Whistle watch - World Rugby production

[Blackberry]

Here's the problem I've seen when analysing referees' calls, the best way to describe the problem is to put it alongside other analysis and gauge the reactions. First imaginary example, "In this clip we see the scrum half pass right, missing the opportunity to go left and attack the less defended side" The reaction, "Oh yeah, I see that, interesting point" Second imaginary example "Here we see the referee misses a late tackle in the melee" The reaction "That cost us the game...she was biased...more incompetency...etc".
Its down to all of us to start reacting equably to analysis. And while I'm dreaming can I have a pony. (cultural reference to Calvin and Hobbs)

 

[BikingBud]

The SA v AB game for example too much analysis about the AB catcher's action being legal rather than the missed tackles by 3 SA players. Or the missed line outs from both sides? Or the pass straight into touch when SA had a potential overlap?

There are many, many more. Games are won and lost by the actions and decisions of all parties over the full period of the game. There is no single definitive decision although close games with last minute scrum penalties might be argued as such but the poor 50/22 coming back for a line out may have hindered the single score that might have made the difference.

Bring Griff in he will tell us about leaving tips, fortunately avoided!

 

[shebeen]

The SA v AB game for example too much analysis about the AB catcher's action being legal rather than the missed tackles by 3 SA players. Or the missed line outs from both sides? Or the pass straight into touch when SA had a potential overlap?

There are many, many more. Games are won and lost by the actions and decisions of all parties over the full period of the game. There is no single definitive decision although close games with last minute scrum penalties might be argued as such but the poor 50/22 coming back for a line out may have hindered the single score that might have made the difference.

Bring Griff in he will tell us about leaving tips, fortunately avoided!

You do make a valid point but why can't you do both?
Why can't you look at individual talking points, specifically on a single decision and interpretation on the laws there without making a call on whether it affected the match outcome?

To go to extremes, an analysis could be done on an entire game, every decision made and then run a profit/loss type exercise to make a hindsight opinion on whether the winning team deserved it and/or the match officials decisions influenced the outcome of the game. As much as I will get lambasted for bringing it up, Rassie was able to make a video on 26 individual actions during the Lions 1st test (2021) because the calls were there and made by humans.

You could do both.

I was wondering if WR would bring out whistle watch last week. Looks like they chose to park it, and not commented on the biggest game of the year and a World Cup. Maybe for a week, maybe permanently.

There's been plenty of material to work on here from the URC.

Opinion: Felipe Contepomi rightfully 'fed up' as inexcusable errors mar Rugby Championship race

💬 "That try effectively secured two log points for the Wallabies and puts them in the driving seat ahead of the final fortnight of action." #RugbyChampionship

www.planetrugby.com

 

[Jz558]

To go to extremes, an analysis could be done on an entire game, every decision made and then run a profit/loss type exercise to make a hindsight opinion on whether the winning team deserved it and/or the match officials decisions influenced the outcome of the game. As much as I will get lambasted for bringing it up, Rassie was able to make a video on 26 individual actions during the Lions 1st test (2021) because the calls were there and made by humans.

I do think this is a "be careful what you wish for" scenario though. In addition to decisions made, would such a review look all the times the match official should have refereed in accordance with the laws and didn’t to the benefit of one side or another? Crooked feeds, off feet at the ruck, leaving the lineout and other law infringements routinely happen without sanction in professional rugby. Should these be included in the full match analysis?

The integration of the TMO and video analysis is also not the be all and end all and, if used badly, (another subjective judgement) can be as detrimental to the game as it can be positive if used well.

Whilst everyone recognises that the appraisal of a referee's performance is essential, many who watch the game do not realise the extent to which the laws and actions are subjective and forensic analysis is therefore neither useful nor decisive in determining whether a decision is correct or not. Coaches’ selective post-match appraisal is their opinion alone and not necessarily overwhelming proof of match official failure.

 

[BikingBud]

You do make a valid point but why can't you do both?
Why can't you look at individual talking points, specifically on a single decision and interpretation on the laws there without making a call on whether it affected the match outcome?

To go to extremes, an analysis could be done on an entire game, every decision made and then run a profit/loss type exercise to make a hindsight opinion on whether the winning team deserved it and/or the match officials decisions influenced the outcome of the game. As much as I will get lambasted for bringing it up, Rassie was able to make a video on 26 individual actions during the Lions 1st test (2021) because the calls were there and made by humans.

You could do both.

I was wondering if WR would bring out whistle watch last week. Looks like they chose to park it, and not commented on the biggest game of the year and a World Cup. Maybe for a week, maybe permanently.

There's been plenty of material to work on here from the URC.

Opinion: Felipe Contepomi rightfully 'fed up' as inexcusable errors mar Rugby Championship race

💬 "That try effectively secured two log points for the Wallabies and puts them in the driving seat ahead of the final fortnight of action." #RugbyChampionship

www.planetrugby.com

I think that the first piece should already happen, as part of the debrief for the match officials. And perhaps to provide wider direction to all officials in terms of improving consistency. Perhaps someone will be able to confirm what and how.

However trying to run a "profit and loss" to determine whether a team should have won is counter to all I perceive and love about sport, especially, the widely differing impact of human performance variability, dealing with adversity and not getting the rub of the green.

 

[shebeen]

However trying to run a "profit and loss" to determine whether a team should have won is counter to all I perceive and love about sport, especially, the widely differing impact of human performance variability, dealing with adversity and not getting the rub of the green.

totally, I was saying how that would be the extreme case.

I was wondering if WR would bring out whistle watch last week. Looks like they chose to park it, and not commented on the biggest game of the year and a World Cup. Maybe for a week, maybe permanently.

Well I was totally wrong there! They took a break for a week (and missed some big games!). BUT they now don't hide the calls at all, if they think the call was wrong on the field they will call it as such. eg. (Arg/Aus obvious fwd pass in final moments).

 

[crossref]

I suspect Ugo and Nige film their respective bits at completely different times, and there is no actual real-time dialogue between them at all.
plus I suspect Nige is indoors, in front of a green screen. Cows added later in the edit.

does that matter? or does it undermine the integrity of the whole thing.

I liked that they discussed the ending of the Ireland France game (French ko in lineout). They explained the Laws OK - but they didn't discuss whether Hollie could have played some advantage.

 

[jeremy]

totally, I was saying how that would be the extreme case.



Well I was totally wrong there! They took a break for a week (and missed some big games!). BUT they now don't hide the calls at all, if they think the call was wrong on the field they will call it as such. eg. (Arg/Aus obvious fwd pass in final moments).

Note that the definition of a throw forward that Nigel gives here ("travelling towards the opposition goal line") is almost completely unrelated to the laws.
He doesn't even employ the usual (but also incorrect) "direction out of the hands" explanation you often hear from commentators.
(He is of course entirely correct that the entire officiating team made a ridiculously wrong decision here.)

He also makes reference to the AR calling it in if the ref has missed it.
This appears to be what had happened earlier with the Australian tap-pass on the halfway line (and after which play continued for quite some time due to the crowd noise drowing out the ref's whistle.)
He talks about "if it's debatable, 50/50 - forget it" - but I'm pretty sure that's in reference to the TMO rather than an AR.

But - regardless of the ruling itself:
a) Was Ridley correct to blow it up at that point, rather than to let play continue and review afterwards? I'm not clear at what point TMO review is no longer permitted.
b) How would people here have ruled on that incident, both in real time (e.g. as ref and as AR) or on video review (as TMO)?
c) Does a tap-pass count as a throw (& hence judged by motion of arms) or a knock (& hence judged by motion of ball towards goal line)?

(FWIW by Nigel's definition, this was not forward in either case since the video shows the ball travelling exactly along the halfway line all the way from hands to ground...)

 

[Shelflife]

I like the idea of explaining decisions, as long as they don't throw the ref under the bus.

Having Nigel doing it is a mixed bag as he famously said he never read the Law book but is now explaining the nitty gritty of laws. The other side is that hes a good communicator and
is used to being in front of cameras.

The cows in the background is a joke and totally undermines what they are trying to do.

 

[BikingBud]

I don't trust them when they advise that France played NZ when clearly it was Ireland

Or for the Spanish player a 20 min yellow card that goes under review

 

[Dickie E]

I like the idea of explaining decisions, as long as they don't throw the ref under the bus.

I don't know how you can honestly do the the former, without doing the latter.

 

[shebeen]

I suspect Ugo and Nige film their respective bits at completely different times, and there is no actual real-time dialogue between them at all.
plus I suspect Nige is indoors, in front of a green screen. Cows added later in the edit.

Spot on that there is no dialogue, UGO is just replacing what was a teleprompter. Pretty sure the set is in his farm cow shed, would be disappointed if it was greenscreen!

Note that the definition of a throw forward that Nigel gives here ("travelling towards the opposition goal line") is almost completely unrelated to the laws.
He doesn't even employ the usual (but also incorrect) "direction out of the hands" explanation you often hear from commentators.
(He is of course entirely correct that the entire officiating team made a ridiculously wrong decision here.)

100%, bit crazy isn't it! Even this "expert" has no clue.

comments are gold.

 

[didds]

"Inertia"! WTAF is he on about ?

Its MOMENTUM.

Cue my run forwards at 10mph, pass back over head at 5mph question.

 

[Volun-selected]

"Inertia"! WTAF is he on about ?

Its MOMENTUM.

Cue my run forwards at 10mph, pass back over head at 5mph question.

It’s a combo of both. Inertia is the ball’s tendency to stay at the same speed when released unless acted on by another force, momentum is the impact of mass and is the product of mass x velocity.

For your analogy of running at 10, imagine a drill when you are practicing passing with 5 and a 25lb medicine ball. When you release the ball, it would travel at 10 mph but you reduced the speed to 5 mph so as it leaves your hands it continues to travel at 5 mph and slowly decelerates as friction acts against it. Momentum means you have to work a lot harder to slow the 25lb ball to 5mph as you pass that object as it has greater momentum to overcome.

Imagine as part of the drill a player running at 15 mph in the opposite direction is going to intercept your pass - the momentum of the ball means they are going to have to work a lot harder to grab the heavier ball and keep running at 15 mph vs the lighter one.

 

[crossref]

Pretty sure the set is in his farm cow shed, would be disappointed if it was greenscreen!

the sound quality is so good, I don't think it's St Nige setting up a tripod, camera and mic on his own in his cowshed, and for cost reasons I can't see WR sending an outside broadcast team to his farm everyweek.

I am sure he records that indoors, with a professional quality camera and mic . (may well be at his home, but not in his cowshed).

 

[didds]

It’s a combo of both. Inertia is the ball’s tendency to stay at the same speed when released unless acted on by another force, momentum is the impact of mass and is the product of mass x velocity.

For your analogy of running at 10, imagine a drill when you are practicing passing with 5 and a 25lb medicine ball. ....

TL;DR ?

The ball, whatever its weight is still moving forwards away from the point of release towards the oppo DBL at 5mph. Having been transferred towards the passers own DBL over his own head.

Forward pass?

 

[Volun-selected]

TL;DR ?

The ball, whatever its weight is still moving forwards away from the point of release towards the oppo DBL at 5mph. Having been transferred towards the passers own DBL over his own head.

Forward pass?

From a literal interpretation, yes. The direction is “Towards the opposition’s dead-ball line” as “A player throws or hands the ball to another player”.

However, in the real world we take account of the BC’s movement. So in your example, you are steaming forward at 10 mph and pass the ball. As long as you do so in a way that reduces the forward speed of the ball toward your oppos goal line then that’s enough of a backward pass to keep going

Since we don’t have a smart ball to tell us that change in velocity (yet) we have to look for other signs such as the ball falling behind the BC as they run on, or the hands pointing back, and so on. It’s a PITA but the best we can do with what we’ve got.

 

[crossref]

The current definition of a throw forward references the movement of the arms, not the motion or direction of the ball.

Throw forward
When a player throws or passes the ball forward i.e. if the arms of the player passing the ball move forward.

For smart balls to help, WR will need to first change the definition of a throw forward so that it references the motion of the ball

Perhaps

Throw Forward
When a throw increases the forward velocity of the ball

Something like that

Are the current and proposed definition completely equivalent? I think so, unless there are some edge cases

 

[Rich_NL]

Are the current and proposed definition completely equivalent? I think so, unless there are some edge cases

Strictly speaking, if the player is turning then some of the arm can be moving backwards and some forwards, and even an average backward movement could lead to a forward pass. So to satisfy the Royal Society the second one would be preferable Giving how clinically precise the rest of the lawbook is, of course...

 

[BikingBud]

Ever get that feeling of deja vu?