises and that kind of pressure.

Something needs to be done because all the big teams are getting a home advantage from it.

Don't make foul play against the home team.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

 

[Shaggy]

I don't like that challenge system. Referee authority shall stay paramount and not challenged. On the other hand, TMOs could be better placed outside of the stadium so they couldn't be affected by crowd noises and that kind of pressure.



Don't make foul play against the home team.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Absolutely, but we want to get from "Don't make foul play against the home team" to "Don't commit foul play" don't we?

Match adjudication needs to be as fair as possible for both teams.

My issues with replays at the venues are as follows:

Who decides what's shown, are they qualified, and are they impartial?

Are they putting the same amount of time and effort into supposed infractions from both teams?

Are they showing all of the available evidence, or just cherry picking it to cater to their domestic audience?

As for the challenge system, isn't the referee's authority already being challenged?

It's not the match officials that are deciding what's being replayed on the big screen, in ultra slow motion, at the ground, is it?

I don't think this issue needs to be of epic proportions in terms of the number of times it happens in games, to be addressed and provide maybe two challenges that each side can use judiciously during a match, as it only needs one or two contentious calls to turn an important match.

 

[goodNumber10]

we should just do away with the TMO for good.

we have citing for foul play, and then no more moaning from anyone.

 

[smartcooky]

I think what happens normally is that the big screen shows foul play, then the crowd start yelling, then the ref looks up at the big screen and then makes the decision to go to the TMO or not. After that though I don't think that the crowd gets the decision it's up to the ref/TMO. Look at Ulster v Saracens with Payne's red card, that was for the home team in a massive game. As is said before the TMO can't hear the crowd, he shouldn't be swayed.

THIS^^^

Its the decision to actually go to the TMO that is being influenced, not so much the subsequent decisions.

If you are the referee and you suddenly hear raucous booing while a replay is being shown, it would be hard to resist looking at the big screen to see what they are booing at, espocually if it is happening during "down time" while a player is being treated for injury or a substitution/replacement is being made.

As SelimNiai said, the perception that the referee is influenced is not a good thing either.

we should just do away with the TMO for good.

we have citing for foul play, and then no more moaning from anyone.

The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is no putting it back I can't see it ever happening. In the "old" days television video was poor resolution and poor quality. We didn't pick up the large number of mistakes that were made by referees at vital times that cost teams matches. Not so now; video is HD 1920 x1080 pixel resolution; photographically crystal clear. Mistakes become obvious. It simply makes no sense to have millions of people at home able to see clearly while we blindfold and hamstring the referee.

I have a collection of older matches going back 30+ years and they are replete with what we would now call refereeing blunders that would almost certainly have been turned over by the TMO.

Take for example....

1. the 1987 RWC Semi final between Australia and France. There is no way on God's green earth that Serge Blanco's last gasp try in the corner would have stood had there been a TMO. He was in touch before he grounded it. Even if you could somehow argue that it was inconclusive, two passes earlier, Rodriguez knocked the ball on picking it up. With a TMO, the 1987 final would have been New Zealand v Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnzNxVpAXQw


2. the 1973 All Black Tour of Great Britain and France. Tom Grace's last gasp try for Ireland against NZ would certainly have gone to the TMO. The referee was 15m behind the play and directly behind Grace as he grounded a loose ball close to the dead ball line. There is no way he could have seen the try scored from his position. The ball looked like it crossed the dead ball line before being grounded, so the question would have been "try or no try?". The TMO would have to see a grounding in-goal, and this is simply not visible, so that try would probably have been ruled out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXjDn6l6M74

 

[goodNumber10]

THIS^^^

Its the decision to actually go to the TMO that is being influenced, not so much the subsequent decisions.

If you are the referee and you suddenly hear raucous booing while a replay is being shown, it would be hard to resist looking at the big screen to see what they are booing at, espocually if it is happening during "down time" while a player is being treated for injury or a substitution/replacement is being made.

As SelimNiai said, the perception that the referee is influenced is not a good thing either.

The incident that has provoked this particlular discussion though, the Faumuina, wasn't the Ref referring it, it was the TMO intervening with the "Check" call after seeing the replay.

As you've said before, he's in a soundproof booth, he's completly isolated from te ground, it's purely a call made on video.

I agree it's a dangerous precedence to set if stadium technicians have control of the video feed, but i always thought it was mainly a live feed of the TV channel, is it completely independent?

The Genie is out of the bottle, and there is no putting it back I can't see it ever happening.

oh, completely! it'll never happen...