Apparently not from the amount of noise you're creating over the decisions in numerous posts.Forward passes / knock ons lend themselves to a TMO as the decision is much more factual .. did it go forward or not
Obstruction is much more subjective
Yes, I agree that use of technology is not infallible, but my point here is that for forward passes is that the TMO (with all the technology available to them, and the luxury of time) is a more likely to get to the right decision than the referee who saw it once, real time (hardly controversial) however that's not where RU has ended upApparently not from the amount of noise you're creating over the decisions in numerous posts.
But again you miss the point, technology doesn't assure the correct decision is made. Which ever point of law is being assessed.
We tried that but you are currently cross posting across 3 differing posts and conflating the issues.Bud, this thread, is about TMOs !
Only if the 'smart' element is in the dead centre of the ball.
Hopefully they thought of that.Only if the 'smart' element is in the dead centre of the ball.
why would that be important? Whatever happens to the ball happens to all of the ballOnly if the 'smart' element is in the dead centre of the ball.
What is the ball is spinning, which is very common for a rugby ball... having the chip in the middle results in a spin having no impact on positioning. Alternatively you could have 2 chips, one at each end or each side... probably easier than trying to suspend one in the middle.why would that be important? Whatever happens to the ball happens to all of the ball
the technology being trialled in Australia (AIUI) uses hawkeye-type cameras and tech, AND a smart ball to work out whether the player increased the forward velocity of the ballI don't see what issue this smart ball could solve. I thought we agreed the direction of the ball was not the issue. Just the direction of the player's hands.
But if the direction of the hands is not forwards, then the initial momentum of the ball is not forwards, regardless of the direction shortly thereafter. That's what measuring the ball's path, accurately, would provide.I don't see what issue this smart ball could solve. I thought we agreed the direction of the ball was not the issue. Just the direction of the player's hands.
that's not right - in an ordinary pass when running at speed the movement of the hands is backwards, but the ball continues to travel forward (relative to the ground), albeit more slowly forward than before it was thrown.But if the direction of the hands is not forwards, then the initial momentum of the ball is not forwards, regardless of the direction shortly thereafter. That's what measuring the ball's path, accurately, would provide.
Chopper could have been a TMO - TMOs are necessarily somewhat choppereseque, having to make precise positinal/directional judgements , and pay close attention to the exact meaning of the Law.I think CHOPPER was more rational than we all realised.