IRL v FRA - Home Broadcaster Advantage?

[didds]

we come back to the idea that the TMO/videos are not there to ensure every call is 100% correct per se, but that no glaring arrors occur.
I think, certainly based on the comments above, that that remit has totally failed.

meanwhile given that AIUI the ref is now shown the angles/replays as well to help/drive the conversation with the TMO, it this seems nonsensical for the TMO to allegedly see all angles, but not the ref (I got the impression that WB did not see this post-conversion angle?).
I dont know how they ensure/enforce ALL angles to be provided to TMO) and ref before any decision is made.

 

[BikingBud]

Perhaps they did not consider the performance of the cameras and the ability to provide such clear pictures at that range, that might be poor preparation or briefing, but they must know where the cameras are.

Lowe scores 'all-time great finish' - but should it have stood?

Ireland wing James Lowe scores an acrobatic try against France which stands after a lengthy video review fails to prove that his foot was in touch.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Did the TMO see that angle?"

 

[Volun-selected]

Expand....

Expand on UK or IRL ... ?
I'm originally from the UK (Stafford), ended up in the US about 20 years back. Regarding, IRL, I like how the team (and the Lions) is drawn from the full island of Ireland, both the Republic and NI, despite the history. Makes me hopeful that the last round the Troubles may be the last.

 

[Volun-selected]

I thought they just said that was all the angles they had (if I recall correctly)? Bit suspicious this other angle popped up at half time

I'm not sure which feed the US service is piggy-backing, but for me the better angle was shown immediately after JS had missed the conversion - or just after the try could not be reversed. As soon as I saw that angle I felt it would have been enough to put Lowe in touch.

It just felt really cycnical - but also in line with some recent posts where the TMO seems to have either a) withheld an optimal angle, or b) had that angle denied to them in a way that seems to favour the home team. As @BikingBud asks - did the TMO see that angle?

 

[crossref]

Expand on UK or IRL ... ?
I'm originally from the UK (Stafford), ended up in the US about 20 years back. Regarding, IRL, I like how the team (and the Lions) is drawn from the full island of Ireland, both the Republic and NI, despite the history. Makes me hopeful that the last round the Troubles may be the last.

The plot thickened when rugby became an Olympic sport
N Irish players are (probably ) entitled to play for either IRL or GB as it suits them

Great Britain national rugby sevens team - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Decorily]

It just felt really cycnical - but also in line with some recent posts where the TMO seems to have either a) withheld an optimal angle, or b) had that angle denied to them in a way that seems to favour the home team. As @BikingBud asks - did the TMO see that angle?

I'm reliably informed that ALL angles/views are immediately available to the TMO and it is not dependant on local broadcaster providing same.
Whether or not the TMO actually viewed all available footage is another matter!

 

[Stu10]

Other than yellow card that might have been red, did anyone else feel that France were generally hard done by the officials?

 

[leaguerefaus]

I'm slightly concerned with how many of you think the first angle wasn't enough evidence to say he was in touch...

Less weight needs to be put on the live decision in these scenarios. The technology should not be hampered by a live decision that, in something this tight, is more akin to a guess. The live decision should only be relevant when there is a lack of sufficient evidence (e.g. pile of bodies... can't tell if the ball got to the ground or not).

 

[Volun-selected]

I'm slightly concerned with how many of you think the first angle wasn't enough evidence to say he was in touch...)

Maybe it was the slightly blurry nature on the screen and perhaps it was HD for the TMO, but it was in that grey area which isn’t quite enough to be clear and obvious. Of course, if WB had said on-field was touch it wouldn’t have overruled that either.

The second angle seemed a lot clearer to me - I would have ruled that as in touch.

 

[menace]

I can't vouch for 6N but for my sins I have experienced being assistant TMO for super rugby. We had every camera to view on our monitor (all what seemed like a100 of them!) with the ability to; select a view, rewind, freeze, slow-mo, any one we wanted and selecting the best views before telling the TV production crew what we wanted, when, and how fast. The trick is with that many tiles/choices across 1 or two monitors, and not a hell of a lot of time, is to select and review the relevant ones and give advice to the big screen production crew (TV production can then go off and do their own thing different from the big screen but generally they were the same vision).
It is pretty frenetic and high pressure for the TMO to get the vision right for the big screen as the peanut gallery tend to get restless. (In my case, the assistant looks first - sends it up to TMO and then TMO reviews and directs it from there). IMO, it's a horrible job and takes to be good at the whole process. (But it is an amazing process to watch the TV and big screen production crew do their thing!)

In all honesty - I can't really fathom why the TMO didn't think that it wasn't in touch? I can understand perhaps that the grainy big screen was harder for the ref/ARs.

I'm going out on a limb here and hypothesise a possible reason - as I don't really know the To4 -so could be totally wrong. We've all seen WB in action with TMO and referrals, IMO he absolutely wants to run/control the conversation and the decision-making process (as he should so that's not a criticism). From what I've witnessed with the way WB conducts himself and talks, as if in a courtroom ( ), I reckon none of the To4 simply don't want to debate or contradict what WB says...certainly not with many millions listening. I reckon the TMO wanted to just give the vision and let WB do it all on his own. I wouldn't be too surprised that once WB said he couldn't see 'CO' himself, the TMO clammed up and just went with "neither can I?" (I reckon WB would be intimidating and some refs you just can't save from themselves). Hence WB stayed with his on-field decision.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the refs dressing room after the game - I'm sure some frowned looks would have been exchanged. :lol:

(and let the bullets fly)

 

[Dickie E]

At risk of hijacking the thread....
Any thoughts on the YC?
Definite RC for me!

YC for me. I don't see any head contact highlighted by the ball carrier's head going forward before whiplashing

 

[crossref]

Less weight needs to be put on the live decision in these scenarios. The technology should not be hampered by a live decision that, in something this tight, is more akin to a guess. The live decision should only be relevant when there is a lack of sufficient evidence (e.g. pile of bodies... can't tell if the ball got to the ground or not).

Yes
(as I argued in a recent thread)

 

[Dickie E]

Lack of arms by tackler Blue #14 would suggest a PT anyway

 

[crossref]

One piece of context : seems to me WR have very clearly asked the MO to speed up the whole process for the 6N .. decisions are taking less time than in the Autumn international

So perhaps in this one they just felt a bit rushed.

We can imagine that quicker decisions (a good thing) will have a drawback .. some mistakes

 

[shebeen]

I'm going out on a limb here and hypothesise a possible reason - as I don't really know the To4 -so could be totally wrong. We've all seen WB in action with TMO and referrals, IMO he absolutely wants to run/control the conversation and the decision-making process (as he should so that's not a criticism). From what I've witnessed with the way WB conducts himself and talks, as if in a courtroom ( ), I reckon none of the To4 simply don't want to debate or contradict what WB says...certainly not with many millions listening. I reckon the TMO wanted to just give the vision and let WB do it all on his own. I wouldn't be too surprised that once WB said he couldn't see 'CO' himself, the TMO clammed up and just went with "neither can I?" (I reckon WB would be intimidating and some refs you just can't save from themselves). Hence WB stayed with his on-field decision.

thanks for the insight. It is surprising to me when a Ref leads the decision after viewing it from 50m on a stadium big screen with effective resolution of a a 2008 smartphone. The TMO is often not given the chance to actually do their job.

If the ref is going to own referral decisions then we need to give them better tools. In cricket the standing umpires give all the responsibilty to the 3rd official in the video booth. Maybe this is not possible due to time, but this is what NFL and Soccer do.

 

[didds]

women's 6N video checks certainly very recently relied on a TV at the pitch edge rather than a big screen. So its hardly difficult to provide.
wrt the excellent post above by menace, presumably the To4 doesn't have a "safe" word or phrase to use so as to flag that maybe the path that is being taken may not be quite correct - a "OI! Look again!" but said in such a way so as not to flag that to the world.

 

[Phil E]

Sexton attempts the conversion, and once done (so can't undo the decision).

Not true anymore.
They can still chalk off the Try even if the conversion has been taken.

 

[Dickie E]

women's 6N video checks certainly very recently relied on a TV at the pitch edge rather than a big screen. So its hardly difficult to provide.
wrt the excellent post above by menace, presumably the To4 doesn't have a "safe" word or phrase to use so as to flag that maybe the path that is being taken may not be quite correct - a "OI! Look again!" but said in such a way so as not to flag that to the world.

James Leckie (Oz ref & more recently TMO) was very good at "suggesting" that the ref have another look

 

[Mipper]

I can't vouch for 6N but for my sins I have experienced being assistant TMO for super rugby. We had every camera to view on our monitor (all what seemed like a100 of them!) with the ability to; select a view, rewind, freeze, slow-mo, any one we wanted and selecting the best views before telling the TV production crew what we wanted, when, and how fast. The trick is with that many tiles/choices across 1 or two monitors, and not a hell of a lot of time, is to select and review the relevant ones and give advice to the big screen production crew (TV production can then go off and do their own thing different from the big screen but generally they were the same vision).
It is pretty frenetic and high pressure for the TMO to get the vision right for the big screen as the peanut gallery tend to get restless. (In my case, the assistant looks first - sends it up to TMO and then TMO reviews and directs it from there). IMO, it's a horrible job and takes to be good at the whole process. (But it is an amazing process to watch the TV and big screen production crew do their thing!)

In all honesty - I can't really fathom why the TMO didn't think that it wasn't in touch? I can understand perhaps that the grainy big screen was harder for the ref/ARs.

I'm going out on a limb here and hypothesise a possible reason - as I don't really know the To4 -so could be totally wrong. We've all seen WB in action with TMO and referrals, IMO he absolutely wants to run/control the conversation and the decision-making process (as he should so that's not a criticism). From what I've witnessed with the way WB conducts himself and talks, as if in a courtroom ( ), I reckon none of the To4 simply don't want to debate or contradict what WB says...certainly not with many millions listening. I reckon the TMO wanted to just give the vision and let WB do it all on his own. I wouldn't be too surprised that once WB said he couldn't see 'CO' himself, the TMO clammed up and just went with "neither can I?" (I reckon WB would be intimidating and some refs you just can't save from themselves). Hence WB stayed with his on-field decision.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the refs dressing room after the game - I'm sure some frowned looks would have been exchanged. :lol:

(and let the bullets fly)

Fascinating insight, so thanks for sharing that.
I tend to agree on your hypothesis around Barnes influence on the team around him, although this is a real shame if accurate.

 

[Stu10]

Fascinating insight, so thanks for sharing that.
I tend to agree on your hypothesis around Barnes influence on the team around him, although this is a real shame if accurate.

I haven't watched it back to be sure, but my memory of events is that WB made the final decision based on the clips that were shown to him... the TMO may have seen that last clip, but it definitely was not shown to WB, and therefore was not considered when he made his decision whether to award the try. As suggested by the OP, I think WB may have made a different decision if he had seen this last angle.