Video Killed the Rugby League Star? 23 Years of the Video Referee
There has been a lot of debate in recent weeks and months
about the use of video technology in sport. That is probably because Britain’s
national sport has just introduced it into its domestic game. Football has been
behind the 8-ball in this respect with most other sports having taken the
plunge many years before.
I wrote in a previous blog about rugby league playing up to its trailblazer image. Sometimes that’s a good thing and other times its not so good. In 1996, when Super League launched, the introduction of the video referee was pioneering, something that we had never seen before.
We are 23 years on since its introduction and it’s fair to say that it has changed dramatically in that time.
(picture credit: Matthew Merrick @merrick_matthew)
Perhaps the most bitter piece of irony for St Helens fans is that had this game not been televised, there was a greater chance that the try was awarded! For non-televised Super League games an in-goal touch judge is positioned behind the goal line to assist the referee. The above picture shows that Mr Hicks was slightly behind the play and did not have the best angle to make that judgement. That is far from his fault, ball travels faster than man, he could not have got into a better position himself.
Yet had an in-goal touch judge been present, he would have at least alerted Mr Hicks to the possible try, eliciting a discussion and a likely leading to the award to the try.
The point I am trying to make is whether the video referee is better than the system we currently have for non-TV games? I remain unconvinced that it is. I believe that we have talked ourselves into that we have a problem with referees and that without the video referee, countless incorrect decisions would be made. The use of the video referee is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am more than aware that in the last blog I posted, I was critical of rugby league for making change simply for the sake of it. The irony is not lost on me that I am about to propose a similar sweeping change for the video referee!
Well, not an immediate change, but I certainly believe that a challenge system is worthy of a trial in rugby league. My proposal is that each team has one challenge per game in relation to the award or non-award of a try. Upon a challenge, the incident is referred to the video referee who makes a decision with a neutral burden. If the challenge is upheld, the team keeps their one challenge. If it is refused, they lose it for the remainder of the game.
This would take the pressure of the referee and shift it to the players to use their challenge sparingly and effectively. It would also theoretically reduce the amount of video refereeing decisions (on the basis that the majority of referees on field calls are indeed correct) leading to a more free-flowing game.
The one obvious flaw links to something I mentioned earlier, killing the moment. Take the instance of a last minute try for example. If a team had a challenge remaining, they could simply use it speculatively in the hope that the video referee could find something wrong. If this happened, then we have the same primary problem of killing the sporting theatre of a last-minute winner, except it may happen with greater frequency.
To get around this problem, if a team was found that their challenge was unreasonable, speculative or spurious, they would receive a punishment that they would not have the right to a challenge in their next televised match. The sport already operates a similar system when players are ruled to have challenged a penalty notice or suspension for on field misconduct without reasonable grounds.
So, over to you. What do you think? Am I talking rubbish and the video referee works fine in its current guise? Is there a merit to a challenge system? Or should we take a different route such as scrapping video technology altogether, bucking the trend of other sports? Do let me know your views in the comments.
I wrote in a previous blog about rugby league playing up to its trailblazer image. Sometimes that’s a good thing and other times its not so good. In 1996, when Super League launched, the introduction of the video referee was pioneering, something that we had never seen before.
We are 23 years on since its introduction and it’s fair to say that it has changed dramatically in that time.
In 1996 when the video referee was new, there was a
fascination and a novelty about thousands of pairs of eyes being trained on
“the big screen” watching the same replays as the mystical video referee and
debating whether a try should be awarded. For me, the fascination has turned to
a groan and the allure of hearing Fatboy Slim’s “Right Here, Right Now” as
decisions as picked over with a fine toothcomb has long since lost its appeal.
Video technology in sport is a matter of what one feels that sport is. What makes sport so special? Why do we pour hundreds maybe thousands of pounds into following our clubs? Why do we give up so much of our precious little spare time to dedicate to sport? That will always be a question whose answer is very personal.
One of my answers to those questions would be the feeling it gives you. And one of the best feelings is watching your team score a dramatic, late try to secure a victory against the odds. Unnaturally though, I have realised in recent times that my eyes are not fixed on the players celebrating their try, but the referee. My celebrations do not begin until the referee points for the try or signals for the video referee. And even if the video referee awards the try, that moment has gone. The two or so minutes that pass kill that explosion of raw emotion and joy that sport can bring.
Think back to State or Origin III this year. Queensland launched a stirring fightback to bring the match level and with the series tied at 1-1, we were heading into the final few minutes with no idea who would win. In the final minute, New South Wales threw the ball wide and attacked from deep, scoring a truly majestic try to win the series with the final play. It was an incredible moment of sporting drama. Yet the decision was referred to the video referee for checking when there was nothing obviously incorrect, and the replays proved as such.
This is not exclusive to rugby league. Take the recent Cricket World Cup Final, with England beating New Zealand in a super over. There was one ball left, New Zealand needed two runs. They made the first and sprinted back for the second, but to no avail. The England players wheeled off in celebration, yet the moment was delayed by a check with the technology that just confirmed what we already knew. Did this really add anything to the occasion?
I don’t have the evidence to hand, or even know if there is such evidence produced, but the most logical argument for keeping the video referee in its current form is that it improves the accuracy of decision making. This is very much anecdotal, but in rugby league it seems that the on-field call made by a referee is backed up on the majority of occasions by the video referee. The high burden of proof to overturn an on-field decision may skew that somewhat, I accept.
Fans will always criticise referees, but this does little to improve the situation. It leads to clamour for technology, for further checks and verification. Those who laud technology in sport see it as a silver bullet to cure the ills of errors. Here is the one take away from this article video technology will always be as fallible as the person or people who operate it. Error can never be eliminated from sport and that sooner we accept that the better.
The video referee was thrust back under the spotlight this weekend after the Challenge Cup Final, following Robert Hicks’ decision not to refer a potential try for Morgan Knowles to the video referee. A decision that television replays proved to be incorrect.
Video technology in sport is a matter of what one feels that sport is. What makes sport so special? Why do we pour hundreds maybe thousands of pounds into following our clubs? Why do we give up so much of our precious little spare time to dedicate to sport? That will always be a question whose answer is very personal.
One of my answers to those questions would be the feeling it gives you. And one of the best feelings is watching your team score a dramatic, late try to secure a victory against the odds. Unnaturally though, I have realised in recent times that my eyes are not fixed on the players celebrating their try, but the referee. My celebrations do not begin until the referee points for the try or signals for the video referee. And even if the video referee awards the try, that moment has gone. The two or so minutes that pass kill that explosion of raw emotion and joy that sport can bring.
Think back to State or Origin III this year. Queensland launched a stirring fightback to bring the match level and with the series tied at 1-1, we were heading into the final few minutes with no idea who would win. In the final minute, New South Wales threw the ball wide and attacked from deep, scoring a truly majestic try to win the series with the final play. It was an incredible moment of sporting drama. Yet the decision was referred to the video referee for checking when there was nothing obviously incorrect, and the replays proved as such.
This is not exclusive to rugby league. Take the recent Cricket World Cup Final, with England beating New Zealand in a super over. There was one ball left, New Zealand needed two runs. They made the first and sprinted back for the second, but to no avail. The England players wheeled off in celebration, yet the moment was delayed by a check with the technology that just confirmed what we already knew. Did this really add anything to the occasion?
I don’t have the evidence to hand, or even know if there is such evidence produced, but the most logical argument for keeping the video referee in its current form is that it improves the accuracy of decision making. This is very much anecdotal, but in rugby league it seems that the on-field call made by a referee is backed up on the majority of occasions by the video referee. The high burden of proof to overturn an on-field decision may skew that somewhat, I accept.
Fans will always criticise referees, but this does little to improve the situation. It leads to clamour for technology, for further checks and verification. Those who laud technology in sport see it as a silver bullet to cure the ills of errors. Here is the one take away from this article video technology will always be as fallible as the person or people who operate it. Error can never be eliminated from sport and that sooner we accept that the better.
The video referee was thrust back under the spotlight this weekend after the Challenge Cup Final, following Robert Hicks’ decision not to refer a potential try for Morgan Knowles to the video referee. A decision that television replays proved to be incorrect.
(picture credit: Matthew Merrick @merrick_matthew)
Perhaps the most bitter piece of irony for St Helens fans is that had this game not been televised, there was a greater chance that the try was awarded! For non-televised Super League games an in-goal touch judge is positioned behind the goal line to assist the referee. The above picture shows that Mr Hicks was slightly behind the play and did not have the best angle to make that judgement. That is far from his fault, ball travels faster than man, he could not have got into a better position himself.
Yet had an in-goal touch judge been present, he would have at least alerted Mr Hicks to the possible try, eliciting a discussion and a likely leading to the award to the try.
The point I am trying to make is whether the video referee is better than the system we currently have for non-TV games? I remain unconvinced that it is. I believe that we have talked ourselves into that we have a problem with referees and that without the video referee, countless incorrect decisions would be made. The use of the video referee is the equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
I am more than aware that in the last blog I posted, I was critical of rugby league for making change simply for the sake of it. The irony is not lost on me that I am about to propose a similar sweeping change for the video referee!
Well, not an immediate change, but I certainly believe that a challenge system is worthy of a trial in rugby league. My proposal is that each team has one challenge per game in relation to the award or non-award of a try. Upon a challenge, the incident is referred to the video referee who makes a decision with a neutral burden. If the challenge is upheld, the team keeps their one challenge. If it is refused, they lose it for the remainder of the game.
This would take the pressure of the referee and shift it to the players to use their challenge sparingly and effectively. It would also theoretically reduce the amount of video refereeing decisions (on the basis that the majority of referees on field calls are indeed correct) leading to a more free-flowing game.
The one obvious flaw links to something I mentioned earlier, killing the moment. Take the instance of a last minute try for example. If a team had a challenge remaining, they could simply use it speculatively in the hope that the video referee could find something wrong. If this happened, then we have the same primary problem of killing the sporting theatre of a last-minute winner, except it may happen with greater frequency.
To get around this problem, if a team was found that their challenge was unreasonable, speculative or spurious, they would receive a punishment that they would not have the right to a challenge in their next televised match. The sport already operates a similar system when players are ruled to have challenged a penalty notice or suspension for on field misconduct without reasonable grounds.
So, over to you. What do you think? Am I talking rubbish and the video referee works fine in its current guise? Is there a merit to a challenge system? Or should we take a different route such as scrapping video technology altogether, bucking the trend of other sports? Do let me know your views in the comments.
Comments
Post a Comment