Bunker ?

[Browner]

http://m.tvnz.co.nz/sport/sport/6065785

Thoughts ?

 

[Phil E]

Thoughts ?

As a general rule, I try NOT to think about Rugby League :nono:

 

[Browner]

As a general rule, I try NOT to think about Rugby League :nono:

But their technological advancements have often been adopted by Union , so in that context?

 

[Dickie E]

As a general rule, I try NOT to think about Rugby League :nono:

Posted on a RL thread. Stop it, I'm getting a stitch

 

[Phil E]

Posted on a RL thread. Stop it, I'm getting a stitch

Maybe a bit more fitness training would benefit you? :booty:

 

[OB..]

But their technological advancements have often been adopted by Union , so in that context?

The RL conneciton is irrelevant. As the article says they looked at the concept as used in the NFL and NHL in the USA. That fact has been mentioned on here from time to time.

In the USA, NFL officials are graded on every decision in every game by a panel of former officials. When a referee reviews a decision pitchside, it may well not be his own decision (there are 6 other officials). Even if it is, he knows it pays to be honest because of the panel gradings - the best get the Super Bowl, the worst get dropped.

 

[leaguerefaus]

For a long time I've wondered why Video Referees are at the ground. There's no need. A central command centre is certainly the way forward.

 

[4eyesbetter]

It's worth a try. I believe that the NHL was the first to experiment with having replay decisions made in a command center by as few people as possible, and everything I've heard says they (and others like the CFL who've followed suit) like it and they think it improves consistency. As long as there's a backup plan in case the communications fail, it's certainly worth trying. It also helps that the NHL were the leaders, because they'll have procedures for using it in a high-intensity schedule that goes far beyond most other sports, and it's far easier to scale complexity down than up.

 

[crossref]

it's a great idea, and just think how many more matches the same set of TMOs could cover...

 

[ddjamo]

I have only skimmed the posts above but if it hasn't been mentioned - the central TMO location is being used in MLB now...and very effectively. I am a big fan. I think the catcher/collision rule is bad - but the new review procedures are working well and getting calls right.

 

[MrQeu]

I have only skimmed the posts above but if it hasn't been mentioned - the central TMO location is being used in MLB now...and very effectively. I am a big fan. I think the catcher/collision rule is bad - but the new review procedures are working well and getting calls right.

Well, they are but only after the firsts weeks when the people in NY had limited access to replays. Oh, well, maybe the Anna incident wasn't a cock up but biased replay crew :biggrin:

 

[Browner]

The RL conneciton is irrelevant. As the article says they looked at the concept as used in the NFL and NHL in the USA. That fact has been mentioned on here from time to time.

The point I thought I was making OB, was, Union seems to watch how RL uses technology before they start experimenting/trials , I'm not aware that Union took a lead from other sports .... Maybe you know more ?

If im correct, this means that IF RL trial this, AND its deemed successful AND then implemented , then its far more likely to arrive in Union in due course based on historical evidence.

I guess one benefit of command centres is being able to TMO more matches, but even this requires a massive investment program, so maybe its that that will stunt the growth

 

[OB..]

The point I thought I was making OB, was, Union seems to watch how RL uses technology before they start experimenting/trials , I'm not aware that Union took a lead from other sports .... Maybe you know more ?

I don't know if there is anything uniquely devised by RL that RU copied. In cases such as professionalism and sinbins, as examples, other sports got there before RL. I see no reason to generalise too far.

I am happy to pinch good ideas from anyone.

If im correct, this means that IF RL trial this, AND its deemed successful AND then implemented , then its far more likely to arrive in Union in due course based on historical evidence.

Is the historical evidence really that compelling? Or are you just arguing post hoc ergo propter hoc?

 

[Browner]

RU advancements seem more copied from RL than any other different sport. If you think its coincidence then so be it.

Personally, I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been prior tested out by RL before adoption ...?

 

[Browner]

Duplicate entry ....amended!

 

[crossref]

RU advancements seem more copied from RL than any other different sport. If you think its coincidence then so be it.

Personally, I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been prior tested out by RL before adoption ...?

go one Browner, educate us with a couple of examples then. tech that was first adopted in RL (date) then by the RU... (date)

 

[Browner]

go on Browner, educate us with a couple of examples then. tech that was first adopted in RL (date) then by the RU... (date)

MatchCom
Auz RL 1996
IRB 2003

Sports Ears
Debut Auz RL
IRB 2003

Has this?

 

[Phil E]

Personally, I'm struggling to think of things that haven't been prior tested out by RL before adoption ...?

Scrums?......oh wait!

 

[OB..]

I suppose, given the proximity of the Olympics, it is worth mentioning Sevens, but to be honest this is a pointless argument.