Toulouse v Castres: your decision?

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
Yep, that is an incorrect decision, but easy to see how both the referee and the AR thought it was a knock on. At full speed from behind it looked like it went forward off Black 15's left forearm. Only the head-on slo-mo showed what really happened.

This is a classic case of the referee calling what he "thinks" he saw. He should have gone to the TMO for that.
 

MrQeu

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
440
Post Likes
37
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Well, as the video has been posted, I don't have to upload it. The images will be no different from that one. :)
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
Incident can be seen 30 seconds into these short highlights : Top 14 - 2ème journée _ Toulouse - Castres (2014-2015). The ref's "knock-on" is shown to be a poor decision. (Watch at about 27 seconds, to see that both ref & AR are trailing behind on this break-away.) The "off-side" is also disputed by the TV commentator.

Its interesting to see the blue line superimposed across the pitch , is this imagery independantly controlled or it produced by one of the teams staff?

I'm sure there are people on this site who are more geometrically skilled than me, but to my amateur eye the line looks slightly adrift of the real position..., does it make a difference? - you decide! But have look again ....
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
If the line was put on by the broadcaster (Canal?) it would most likely have been generated using similar techniques to those used in "1st & Ten Graphics" so named because it was developed to create the "First Down" line in NFL broadcasts.

footballline-fig2.jpg


Anyone who watches American Football will be familiar with this.

I'm unsure as to how the line on the video was done, but I think it doesn't looks quite right.

line.jpg


The two red lines I have added are both parallel "on the image" to the 5m line. You would expect them to look non-parallel with the other two lines, and the amount of skew looks too much for the change in the angle across the width of the camera's field of view. Its marginal at best.
 

RobLev

Rugby Expert
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
2,170
Post Likes
244
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
Its interesting to see the blue line superimposed across the pitch , is this imagery independantly controlled or it produced by one of the teams staff?

I'm sure there are people on this site who are more geometrically skilled than me, but to my amateur eye the line looks slightly adrift of the real position..., does it make a difference? - you decide! But have look again ....

To me, it's a timing issue; the still onto which the line is superimposed is before the ball actually leaves #15's thigh; when it does, #14 is most of a stride closer to the try-line and ahead of #15. Compare the head on clip with the clip where the blue line appears.
 

Browner

Banned
Joined
Jan 20, 2012
Messages
6,000
Post Likes
270
To me, it's a timing issue; the still onto which the line is superimposed is before the ball actually leaves #15's thigh; when it does, #14 is most of a stride closer to the try-line and ahead of #15. Compare the head on clip with the clip where the blue line appears.

I'm merely suggesting that a more accurate blue line 'could' show the support player as being offside, not much I grant you that, but TMOs have been know to have tight margins to work with.

Just saying.
 

MrQeu

Avid Rugby Lover
Joined
Sep 18, 2011
Messages
440
Post Likes
37
Current Referee grade:
Select Grade
The replay with the blue line was shown during half time, not just afterwards of the decision. Therefore, the TMO will undoubtely have to make the decision with the help (or "un-help") of the blue line.
 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
We are starting to go around in circles. The AR's call for Knock-on was incorrect, due to his poor positioning. The refereee would have been better off consulting the TMO, as he was entitled to do. Unfortunately he choose not to, since his assistant was "sure" of what he saw.

The other aspect was brought up as a filler by the TV at half time, awgthtgtta. The support runner was behind the ball when it was last played. The slow motion is "unhelpful" in the respect that it allows decisions to be based on fractions of a second. The ref cannot during the run of play disect each action to the nth degree. Ian is right the commentators have superimposed the line. It's correctly done, don't you know the first thing about perspective (vanishing point, etc.) ? The TMO had the images taken from in-goal available to him. Those would have been sufficient to tell the ref there had been no knock-on. If the (unasked at the time) question was "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?" then the potential off-side would have become an issue. Since it's marginal, & unclear from mutliple replays, he could only answer "There is no reason. You may award the try."
 

Ian_Cook


Referees in New Zealand
Staff member
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
13,686
Post Likes
1,772
Current Referee grade:
Level 2
We are starting to go around in circles. The AR's call for Knock-on was incorrect, due to his poor positioning. The refereee would have been better off consulting the TMO, as he was entitled to do. Unfortunately he choose not to, since his assistant was "sure" of what he saw.

The other aspect was brought up as a filler by the TV at half time, awgthtgtta. The support runner was behind the ball when it was last played. The slow motion is "unhelpful" in the respect that it allows decisions to be based on fractions of a second. The ref cannot during the run of play disect each action to the nth degree. Ian is right the commentators have superimposed the line. It's correctly done, don't you know the first thing about perspective (vanishing point, etc.) ? The TMO had the images taken from in-goal available to him. Those would have been sufficient to tell the ref there had been no knock-on. If the (unasked at the time) question was "Is there any reason I cannot award the try?" then the potential off-side would have become an issue. Since it's marginal, & unclear from mutliple replays, he could only answer "There is no reason. You may award the try."


I'm in the photographic trade and a semi-professional photographer. I do know about perspective.

What I am saying is that the blue line does not look like it is at the angle it should be at for where I would expect the vanishing point to be for that image (to me it looks slightly counter-clockwise of where I would expect).

To accurately place a line with correct perspective requires a lot of specialist equipment, including motion sensors mounted on the broadcast cameras, moving computer graphics technology and chroma key (green screen) technology. Its a lot more complex that it seems.

 

L'irlandais

, Promises to Referee in France
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
4,724
Post Likes
325
Ian,
... my comment was directed at Browner's Posts #23/#26 You are probaly right the TV crew did skew the line.
In which case, your corrected blue line would dissect the angle between their offside line and the ajoining superimposed redline on your image. Thus putting the support runner onside, and taking the word "marginal" out of the equasion. What Browner appears to fail to realise is that this skewing was done purely to povoke a debate, to fill the half time break on TV. Toulouse are the team with the most silverware in France, commentators are always sniping at them. Castres are the proverbial under-dogs. It was a 15 minute filler about why, even though the match referee was incorrect about the Knock-on, the try should still not have been awarded - TMO or no TMO.


As Eric Idle might say "What’s it like?"
 
Last edited:
Top