Re: Video ref again what's the point : Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:21 pm  

so who made the decision,the onfield ref or video ref?

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:25 pm  

meast wrote:

so who made the decision,the onfield ref or video ref?

At the risk of repeating myself again. The VR made the decision and took into account the fact that the ref stated the ball ended up on the line. As the ball was on the line it was either a try or a penalty for a double movement. There was no video evidence to suggest a double movement so even though there was no video showing the ball on the line as the ref said it ended up there the try was awarded benefit of the doubt.

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:34 pm  

there was no video evidence showing the ball on the line so bentham has gone with thaler who said the ball was on the line at "some point", no try then surely if they can't tell how the ball got onto the line.
still a shocking decision.

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Fri Aug 29, 2014 9:53 pm  

Eastbourne Warrior wrote:

At the risk of repeating myself again. The VR made the decision and took into account the fact that the ref stated the ball ended up on the line. As the ball was on the line it was either a try or a penalty for a double movement. There was no video evidence to suggest a double movement so even though there was no video showing the ball on the line as the ref said it ended up there the try was awarded benefit of the doubt.

However many times you repeat yourself, you'll still be wrong.

The VR does not take as gospel any "finding" by the on-field ref. They can and should look at anything that may be relevant.

And sticking to the point, if (as here) the ref thinks the ball touched the line, but is WRONG, the VR cannot and will not ignore the video evidence. Why would he? To save face for the ref? Don't be silly! The whole point is the VR is there to CHECK. Including checking what the ref THOUGHT he saw.

We also had a clear view of what the ref saw, from head cam. Once the ball was behind the defender's leg, the answer is "nothing". We know what the ref saw, as we saw the same view.

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Sat Aug 30, 2014 9:59 am  

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ?ref=var_0 When I first saw the picture towards the end of the article i thought "how did they give that". BUT when the reporter indicates that the ball is the object between the boot and shin and not (as i originally thought) they object infront of the defenders thigh, it does indicate that perhaps the ball did touch the line

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/spo ... ?ref=var_0 When I first saw the picture towards the end of the article i thought "how did they give that". BUT when the reporter indicates that the ball is the object between the boot and shin and not (as i originally thought) they object infront of the defenders thigh, it does indicate that perhaps the ball did touch the line

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Sat Aug 30, 2014 10:04 am  

RE:- ref cam. Just to point out we have used something similiar on a couple of projects our company has worked on. The camera does NOT point in the direction the eyes are looking, but in the direction the head is facing. This makes no difference for forward facing binocular observation but can different a different view point if trying to look under/over/around an objective which would otherwise be in the line of sight.

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:53 pm  

mikej wrote:

http://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/sport/11440845.UPDATED__PICTURE__Was_it_a_try_/?ref=var_0

When I first saw the picture towards the end of the article i thought "how did they give that". BUT when the reporter indicates that the ball is the object between the boot and shin and not (as i originally thought) they object infront of the defenders thigh, it does indicate that perhaps the ball did touch the line

But that is not the ball. It could be a heel, an elbow, whatever but if it was the ball then
(a) it would be too long and
(b) it would have to be extremely and exceptionally squashed into the ground.

This can easily be seen by superimposing a ball at approximately the same angle, and making it the same length point-to-point as it would have to be if that is the point of the ball.

Re: Video ref again what's the point : Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:58 pm  

mikej wrote:

RE:- ref cam. Just to point out we have used something similiar on a couple of projects our company has worked on. The camera does NOT point in the direction the eyes are looking, but in the direction the head is facing. This makes no difference for forward facing binocular observation but can different a different view point if trying to look under/over/around an objective which would otherwise be in the line of sight.

Accepted, but this particular headcam was facing directly at where the ball would be, i.e. the ref's head was facing exactly that way, and therefore at that moment it was either seeing the same thing as the ref, or else the ref for some reason was looking away to one side or the other.

I think it is 100% certain that he was looking dead ahead, at where the ball was, personally. I don't see any reason why in that critical moment he would avert his gaze to one side or other.