10/20/2007

What is the point of a video referee ?

It is often argued that football would benefit from having more decisions made by referee with the aid of a video in front of them in order to review decisions. This has proved extremely accurate in cricket, but it appears from the evidence of tonight's Rugby World Cup Final that there is sufficient evidence to question the validity of video refs.

Despite England being second best overall in tonight's rugby, what was clear was that England scored a legitimate try early on in the second half that would have put England in the lead and would have changed the game beyond complexion. However, the video ref, an Australian, saw the same video evidence that we saw on TV, and from every angle it was clear it was a try, and decided that according to him and him only, it was not a try.

The problem is, of course, nothing to do with using video evidence or making informed decisions. It is more to do with biased officials taking out their own personal prejudices against nations. Who ever thought that an Australian would give England a try ? Who ever thought that a referee in the Premier League would have given a penalty against Liverpool in the last minute of the Merseyside Derby earlier today , even when all the video replays showed that Everton deserved a clear penalty ?

Video or not, you can't account for biased cheating officials.

Update : For all those people pointing out that there is NOW a TV angle which shows his foot touched the line, it ought to be made clear, this angle was NOT shown last night, all the angles we were shown were those available to the video referee also. If there was another angle available to see last night, why was it not shown at the time ? If the video ref had this angle, why was it not shown at the time ? Is it a case that evidence since last night has shown him to be right BUT actually the decision was made without having seen this evidence.

I also agree with the comment that made the point the England were given a try in the 6 nations that from every angle was not a try. I make the point again, what is the point of a video ref it this happens ?

6 comments:

Bernard said...

oh come on, no sour grapes please.

IMO Cueto's toe went into touch before he lifted his foot so I can see why Dickinson made the call he did.

There were plenty of other 'marginal calls' in that game that you could have got upset about (including one blatant offside at a mual in the run up to SAs second penalty).

On the wider question of TMOs, yes they occasionally give questionable decisions (Jonny's try against Scotland in the 6 nations anyone) but generally they mean a lot more decisions are being got right than they used to. Try watching some club rugby where there aren't TMOs, some shocking decisions get given.

Tabman said...

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44188000/jpg/_44188780_cueto203.jpg

Sorry - but unfortunately it looks like the video ref made the right call.

Anonymous said...

I agree..it was a try.

Aussies are still sore!!!


Next...tye ashes....???

Norfolk Blogger said...

I've seen the photo and it does not show that his toe is touching the line. The fact is, of course, theat the video ref did not see this picture either which serves to prove my initial point. That he made his jdgement not on the evidence before him, but with his Australian bias first and foremost in his mind.

Duncan Borrowman said...

It was absolutely clear that his toe touched the line before he touched the ball down.

Guto said...

While the photo linked to above is not clear cut and is not TV footage, this photo

http://www.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/4/285x214/22740_1.jpg

comes from the television footga eshown during the game and seen by Dickinson. It's indisputable. So what's the argument?

Pages