For years
the NRL has been meddling with the video referee system only for every change
to be met with opposition and calls for a new system.
All
throughout last year there were calls for a Video Bunker system, for which the
NRL finally obliged.
Now after
just 17 games, it is amazingly being criticised for getting a decision right.
During
the Friday night game between the Bulldogs and the Eels, Sam Kasiano throws a
pass which to this spectator, was a line ball at best, but did float forward
quite a bit for a relatively short pass – and that has me thinking it could
have been forward.
Sam
Perrett picked up the loose ball and scored. Matt Cecchin signalled a try before
consulting with his touch judge, who called a forward pass.
The Video
Referee Bernard Sutton said while watching the replay “…if Parramatta haven’t
knocked the ball backwards, then the live decision on field is a forward pass.”
Therefore,
the Bunker made no error, it simply cleaned up Cecchin’s error.
Yes, the
Video Referee is not supposed to adjudicate on forward passes. But in reality,
they didn’t.
The sideline official did.
Instead
of being happy with the correct decision having been made by the Bunker,
attention is now going to focus on this one issue, which really, has little to
do with the Bunker and more to do with Cecchin not consulting with his touch
judge before signalling try or no try.
But this
also highlights a bigger issue with video referee technology. People want a
video referee while also wanting the on field referee to have more control.
This level of contradiction has caused numerous tweaks to how the video ref
functions in the past.
If we
want the decisions surrounding a try to be correct, then the video referee
should look at the entire movement leading up to the try from the last play the
ball.
If we
want referees to have control of decisions, then we should do away with the
video referee.
We
currently have a situation where we have our cake and want to eat it too, even
though we’re not sure if we want cake.
The
Bunker is the best innovation the game has enjoyed in some time. It is many
years overdue. Yes there was a hiccup, but it made the right decision. The word
of the touch judge, it must be noted, holds as much authority as the on-field
officials, thus why their word is accepted as fact by on-field officials.
So it
stands to reason that if an on-field official calls for the video referee and
foolishly forgets to consult with his colleagues first before signalling try or
no try, those other officials should still have their voice heard if they think
something should be investigated by the video referee.
Which is exactly what happened on this occasion.
**This article appeared on the Commentary Box Sports website**
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.